Why Does God Allow Suffering?

[jlhargus]

Mark

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, I am not offering solutions, yet. I merely presented the problem, which says: “the ultimate creator must bear the ultimate responsibility”. God cannot hide behind the “I did not know it” defense, and God cannot use the “I was powerless to do something about it” type of defense. Once we agreed on the problem, the search for solution may begin. But not until that point.

im happy to agree that G-d is omniscient and omnipotent.

The analogy is wrong. We can never reach the “adult” status when God is the father.

In your example the father does not have immediate responsibility, because he does not have the power to do something about his son’s behavior. But nevertheless he still has the ultimate responsibility. This ultimate responsibility is mitigated by the fact that the human father does not have the foresight, nor the power over the child’s behavior. This is the defense which is inapplicable to God.

you are saying that G-d is responsible even for our free will acts, because he could prevent them?

if that is the case, then we only have a simple misunderstanding here. namely, a “human being” cannot exist without free will. a human body and brain without free will is simply a biochemical robot.

hence my statement that such blanket interference with free will would be tantamount to our destruction. that seems like a very good reason to me, not to interefere with free will.

 

[jlhargus]

Fallen Catholic is a reference to the Diocese that I live in that rejects female participation in the mass and many other areas and condemns groups that are Catholic in origin and refuses to participate in monitoring / tracking priests who molest children (the ONLY diocese I might add). So, it is not my Catholocism that is in question but my fundamental differences with this Bishop that has rejected me. I guess fallen Catholic might be a misnomer. Rejected Catholic might be a better choice.

Could you name some of those groups?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As a matter of fact, I think that giving free will is a disastruous and stupid idea. A well programmed “robot” displays all the characteristics of a very good human (a saint, perhaps?) without ever going astray. Which is infinitely preferable to someone who may or may not act properly. True, a robot is not a moral being, so what? Who the heck needs morality, when you can have a caring “robot”? But this like of thought should be explored in a different thread.

hmmmm…

a robot would “care” for you to the same degree a prostitute would. you and i know that sort of caring really isnt caring at all. i think its reasonable to assume that G-d knows that too.

 

[R_Daneel]

hmmmm…

a robot would “care” for you to the same degree a prostitute would. you and i know that sort of caring really isnt caring at all. i think its reasonable to assume that G-d knows that too.

Not a good example. A prostitute engages in a business transaction, expecting consideration for services rendered. A robot does not expect anything, it just gives the “service” without any strings attached. It can even sacrifice its own existence, which is considered the highest form of love. The reason why it does that - preprogramming - does not diminish the value of the act.

It is pretty obvious to me that these “quick” answers I am receiving are not the result of some deep contemplation, they are merely “knee-jerk” reactions of being contrarian. The deep question is: “the difference between something natural and artifical, or the difference between the original and the copy or emulation”. If you stop to think about it, you can realize that there is no difference, if the “emulation” is good. Imagine a “perfect” copy machine, which can copy the Mona Lisa atom by atom. The “copy” cannot be told apart from the original by any method. They are literally identical. Still most people would put a very high “value” on the original, and no value at all on the copy. Totally irrational. But then again most humans are highly irrational.

 

[R_Daneel]

im happy to agree that G-d is omniscient and omnipotent.

I stipulated that for the purposes of this discussion.

you are saying that G-d is responsible even for our free will acts, because he could prevent them?

No, not at all. He is responsible because he instilled the free will. Suppose that a creator only makes robots. Whatever the robots do is reflected by the programming actions of the creator. There can be no disagreement that this creator is fully responsible for the acts of the created ones.

Now, what about giving free will (freedom of action) to these created beings? First, I consider this action a sign of lazyness. Instead of doing a thorough job of creation, he put together some inferior solution, and then issues some commands, to attempt to restrict the behavior of the product. This is called indirect control, as opposed to a direct one. The most important feature of the indirect control is that it is unreliable and therefore inferior. There is also a deeper problem here. Maybe it is impossible to give a full set of programs, since the real world is so complicated. It may be impossible to create a fully programmed “robot” - at least for humans. Human constructed robots will always have a certain amount of freedom built into them, if they are supposed to be higher than a production line robot. However, God could do it - presumably.

