Problems with the Problem of Pain

[liamconnor]

The supposal of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is often attacked on the grounds of the presence of pain in the world. Such attacks paint the world as experienced so terrible, that one wonders why there are not more suicides: like 99% of humanity!

Yet every talk I have ever had with any atheist has revealed a relish in living.

It is as if there is just enough pain the world to reject theism; but not enough to go out and truly have a good time with friends over a pint of beer.

How do we reconcile the painting of reality made by atheists (who use the argument of the problem of evil: not all do) and the lives they live? Is this philosophical hypocrisy? Is it hypocritical to denounce a good god on the grounds that people are starving in Somalia while typing on a laptop and eating a burger from Wendy's?

(I suppose I should add that any atheist who adds his bit obviously acknowledges his or her access to a computer! and the internet! to the health and education that enables him or her to engage in this debate!)

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

The world is not terrible, on balance. Though some unfortunate peoples' lives are. God seems to ignore them.

But one wonders why any suffering exists at all if God is all those "omni"s he is claimed to be.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Is it hypocritical to denounce a good god on the grounds ...

To denounce a god on any grounds, we would have to acknowledge the existence of that god.

We are known as Atheists because we do not acknowledge the existence of ANY god ...

Because NO ONE EVER demonstrates the existence of their god, or gods, outside their imaginations.

If, for example, someone were to demonstrate that the genocidal biblical Yahweh was NOT imaginary, this Atheist would certainly denounce him as petulant and incompetent.

What we do denounce are the stories humans pass off as "scripture" ...

And the very human notion that I'm healthily sitting at my computer eating a burger because someone's imaginary deity is smiling on me while people overseas are starving.

If gods were real, they could CHOOSE to fix the world's ills.

Because they will help you find your car keys if you pray.

[Bust Nak]

Such attacks paint the world as experienced so terrible, that one wonders why there are not more suicides: like 99% of humanity!

Nah, such attacks paint the world as merely containing a non-zero amount of pain. I will leave you to decide if a non-zero amount of pain is worth suiciding over. It's not for me, as the joy far outweight the pain. It is indeed the case that there is just enough pain in the world to reject (certain forms of) theism; but not enough to stop me going out and truly have a good time with friends. As such there is nothing to "reconcile."

[wiploc]

The supposal of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is often attacked on the grounds of the presence of pain in the world.

Imagine a god who is all powerful, all knowing, and totally against the existence of squirrels.

The existence of even one squirrel proves that no such god exists.

Likewise, the existence of any suffering proves that there is no god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Such attacks paint the world as experienced so terrible, that one wonders why there are not more suicides: like 99% of humanity!

Over a single squirrel? Ridiculous.

Some people suffer enough that suicide makes sense. That doesn't mean we all have to off ourselves.

The question isn't whether we suffer enough to have to kill ourselves. The question is whether there is enough suffering to prove that no gods exist who are

- Strong enough to prevent all suffering,

- Smart enough to prevent all suffering, and,

- Totally against all suffering.

It is obvious that gods like that don't exist.

Yet every talk I have ever had with any atheist has revealed a relish in living.

So your gods don't exist. Why does that mean we should kill ourselves? Maybe it means you should kill your self.

It is as if there is just enough pain the world to reject theism; but not enough to go out and truly have a good time with friends over a pint of beer.

Any distress proves your god doesn't exist. You needn't posit a universe fine tuned to make atheism ironic.

How do we reconcile the painting of reality made by atheists (who use the argument of the problem of evil: not all do) and the lives they live?

You find me an atheist who says we should all kill ourselves if there is any pain at all, and then you'll have made a case that one atheist is peculiar. In the meantime, you don't seem to have a case.

Are theists really claiming that their gods don't mind evil so long as there isn't enough to make us kill ourselves?

Are atheists really claiming that we should all kill ourselves if there is any suffering at all?

If not, you are attacking a straw man.

Is this philosophical hypocrisy? Is it hypocritical to denounce a good god on the grounds that people are starving in Somalia while typing on a laptop and eating a burger from Wendy's?

The problem of evil doesn't disprove a good god. It disproves a god who is totally against suffering and totally able to prevent it, and who yet doesn't prevent it.

If you want your god to be possible, you have to posit him as (1) not strong enough to prevent evil, (2) not smart enough or knowing enough to prevent all evil, (3) or not desiring to prevent all evil. Or you can claim (4) that evil (the causes of suffering) doesn't exist. Or you can (5) reject logic, admit that your religion is irrational but cling to it anyway.

Those are your five choices, your five logical moves. Claiming that atheists should all kill ourselves because we don't believe in your invisible companion is not one of them.

(I suppose I should add that any atheist who adds his bit obviously acknowledges his or her access to a computer! and the internet! to the health and education that enables him or her to engage in this debate!)

Oh, snap! I guess I am logically defeated. I have a computer so your gods get to exist even though they are logical contradictions. Well done!

[Goat]

[quote="wiploc"]


The question isn't whether we suffer enough to have to kill ourselves. The question is whether there is enough suffering to prove that no gods exist who are

- Strong enough to prevent all suffering,

- Smart enough to prevent all suffering, and,

- Totally against all suffering.

It is obvious that gods like that don't exist.

/quote]

I find that when presented with the conundrum, people will bring out the 'Free Will' argument. I don't see how it counters or solves this argument, but that is what is brought out.

[Divine Insight]

Is it hypocritical to denounce a good god on the grounds that people are starving in Somalia while typing on a laptop and eating a burger from Wendy's?

Why should that be considered hypocritical?

If I'm living in a world where everyone is suffering but me, I can still ask, "Why would a good God allow this to happen to all these people?"

