Problem with the Problem of Suffering

[gadfly]

One of the most popular and most formidable attacks against "Benevolent Theism" (which includes but is not unique to Judaism and Christianity) is the presence of suffering in the world. Agnostics like Bart Ehrman argue that the present situation for sentient creatures is incompatible with the notion of an all wise and benevolent agent. It is argued that it would be irresponsible for such an agent to create and maintain an environment such as ours.

Debate Question: If this is true--if the creation and maintenance of this environment is so bad that no benevolent power could be responsible for it, is it immoral, or at least inconsistent, for proponents of this argument to propagate? By doing so, have they not either perpetuated the very crime of which they accuse the mythical deity of the theists; or inadvertently admitted that they do not think the world so bad? For example, the very same Bart Ehrman who denies the theory of benevolent theism at the same time thought it good to have children and, as evident in one episode of his podcast, celebrated the arrival of his granddaughter into this god-forsaken world. Bart Ehrman thinks the world so bad that no morally responsible agent would have created it willfully; yet Bart Ehrman willfully added to it, and thought and thinks it good to do so.

[1213]

One of the most popular and most formidable attacks against "Benevolent Theism" (which includes but is not unique to Judaism and Christianity) is the presence of suffering in the world. Agnostics like Bart Ehrman argue that the present situation for sentient creatures is incompatible with the notion of an all wise and benevolent agent. It is argued that it would be irresponsible for such an agent to create and maintain an environment such as ours.

Debate Question: If this is true--if the creation and maintenance of this environment is so bad that no benevolent power could be responsible for it, is it immoral, or at least inconsistent, for proponents of this argument to propagate? ...

Benevolent and immoral seems to be very subjective ideas. The reason for that we are in this world where evil is possible is that people wanted to know evil. Would benevolent God not allow people to know evil as the people wanted?

[TRANSPONDER]

This has been discussed before but no problem in discussing it again as it seems no firm conclusion can be reached.

There are all kinds of excuses, like God handed the rule of the world over to Satan, so nothing in God's fault. Or God doesn't intervene as this is some kind of test, so anything bad is man's fault.

Thing is about trying to say that good and bad is subjective, is that this makes man the arbiter. We decide what's good and bad, and we seem to have an instinct about it.

In the Flashman book where Flashman is in the Wild West (gets involved in Custer's last stand, too) there is talk about Native American morality, and he quotes Kit Carson (meets him, too) "If you think an injun (pardon the term used at the time) don't know right from wrong, wrong him, and see what happens".

Doing wrong is an instinct too, and there is an unholy ( delight in seeing an enemy brought down, even if we consider ourselves peaceful and loving people, and you may cite my joy as Trump's brain melts and his campaign collapses, and I am a perfect specimen of saintly humanity, let me tell you .

It's even trickier when God is supposed to have given us morality (innate) and God's doings are wrong by the standards of that very morality. As we can see when the apologists Judge God's actions and have to justify, ignore or blame on men wrongdoings. If what God did was moral because God did it, there would be nothing to debate.

So I suggest that a god given or taught, morality makes no sense, but an evolved instinct, evolved socially into a social technology makes more sense.

And a god - given morality doesn't tell us which god, anyway.

[1213]

...Doing wrong is an instinct too...

Why believe so?

...but an evolved instinct, evolved socially into a social technology makes more sense.
...

How can it make sense, if there is no good reason to believe it?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Doing wrong is an instinct too...

Why believe so?

...but an evolved instinct, evolved socially into a social technology makes more sense.
...

How can it make sense, if there is no good reason to believe it?

Because we all know we have it; some thing it god - givem others think it is natural or nurtural
There is good reason to believe it if one knows history and how moral though and moral codes evolved along with civilisations and society.

I will say no more about those wo do not know and do not want to know.

[1213]

...Because we all know we have it...

How do you know all have it?

[Bradskii]

Debate Question: If this is true--if the creation and maintenance of this environment is so bad that no benevolent power could be responsible for it, is it immoral, or at least inconsistent, for proponents of this argument to propagate?

If I lived in a slum in Kolkata then I'd seriously consider whether I should have children. But I live a comfortable existence in a modern western society (Sydney). Life is enjoyable for me and my children. And now their children. But the question of evil doesn't disappear just because I'm well off.