One does not allow the freedom of action (the will itself it not really relevant) without also giving wisdom to the created beings, to help them in making the proper decisions. And that is woefully missing here.

Many times the father-son analogy is used to describe the God-human relationship. The analogy must be used carefully. It is only valid if the “son” is considered a toddler or a small child. It is incorrect to extend the analogy to a father, and grown up son. We can never “grow up” to become a semi-equivalent of God.

So the freedom to act (given by God) is analogous to a human father giving a loaded gun to a 3-years old kid, and then “commanding” him not to use it. Whatever the child does under these circumstances is the full responsibility of the father.

if that is the case, then we only have a simple misunderstanding here. namely, a “human being” cannot exist without free will. a human body and brain without free will is simply a biochemical robot.

hence my statement that such blanket interference with free will would be tantamount to our destruction. that seems like a very good reason to me, not to interefere with free will.

Insufficient reasoning. First, humans do not have unlimited freedom of action. Our freedom to “imagine” things is almost unlimited, but our ability to carry out these imagined actions is seriously limited. And no one sees anything wrong with that. Just because we cannot carry out certain actions, we are still free to do some others. Second, freedom without wisdom is dumb. (Sorry for the pun.)

Finally, we would still be free to make choices even if we were physically or psychologically unable to perform so-called evil actions. This is all a matter of good design. It is totally foolish to say that “meaningful” freedom must include the freedom to hurt, to rape, to torture. Sheer nonsense. If one wants to allow certain freedom, then proper safeguards must be built into the creation so that the freedom will always stay between the desired parameters. To act otherwise is irresponsible.

 

[R_Daneel]

Why is it that God must bear the ultimate responsibility?

1. God created us (premise)
2. God knows everything (premise)
3. God gave us free will (premise)

Given these premises, I do not see how it logically follows that God bears the responsibility. Man, because he has free will, bears the responsibility. When He created everything, did he Know everything that was going to happen? Yes.

I gave a reply to this directly above in the post to WSP. Please read it there.

So the bigger question is not why does God allow suffering, but why did God create us? What is our purpose? If we do not understand this, then it is difficult to understand the Why’s of our experiences.

I have no problem excepting that there are some questions that we can just not answer.

This question cannot be answered. We can hypothesize some answers, but it would be speculation.

 

[R_Daneel]

1. Free will does not logically and necessarily lead to evil.

I agree Hence we have the tempter (Devil) convincing Eve to eat of the fruit from the tree which gave Man knowledge of Good and Evil.

So Free Will alone may not lead to Evil, but we do not have free will alone, we have Free Will and Original Sin.

2… If freedom would logically lead to evil, then everyone would commit some moral atrocities - which is plainly not happening.

Why do you assume that everyone would have to commit moral atrocities? When I look at the world, I see a very few people who are extremely morally good, then a whole bunch who fall in the middle, then a very few who are extremely morally evil. (this is just a generalization, no one knows the exact numbers or degrees within each person). But to say that everyone would be committing moral atrocities is just a fallacy. I would say that everyone does sin, we just can not help it.

1. One counter example is suffcient, and it was already presented: “Mary”

One counter is sufficient to prove that it is possible for God to create a person that is sinless. This does not answer the question of WHY did God not create everyone this way. Catholics are still “figuring” out the mysteries of Mary, so while you might use her as your “Ace in the Hole”, it is simply because we (and no one for that matter) can understand God’s plan.

1. I pretty much agree with you here. Since you stipulated that the existence of free will is not the logical prerequisite of evil (and I agree) therefore the existence of free will is not an explanation. Your reference to the “original sin” is just mythology.
2. It was a hypothetical, and your reasoning is good. If freedom would be the causative factor, then everyone would do morally evil acts. But, since there are some people or the “good” side of the spectrum, therefore freedom is not the causative factor. That is what I was saying.
3. Yes, that is a good question, and it goes to the heart of the matter.

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t see why! God must be free and yet the actuality of evil does not arise because He is perfect. It would be inconsistent with his infinite love.

According to Protestants God could choose to do evil, but decides not to. According to Catholics, God is unable to act against his own nature, and therefore he is not “free”. But that is beside the point.