In fact, wouldn't it be extremely arrogant of me to say, "Hey people, all you guys might be suffering horrible pain, but look at me. God must LOVE me, because I'm not experiencing any suffering at all, other than the superficial suffering of having to watch all you people suffer."

How sick is that?

So when, if I'm sitting comfortably at a Wendy's eating a juicy hamburger watching the rest of the world suffer on my laptop, I can still ask, "Why would a good god allow all those people to suffer like that?"

There's nothing hypocritical about that at all. It's not my fault those people are suffering. Nor would it be my responsibility to do something about their suffering. I'm not omnipotent (nowhere close, I'm not even financially well off and can't afford to even go to Wendy's on a regular basis). Also I didn't create those people who are suffering. I didn't design them. Therefore it's certainly not my fault that they are in that situation.

Also, I may have donated to organizations to help people who are suffering. I may have voted for world leaders who would address suffering (perhaps the people I voted for didn't even win). Not only am I not omnipotent, but apparently I can't even change the world for the better by voting because the people I vote for don't win.

So even though I TRY to help people who are suffering my feeble efforts as a mere mortal human don't seem to have much potency. So I can hardly be blamed for the suffering in the world when I clearly don't have the omnipotence to address those problems.

But clearly an omnipotent God DOES! And if he's doing nothing about it, then why call him "good"?

There's nothing hypocritical about that. It neither my fault, nor my doing, that I just happened to be born in a situation where I am personally able to eat hamburgers and have a laptop computer. That doesn't address the problems of other people suffering in the world.

Only an omnipotent God can fix those problems.

I at least voted for people who were trying to address them. Even that didn't work because those people didn't win. Some lowlife thug won instead and has only made the problems of suffering far worse for people. So I'm helpless to help the world. Even my vote doesn't matter apparently.

So I may as well eat the hamburger while I can. It wouldn't do anyone any good for me starve myself. What good is that going to do anyone? I would just end up suffering too. That's hardly going to help the problem.

[Divine Insight]

Yet every talk I have ever had with any atheist has revealed a relish in living.

So? Apparently theists feel the same way. I can't tell you how many times Christians have told me that if there was no God they would see no reason to be good. They claim that if they knew there was no God then they would have no reason to not steal, rape, or murder whoever they don't like. After all if there is no God then there is no morality.

Notice that they aren't saying "If there is no God I would kill myself".

In other words, apparently even theists relish life so much that if they thought there was no God they would simply toss morality our the window, but they would continue to live. They would just become horrible criminals apparently.

Note: This certainly doesn't apply to all Christians. But like I say, I've heard Christians argue repeatedly that if there is no God then there would be no reason to be "good". They don't say that if there is no God they would commit suicide. So apparently they would plan on continuing to live even if there is no God. So God is not their reason for living.

[PinSeeker]

If you want your god to be possible, you have to posit him as (1) not strong enough to prevent evil, (2) not smart enough or knowing enough to prevent all evil, (3) or not desiring to prevent all evil. Or you can claim (4) that evil (the causes of suffering) doesn't exist. Or you can (5) reject logic, admit that your religion is irrational but cling to it anyway.

Or (6) -- which is the case --that He allows evil/suffering because it serves His purposes, which are far greater and far higher than we can imagine. Indeed, He works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. Three things to note about that:

1. He WORKS all things together, not that He is actually guilty of anything "terrible," but that He merely uses things, events, or actions of people to bring about His ultimate -- good -- purposes.

2. He works ALL THINGS together, meaning not just what we would call "good things" (pleasant, exciting, happy, or otherwise pleasurable things) but also "bad things" (emotionally or physically painful, or otherwise unpleasurable things) together to bring about His ultimate -- good -- purposes.

3. He works all things together FOR THE GOOD of those who love Him, but this does not mean our immediate or temporal "good." We may suffer terrible things, endure terrible pain, but ultimately -- in the eternal sense -- it is somehow for our good. There's no way in this life to know how or why... indeed it's beyond us to know or understand these things, but one day we will see and understand and know.

Just as a personal example, I've suffered through many things in my lifetime -- hospitalizations/surgeries, most recently the suicide of my brother. But in these things, as bad as they were, that's when I have grown the most in the Lord. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, He is with me, His rod and staff comfort me. Through it all, my cup overflows, and goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

Now, one may ask rhetorically (and I'm sure will) why He doesn't do that for all people, regardless whether they love Him or not, or even believe in Him or not. They'll say, "See? That just proves He's not good, and He's not loving! He could do it for everybody, but He doesn't! So there!" Well, no, it doesn't prove that at all. But whatever. I mean, if anybody is worried about it (and I'm under no illusion that these folks are, in the least), then, you know, all they have to do is believe in Him and love Him. It's not like they have to move mountains or anything...

[Divine Insight]

Is this philosophical hypocrisy? Is it hypocritical to denounce a good god on the grounds that people are starving in Somalia while typing on a laptop and eating a burger from Wendy's?

By the way, why use starvation as an example of suffering?

In today's modern world starvation is arguably one area where human's could solve this problem. From what I understand the USA has enough food "surplus" to feed everyone in Somalia for free without even having any ill-effects on the U.S. economy.

Why we aren't doing that is beyond me.

So starvation is arguably one area where humans could solve their own problems.

However, what about the suffering due to disease? Take Ebola for example. If a human had designed Ebola in a lab and set it loose to infect and kill innocent people in large communities we would consider that person to be the most heinous criminal deserving of life imprisonment or worse.

Yet if a God designs Ebola and sets it loose in a community then "God is Good".

Seems like there's a terrible double-standard here on what constitutes "Good"