[JehovahsWitness]

Debate Question: If this is true--if the creation and maintenance of this environment is so bad that no benevolent power could be responsible for it, is it immoral, or at least inconsistent, for proponents of this argument to propagate?

If I lived in a slum in Kolkata then I'd seriously consider whether I should have children. But I live a comfortable existence in a modern western society (Sydney). Life is enjoyable for me and my children. And now their children. But the question of evil doesn't disappear just because I'm well off.

As long as there are people capable of empathy, being personally comfortably is irrelevant to the stress caused by human suffering. If some ways it is worse because when one is suffering , one is focused on your own predicament, but when one is a loving empathetic person, one is susceptible to the suffering of the whole world.





JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ORIGINAL SIN , RESPONSIBILITY and ...HUMAN SUFFERING

[TRANSPONDER]

...Because we all know we have it...

How do you know all have it?

Because we do. Generally. There may be some whose brain doesn't work, but we have it. We always knew we did. Why we have it is the question. Nature or nurure> or was it Given or did we have to learn it?

Whether we had it was never the discussion, but how we have it. As I must have said at the outset, DNA and the mechanism of instinct, plus the evidence of animal empathy and preferences by instinct rather than reason, explains why we have it. Social enigneering or adaptation, or evolutionary development is a better explanation that any of the religious claims of a god giving us morality in a box.

Debate Question: If this is true--if the creation and maintenance of this environment is so bad that no benevolent power could be responsible for it, is it immoral, or at least inconsistent, for proponents of this argument to propagate?

If I lived in a slum in Kolkata then I'd seriously consider whether I should have children. But I live a comfortable existence in a modern western society (Sydney). Life is enjoyable for me and my children. And now their children. But the question of evil doesn't disappear just because I'm well off.

I'd say that answers that. I have put it this way. I could have been a serf slaving on some baron's land in the 12th c or a slave working in a Roman mine, or a chinese peassant struggling to survive. But I'm living with my fellows in a pretty decent life, protected by the society we devised to a great extent. I'm a glass hhalf full person, an optimits; someone who can imagine an even better future as attainable.

Glass half empty types, the constant moaners, the vale of tears mongers are either just misery -guts who don't know how well off they are or those who want to make us hate this life in order to seel us a spurious promise of a better one after we die, if we just sign up to their book club.

Like any and all of these religious claims (and denials) I see no good reason to believe any of it, and every reason not to, quite apart from 'which god' anyway. I sometimes think the question we should ask is not 'why do wehave morals, but why do we have religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

Debate Question: If this is true--if the creation and maintenance of this environment is so bad that no benevolent power could be responsible for it, is it immoral, or at least inconsistent, for proponents of this argument to propagate?

If I lived in a slum in Kolkata then I'd seriously consider whether I should have children. But I live a comfortable existence in a modern western society (Sydney). Life is enjoyable for me and my children. And now their children. But the question of evil doesn't disappear just because I'm well off.

As long as there are people capable of empathy, being personally comfortably is irrelevant to the du stress caused by human suffering. If some ways it is worse because when one is suffering , one is focused on your own predicament, but When one is a loving empathetic person one is susceptible yo the suffering of the whole world.

A fireman or some rescue worker will tell you that the only way they can function is to have a degree of detatchment.

We cannot take the weight of the world on our shoulders.

We rather have to accept that evils happen all the time. Kids are abused in homes and we never hear about it, people die in floods or rockslides, and we may not know about it, people are killed in crashes and half of those we never hear about. This world is trying to kill us half the time, and all we can do is try to make it as safe as possible, and that has happened to a surprising degree - if one realises it. Too often we don't, we take the good for granted; even feel entitled, even if we don't thank an invisible human for 'giving' it to us.

I have no time for or patience with the moaners and hand - wringers and the 'vale of tears' merchants. We have to sigh or groan at a crash, or disaster or famine, war or epidemic, but like the rescue worker, grit our teeth, and help where we can, not wail and curse....no, not God but ...man, I suppose that there is evil in the world. By Jove, yes, we much have done something wrong back in the distant past.

No, no, damn them and their fairy tales, which are of absolutely no help and really do a lot of harm.