In plain language it is obvious that having free will does not entail the choice of evil on any particular occasion but I have pointed out that finite persons are often faced with the choice between two evils. So free will is a sufficient cause of actual evil…

First, your remark of “faced by two evil choices”, is too generic to answer. It is just a figure of speech. Maybe you think about one of the life-boat dilemmas, I don’t know. A specific example would be helpful. However, if one is forced to do something, than the choice was not free - by definition.

Abundant reason when she is to be the mother of the incarnate Son of God.
Precisely how?
Yes! The Incarnation was a unique event…

You deny that God has the power of bestowing special grace on anyone he chooses to.

It is the basis of the universal legal presumption that we are normally responsible for our actions…

So what? Since when does legality come into the picture? Is a legal decision a proof for anything?

Free will applies to our thoughts as well as our actions. Do you prefer not to be able to think for yourself?

Nonsense. Will without ability to act on it is irrelevant. Maybe you will argue that thought-crime is just as real as an actual crime - but I will reject that idea.

Perhaps that is your concept of your ideal life partner!

Naturally.

 

[tonyrey]

]God must be free and yet the actuality of evil does not arise because He is perfect. It would be inconsistent with his infinite love.

God is not a machine but the Creator. Creativity entails originality and freedom. If God were not free He would have no power of choice and neither would we. That may fit in with your determinist view of reality but it does not correspond to the way people think and live.

In plain language it is obvious that having free will does not entail the choice of evil on any particular occasion but I have pointed out that finite persons are often faced with the choice between two evils. So free will is a sufficient cause of actual evil…

First, your remark of “faced by two evil choices”, is too generic to answer. It is just a figure of speech. Maybe you think about one of the life-boat dilemmas, I don’t know. A specific example would be helpful.

It is hardly a figure of speech when you don’t have enough time or money to give people the care and attention they need. You are forced to neglect some one whether you like it or not. Much of the misery and suffering in the world is caused by neglect - which is not always culpable.
And doing nothing at all is an even greater evil.

However, if one is forced to do something, than the choice was not free - by definition.

That is obviously false. In any given situation you are not forced to do anything. You can choose not to act regardless of the consequences. That is convincing evidence that you have free will.

Abundant reason when she is to be the mother of the incarnate Son of God. Precisely how?

Yes! The Incarnation was a unique event…You deny that God has the power of bestowing special grace on anyone he chooses to.

How do you get that impression? Special grace is not restricted to Mary even though she had a unique role. Do you help everyone to exactly the same extent regardless of their needs?

It is the basis of the universal legal presumption that we are normally responsible for our actions…So what?

Since when does legality come into the picture? Is a legal decision a proof for anything?

Legal presumptions are evidence that responsibility is a universal concept. If you deny it in court it won’t help your case…
You may think that is unjust - but you don’t seem believe in justice anyway!

Free will applies to our thoughts as well as our actions

Nonsense. Will without ability to act on it is irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with actions. If you cannot choose what to think your thoughts are not yours. They just happen to occur to you…

Maybe you will argue that thought-crime is just as real as an actual crime - but I will reject that idea.

If you’re not responsible for you thoughts you cannot commit any crimes at all. Do you prefer not to be able to think for yourself?

I doubt whether your life partner would appreciate that sentiment! Do you really believe you are just a robot?

Perhaps that is your concept of your ideal life partner!

Naturally.
[/QUOTE]

 

[chessmane4e5]

Now, what about giving free will (freedom of action) to these created beings? First, I consider this action a sign of lazyness. Instead of doing a thorough job of creation…

:ehh:

After reading this post, I am done. Peace be with you.

 

[tonyrey]

true, a robot is not a moral being, so what? Who the heck needs morality, when you can have a caring “robot”?

        perhaps that is your concept of your ideal life partner!

Naturally.I’m quite sure your ideal life partner would not impressed by that notion… nor would you if your life partner said that about you.

‘Who the heck needs morality, when you can have a caring “robot”?’!

