Vorkosigan

Recently posted to feedback:
___________________________
Hello,
I have a comment concerning an argument contained in the critique of Ravi Zacharias' book, "Can Man Live Without God."

The critique states, "(1) If a perfectly loving God were to exist, then he would not permit the occurrence of any unjustifiable suffering.
(2) But unjustifiable suffering does occur.
(3) Therefore, a perfectly loving God does not exist."

I would counter (yes I am a Christian), that the conclusion (3) is only possible if it can be proven that "unjustifiable" suffering actually does occur (i.e. prove that it is unjustifiable). There are many examples of suffering that we cannot justify with our limited brains, but that does not prove that it is unjustifiable. If God is omiscient, infinite and timeless, then he is able to see and understand things in ways we limited, finite and time-bound humans cannot. Therefore, suffering he allows to happen may indeed be for the greater good (and even the good of the sufferer-- again in a way that is not humanly apparent). A possiblity (again, I also can not claim to understand God completely) could be that one's personal suffering serves to build a closer relationship to God (which non-atheists would find valuable and good; indeed more important than earthly (temporal) pleasure/non-suffering).

I appreciate the opportunity to post this, and trust that you will be as charitable to a theist comment as you ask theists to be to yours.
_______________________________

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Marcion

Vorkosigan,

basically, you are claiming that statement 2

"unjustifiable suffering does occur."

is false. I personally believe that this is the only logically valid apologetic defense to the problem of evil. Other arguments, such as the free will defense are clearly (to me ) deficient.

While it may be that there is no evil in the world, that all suffering is good, the problem is that most people (including Christians) do not accept this argument. To say that all suffering is good necessarily implies that the proximate or immediate cause of that suffering is good.

To give a specific example:

the destruction of the twin towers is good, because the attendant suffering is good (as logically required by the negation of statement 2 above). Since the terrorists were bringing about good (the suffering), they are noble instruments used by god to bring about his purposes (which is what they actually believed). They should be celebrated.

Thus while I think that this is an eminently defensible position (and the only one), the moral conclusions it requires are to much for most everyone to stomach.

An exception to this would be Calvinists, those intellectual honesty I respect in this and other issues (although not their scary sense of justice )

joedad

Theism evolves, and religion doesn't tolerate competitors. Only when confronted is it required to formulate new strategies and justifications for its actions.

A defense I've heard along these lines is that the God god has the "right of disposition" over all its creation, particularly when it comes to dispensing life. IOW, the god named God can do whatever, wherever and to whomever it so pleases because it possesses this divine right. I suppose it is supposed to be the king of gods or something like that, when in actuality it is only justifying predation.

This in turn justifies all the God god's actions, rather like master over slave or predator over prey.

joe

Plump-DJ

How do we know unjustified suffering exists? Would we not have to be God to know that. You'd need a bit of wisdom and "omni knowledge" to answer that one i'd think.

From a personal point of view, I sometimes see suffering in my life that results in me becoming, say a better person or doing sometihng i've been putting off. It's actually quite funny but without the suffering i'd never progress. I'd be "stagnent" and "stuck". So often, good has come from bad. So within a personal sphere i can see a justification for my own "suffering".

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

RogerLeeCooke

This one of many variants of the shut-up-and-worship variety that a few Christians (not most) still use. If our moral feelings have no validity at all, it becomes meaningless to say that one knows which of the competing moralities is correct. But if they do have some validity, surely one sight of a baby suffering from menningitis or gangrene is sufficient proof that unjustified suffering does occur.

Theli

Tell me Plump...
Would you justify hitting a person in the head with a shovel by using the same line of arguing?
And, how can a person better himself after dying of aids?

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Clutch

Roger, it's worse than Shut up and worship. It's the maneuver that shows how Christianity tends toward complete moral vacuity and nihilism, contrary to its ad nauseum claims of moral grounding.

The claim, recall, is that for all we know, anything that strikes us as repugnant might be morally perfect. We just can't tell, really. But this eviscerates the notion of moral conviction altogether. We have no idea, on this view, how to apply the terms "good" and "evil". All we have are intuitions, convictions, moral perceptions... and these must be systematically delusive, since they tell us that on-balance awful things are happening, when we know that all suffering is justifiable. Our dispositions to apply moral language are ungrounded; moral judgements are meaningless in our mouths.

Oh, but Christianity is the key to moral objectivity...

NeoDeltaI

I can see your point. If I had no negative feelings, I'd never strive to overcome those feelings, and thus would never grow as a person. But there is suffering in the world that, no matter how much we hope, is not going to strengthen us, such as dying from disease.

The only way we can trivialize all the suffering on this plane of existance is by saying our concept of "suffering" is flawed, or one sided. It's very possible that we could suffer more than we do. We have a mental scale by which to judge all events, so that we see Sept. 11 as a tragedy, when another person, such as Bin Laden, may see it as a triumph.

To a higher being, catastrophy on Earth would be nothing, as a higher being might have a wider scale by which to judge things. Even if our sun exploded, destroying all the planets orbiting it, the rest of the universe is not effected in the least, so is the destruction of our solar system bad in comparison? I can't really back that statement up with any facts, I propose it only to envoke more thought.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan,

basically, you are claiming that statement 2

"unjustifiable suffering does occur."

is false.

Not me! I copied this from feedback here. I considered it quite disgusting. My own personal opinion is that Christianity tends toward moral nihilism, and posts like this more or less confirm it.