Geoff Bosco Tackles the Problem of Evil and Suffering
WARNING THIS POST CONTAINS GRAPHIC PROFANITY:
I'll be the first to admit that I get in over my head sometimes, not having a formal philosophical education, but I do believe I have a unique perspective on matters such as these.
I don't know what is is about me (call it a certain kind of masochism, or maybe a martyr's heart,I don't know) but, I feel compelled to expose myself to atheistic philosophy and philosophers, even if it leaves me feeling bad afterwards.
Anyway, the problem of evil goes something like this: If God, in all His glory, really exists why does He allow so much suffering?
I just finished listening to the Philosophy Bites podcast with Steven Law, he gives the classical atheist responses to what he called theodicies...you know like freewill, Intelligent design, and all that happy horse crap but, I have no interest in inventing a better theodicy. I'll leave that to Kirk Cameron. I just have a few observations for the Steven Laws of the world.
What, the fuck, does Steven Law know about any one's suffering? Have you ever noticed how angry these people get when they talk about suffering? I did and it got me to thinking that they are not talking about something as abstract, to them at least, as some child suffering in an earthquake. They are obfuscating the fact that they are simply pissing and moaning about their own pain and suffering. If they are right about naturalistic evolution then why is it bad that some weak little people in some far off country they've never been to, dies because they have no food? Isn't it just natures way of weeding out the people not smart enough to get food by any means necessary? Or not smart enough to leave before an earthquake like the animals that do? Survival of the fittest, isn't that how it works? If they say that this naturalistic view proves their point then why be so angry about it?
This is kind of part two of my open question to atheists. The reason for the question, was because I got into a debate on Youtube with a satanist about the existence of God and he said something like satanist don't believe in satan or the supernatural, satan is simply a symbol of their own self worship. The problem with the Steven Laws of the world is that they lack the intellectual honesty of the satanist. The reason they don't believe in God is because they worship themselves and the real God is nothing like them, which, to me is, the greatest reason I could ever give myself to believe in God, CAN I GET AN AMEN!
Ahh, I feel much better now.
I'll be the first to admit that I get in over my head sometimes, not having a formal philosophical education, but I do believe I have a unique perspective on matters such as these.
I don't know what is is about me (call it a certain kind of masochism, or maybe a martyr's heart,I don't know) but, I feel compelled to expose myself to atheistic philosophy and philosophers, even if it leaves me feeling bad afterwards.
Anyway, the problem of evil goes something like this: If God, in all His glory, really exists why does He allow so much suffering?
I just finished listening to the Philosophy Bites podcast with Steven Law, he gives the classical atheist responses to what he called theodicies...you know like freewill, Intelligent design, and all that happy horse crap but, I have no interest in inventing a better theodicy. I'll leave that to Kirk Cameron. I just have a few observations for the Steven Laws of the world.
What, the fuck, does Steven Law know about any one's suffering? Have you ever noticed how angry these people get when they talk about suffering? I did and it got me to thinking that they are not talking about something as abstract, to them at least, as some child suffering in an earthquake. They are obfuscating the fact that they are simply pissing and moaning about their own pain and suffering. If they are right about naturalistic evolution then why is it bad that some weak little people in some far off country they've never been to, dies because they have no food? Isn't it just natures way of weeding out the people not smart enough to get food by any means necessary? Or not smart enough to leave before an earthquake like the animals that do? Survival of the fittest, isn't that how it works? If they say that this naturalistic view proves their point then why be so angry about it?
This is kind of part two of my open question to atheists. The reason for the question, was because I got into a debate on Youtube with a satanist about the existence of God and he said something like satanist don't believe in satan or the supernatural, satan is simply a symbol of their own self worship. The problem with the Steven Laws of the world is that they lack the intellectual honesty of the satanist. The reason they don't believe in God is because they worship themselves and the real God is nothing like them, which, to me is, the greatest reason I could ever give myself to believe in God, CAN I GET AN AMEN!
Ahh, I feel much better now.
posted by Geoff at 6:38 PM
7 Comments:
I'll give you an amen, and a hell-yeah. Well said, Fancy.
I love my son. Hard for me to believe I created such a wonderful person.
I am so proud of you, bro.
Ah, shucks.
Right on. Well said.
I have recently come down on the side the question of "if there is a God..." with "If there isn't a God, then all suffering is meaningless."
If there is no God, then life does really suck and then you die.
If there is no God, then there are no consequences.
Anyway, I am just rambling. You said it all my friend.
Hello, just thought I'd play devil's advocate. Well intentioned I assure you! Here goes ...
There might be a link between having experienced suffering yourself, and feeling empathy for others who also suffer.
Your proposed reading of natural evolution - "survival of the fittest" - would, I'm afraid to say, fit nicely in Nazi Germany. This reading sounds like a version of "Social Darwinism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism], where "fittest" is equated with "strongest". But it should not be - it is not strong vs. weak - rather it should be "most adapted to the environment" (whatever that means!). The animals do not run from earthquakes because they are smart, but (probably) because they act automatically, without self-concious thought. Mosquitos are perhaps one of the most successful species at reproducing and surviving, but would you say they are smart? Perhaps this is not your view, but the one you think Law must be compelled to accept as a "naturalist"; unfortunately, there are many other more plausible (and nicer!) alternatives, so he is not compelled.
I fear the logical extension of your argument is that (eg.) all the poor in Africa deserve what they get, because they are not "smart enough" to avoid suffering. Is this a good christian view? It sounds like good old fashioned Victorian morality to me - the poor as lazy & stupid, the chaps at the top entitled to what they have, no suggestion that the things they had to do to get there might be themselves morally questionable - surely not a view you accept? It is certainly not something a humanist like Law would agree to, and, I suggest, this is not just because he might "really" be moaning about suffering in his own life. Strangely, he might actually be a decent person who cares for others!
One more thing. If you listen carefully, he makes the interesting point that a mass extinction thousands of years ago wiped out most life on the planet, and surely this caused immense suffering to the aminals involved - nowhere for those smart creatures to run! So his argument is not reliant on the suffering of human beings (smart or not). This point is sharpened when he says that, surely, an all good God would not have allowed "even an ounce" of gratuitous (ie. unnecessary) suffering - can you honestly say that, including mass extinctions and the experiences of both humans & animals, there has not even been an ounce of unnecessary suffering in the world at some point in its history? If you say yes, you must look the African child in the eye and say his poverty is justified. If you say no, then you cannot also consistently believe in an all good God. Which would you rather?
Thanks, and apologies for going on, this really is well intentioned! I'm a novice philosophy student who needs the practice!
M
I appreciate the input and take no offence. I readily admitt that this part of my argument was poorly thought out and written as I was angry when I wrote it. I had no wish to edit it because that is my style.
In responese: Your argument at the end rests on the presupposition that human reason and sense experience are sufficient to explain all of reality. Who says that God would never allow gratuitous suffering? Not saying that he does. Why is it wrong for men to suffer? By what standard are you measuring that against? Define gratuitous suffering. The fact is I don't know why God does the things he does. I don't need to right now but I know that when I see Jesus it will all make sense. If I don't believe it, this is all meaningless. If all that we see is the result of natural processes than how can you derive any meaning from it. Why even differentiate between life and non-life? Whatever nicer way you try to spin it.
Post a Comment
<< Home