This remark will hardly endear you to your fellow atheists but it does reveal the absurdity of your amorality - which most of them do not share…

 

[Sair]

im happy to agree that G-d is omniscient and omnipotent.

you are saying that G-d is responsible even for our free will acts, because he could prevent them?

if that is the case, then we only have a simple misunderstanding here. namely, a “human being” cannot exist without free will. a human body and brain without free will is simply a biochemical robot.

hence my statement that such blanket interference with free will would be tantamount to our destruction. that seems like a very good reason to me, not to interefere with free will.

As I see it, R Daneel’s argument is that the creator is ultimately responsible for the failures of the created - in the same way that the one who assumes leadership is ultimately responsible for the ones who are led - the buck stops with the leader.

If we have a god who creates and then abandons his creations, fine - but we should acknowledge that, and not assume that said god intervenes in the lives of his creations ever after. This would negate the notion of a personal god.

Parents always intervene in the free will of their children - uninformed free will is dangerous.

If we have a parental-style god, then we assume intervention in our exercise of free will. If not we assume a god who abandons his creations to their own devices - but if he knows better, and can intervene, yet doesn’t, he is still responsible for the misbehaviour of his creations.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not a good example. A prostitute engages in a business transaction, expecting consideration for services rendered. A robot does not expect anything, it just gives the “service” without any strings attached. It can even sacrifice its own existence, which is considered the highest form of love. The reason why it does that - preprogramming - does not diminish the value of the act.

its a great example. it doesnt matter why a prostitute or a robot simulates caring, it only matters that the caring is simulated as opposed to an actual emotion. i contend that the actual value of an emotion to the recipient is directly related to the sincerity of that emotion. i further assert that you actually feel this way yourself. i assume you have an actual girlfriend or wife, or desire too have them, instead of hiring prostitutes to satisfy your emotions, you have friends and buddies instead of profesional counselors, to provide you friendship, and brotherhood. etc.

so if you do not arrange for yourself to experience love, caring and friendship through insincere means, then how is it that you can rationally expect G-d to be satisfied with what you are not?

as to robot sacrifice being “love”. a sacrifice is only a sacrifice if it is voluntary. a robot cannot do anything voluntarily. hence, it cannot actually “do” anything. it can only react to stimuli. in a robots case, its programming. so it cannot “sacrifice” itself.

It is pretty obvious to me that these “quick” answers I am receiving are not the result of some deep contemplation, they are merely “knee-jerk” reactions of being contrarian.

suffering is probably the most common question on the philosophy forum. if answers seem quick, it is because they are often given. this topic is well covered already.

The deep question is: “the difference between something natural and artifical, or the difference between the original and the copy or emulation”. If you stop to think about it, you can realize that there is no difference, if the “emulation” is good. Imagine a “perfect” copy machine, which can copy the Mona Lisa atom by atom. The “copy” cannot be told apart from the original by any method. They are literally identical. Still most people would put a very high “value” on the original, and no value at all on the copy. Totally irrational. But then again most humans are highly irrational.

yes, most people are irrational, their emotions crowd their reasoning. i agree. however, i dont see this position as rational either. after all, one should not expect that G-d should accept simulated emotions, when they do not accept simulated love or caring in their own lives. if it isnt good enough for them, why should they think it is Good enough for G-d?

i agree that an absolutley perfect copy of an object cannot be told from the original and is generally just as good. but a “perfect” copy of love, caring, or friendship requires the motivation to be sincere, otherwise its not a perfect copy.

 

[R_Daneel]

its a great example. it doesnt matter why a prostitute or a robot simulates caring, it only matters that the caring is simulated as opposed to an actual emotion. i contend that the actual value of an emotion to the recipient is directly related to the sincerity of that emotion.

Well, this pretty well sums up your position. So I am giving you a challenge in the form of a thought-experiment. Here is the scenario: the robot in question is an android, made of the same material as humans. You can of course observe “its” behavior, and make inferences from your observations. The android is shaped either as a male or a female (and can perform “its” duties as such), it does not matter. The only difference is that the android is programmed to behave exactly as a very good, caring and loving human person would act. How can you tell that the “being” in question only “simlulates” the emotions and does not actually have them? Take you time, and think about it.

Besides, on many threads about “love” it is contended that love is not an emotion, it is an “act of will”. So why is a robot’s self-sacrifice considered of less value that the same self-sacrifice of a human? Answer this in the light of the previous thought-experiment.

suffering is probably the most common question on the philosophy forum. if answers seem quick, it is because they are often given. this topic is well covered already.

If that is the case then why are there no properly distilled and meaningful answers? Many theists, even philosophers understand that the problem of suffering is the quintessential “thorn” in the side of Christianity. They try to come up with all sorts of “answers”, but as of yet, there are no satisfactory ones. It might be interesting to start a thread and attempt to collect the different answers.

Side note: if you have time and if you care to do so, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts about the first part of my previous post to you, in which I explained why the creator is always responsible for the outcome of his creation - free will or not…

 

[Sair]

It doesn’t sound like he’s trying to disprove God, but only cast doubt on one particular brand of theology. He’s doing a fairly good job of it, too. So far, he’s pointed out some of the trouble with using free will to explain suffering. So now you say that while it sure may look like a problem, that’s okay because God can understand it better than us, and therefore we should trust him.

The problem of evil, as it is called, never played a role in my own loss of faith. I would be content to believe in a God who is either not omnipotent or not omniscient (or not either one), who is just doing the best he can with mankind. I’d also be willing to worship a God who is not morally perfect. If only I could find sufficient evidence for the existence of any god at all!

:tiphat:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, not at all. He is responsible because he instilled the free will.

ok. i understand.

Now, what about giving free will (freedom of action) to these created beings? First, I consider this action a sign of lazyness. Instead of doing a thorough job of creation, he put together some inferior solution, and then issues some commands, to attempt to restrict the behavior of the product. This is called indirect control, as opposed to a direct one. The most important feature of the indirect control is that it is unreliable and therefore inferior. There is also a deeper problem here.

so… G-d really meant to make robots, but then didnt complete the programming, got lazy and just installed a free will module?

this isnt reasoning, its guessing. you cannot know if it is correct. surely this is not what you have been taught about G-d.

Maybe it is impossible to give a full set of programs, since the real world is so complicated. It may be impossible to create a fully programmed “robot” - at least for humans. Human constructed robots will always have a certain amount of freedom built into them, if they are supposed to be higher than a production line robot. However, God could do it - presumably.

i explained in the previous post why programmed robots cannot really love or care, they can only simulate and why that is not a perfect copy of love or care because it lacks the sincerity we demand ourselves. you dont choose insincere friends or lovers, why should G-d choose that?

One does not allow the freedom of action (the will itself it not really relevant) without also giving wisdom to the created beings, to help them in making the proper decisions. And that is woefully missing here.

except for the last 5000 years of the Judeo/Christian Tradition. the Ten Commandments. the few thousand pages of Scripture. a Church to teach the Faith. these things are all there for the exact purpose of helping one make proper decisions. what are you talking about here?

Many times the father-son analogy is used to describe the God-human relationship. The analogy must be used carefully. It is only valid if the “son” is considered a toddler or a small child. It is incorrect to extend the analogy to a father, and grown up son. We can never “grow up” to become a semi-equivalent of God.

So the freedom to act (given by God) is analogous to a human father giving a loaded gun to a 3-years old kid, and then “commanding” him not to use it. Whatever the child does under these circumstances is the full responsibility of the father.

um…why do you think that we are small children? you have been left all the instructions and resources, i just mentioned. you are supposed to use those. i dont know about you but i am hardly a child unaware of the consequences of the misuse of my free will. unless you are typing this from a prison, you too, know how to avoid the misuse of your free will. it seems specious to conclude that because we are not G-d like ourselves, that we must then be toddlers. i surely am not.

Insufficient reasoning. First, humans do not have unlimited freedom of action. Our freedom to “imagine” things is almost unlimited, but our ability to carry out these imagined actions is seriously limited. And no one sees anything wrong with that. Just because we cannot carry out certain actions, we are still free to do some others. Second, freedom without wisdom is dumb. (Sorry for the pun.)

Finally, we would still be free to make choices even if we were physically or psychologically unable to perform so-called evil actions. This is all a matter of good design. It is totally foolish to say that “meaningful” freedom must include the freedom to hurt, to rape, to torture. Sheer nonsense. If one wants to allow certain freedom, then proper safeguards must be built into the creation so that the freedom will always stay between the desired parameters. To act otherwise is irresponsible.

a robot, no matter how well programmed is still a robot. even if it has a billion options to choose from when confronted by stimuli. it is not performing any of those billion options because it wants too do so, but rather because it has no choice in the matter. it must choose one of them.

free will restricted from absolutly all options is not free will its still just programming. free will that cannot be carried out from physical factors doesnt seem to have anything to do with the ontological status of human free will.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As I see it, R Daneel’s argument is that the creator is ultimately responsible for the failures of the created - in the same way that the one who assumes leadership is ultimately responsible for the ones who are led - the buck stops with the leader.

the buck stops with the person who exercised their free will. we are not a military, or bureaucracy. there is no chain of command along which to pass a buck. merely being the Creator doesnt make Him anymore responsible for a persons free will decisions

If we have a god who creates and then abandons his creations, fine - but we should acknowledge that, and not assume that said god intervenes in the lives of his creations ever after. This would negate the notion of a personal god.

Parents always intervene in the free will of their children - uninformed free will is dangerous.

If we have a parental-style god, then we assume intervention in our exercise of free will. If not we assume a god who abandons his creations to their own devices - but if he knows better, and can intervene, yet doesn’t, he is still responsible for the misbehaviour of his creations.

as parents we arent responsible for our adult childrens activities, if they lie and steal, that is the responsibility of the person who did it. they go to jail. not the parents. nor are the parents required to thwart their childs free will when it entails the destruction of the child, transforming it into some version of a stepford wife. programmed only to please and love their husbands, robots, because they were unable to choose to do differently than they did. after all, would you turn your child into a robot so he cant do things that are wrong? of course not. so why should G-d?

G-d is not responsible for our free will decisions. we are not children, we are not stupid or incapable of using our free will responsibly. He even left an instruction manual, in Scripture, someone to explain it to you and help you do it, the Church.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, this pretty well sums up your position. So I am giving you a challenge in the form of a thought-experiment. Here is the scenario: the robot in question is an android, made of the same material as humans. You can of course observe “its” behavior, and make inferences from your observations. The android is shaped either as a male or a female (and can perform “its” duties as such), it does not matter. The only difference is that the android is programmed to behave exactly as a very good, caring and loving human person would act. How can you tell that the “being” in question only “simlulates” the emotions and does not actually have them? Take you time, and think about it.

i could tell by being the androids creator, in the same way G-d is our Creator. i would know that none of the androids simulations was a sincere emotion. it would only seem identical to someone who did not know that it was an android. if you want the real thing, why shouldnt G-d?

Besides, on many threads about “love” it is contended that love is not an emotion, it is an “act of will”. So why is a robot’s self-sacrifice considered of less value that the same self-sacrifice of a human? Answer this in the light of the previous thought-experiment.

even that definition would fail for a robot, in that a robot has no “will” it is just programmed to respond to stimuli. no matter how sophisticated the programming. it is only doing what it is programmed to do. it has no choice but to pick an option or a certain set of options.

If that is the case then why are there no properly distilled and meaningful answers? Many theists, even philosophers understand that the problem of suffering is the quintessential “thorn” in the side of Christianity. They try to come up with all sorts of “answers”, but as of yet, there are no satisfactory ones. It might be interesting to start a thread and attempt to collect the different answers.

you could read C.S.Lewis, someone qouted it earlier for you. why wasnt that a satisfying answer?

Side note: if you have time and if you care to do so, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts about the first part of my previous post to you, in which I explained why the creator is always responsible for the outcome of his creation - free will or not…

if i havent answered it already, just reqoute the specific part and i will address it.

 

[Stylites]

So, it is not my Catholocism that is in question but my fundamental differences with this Bishop that has rejected me. I guess fallen Catholic might be a misnomer. Rejected Catholic might be a better choice.

Michelle Arnold’s response to your ‘Ask an Apologist’ was pretty succinct, no? We must be disciples of Christ and His Church, rather than expecting Christ and His Church to be our disciples. That is a hallmark of humility.

.