Philosophically Speaking, "Is Suffering a Challenge to God's Existence?"

[MorpheusSandman]

Epicurus got it right thousands of years ago:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

[tailor STATELY]

My take on Epi (not so) curus: He didn't ask the right questions

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[MorpheusSandman]

What's the right question?

[tailor STATELY]

Questions abound:

James 1:5,6 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/1.5?lang=eng : " 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."

There was once a lad in the Spring of 1820 who read the above scripture and asked God what church he should follow. His answer, well, its consequence spans eternity.

Your questions might be different, or even diffident, but ask in the spirit of James and you may be surprised.

Sincerely,

tailor STATELY

[Pompey Bum]

What's the right question?

If He is able, why does he frequently seem not to? Isn't that the question we have been addressing on this thread? We have not needed to turn God into Yaldabaoth so far.

[MorpheusSandman]

Questions abound:

Indubitably, but I've found the answers from believers who have asked to be quite dubious.

[MorpheusSandman]

If He is able, why does he frequently seem not to?

So what's the best answer?

[Pompey Bum]

See above.

[MorpheusSandman]

Pun intended?

If you're just referring to above in this thread, there's a lot...

[Pompey Bum]

Pun intended?

How do you do, Morpheus? I'm Bum. I don't think we've met before. But yes, the pun is always intended.

If you're just referring to above in this thread, there's a lot...

As my brother-in-law is fond of saying, you enjoy!

[YesNo]

I agree that the existence of evil and suffering does not imply that a loving God does not exist (and I have faith that such a God does exist). But for me, "enough free will to be fallible" equals choice; and choice does not eliminate the underlying instinct/impulse one resists or acquiesces to with the choice. (Choosing to abstain from sex, for example, does not eliminate the underlying sex drive). So when you speak of people making mistakes (which technically is all sinning means), my question is what underlying instincts/impulses (rage, envy, jealousy, revenge, etc.) brought them to the mistake, and why those instincts/impulses exist on the first place. Augustine and Luther would have said it was from Original Sin. I agree, though I equate Original Sin with natural selection (which I see as the source of rage, jealousy, et al.).

I don't have a problem with natural selection. It is a side effect of each species seeking its own ends and thereby providing constraints on the others around it.

I do agree that we can trace to our biology our dispositions to "rage, envy, jealousy, revenge", but think of why those dispositions exist. In a pair-bonding species like ours or prairie voles, the males are defending the young and the females. This allows the females to engage in more babying of the young. The result is that the young are better cared for. See Young, "The Chemistry Between Us", for more details.

I noticed that I had Paul Ricoeur's "Symbolism of Evil" in my library and I will see if I can understand it now better than I did as an undergraduate. I don't know what original sin is, but it suggests to me that there is a communal context in which sin exists. It is not just an individual's mistake.

So for me, having "enough free will to be fallible" does not get at the underlying issue of why we want what we want. On the other hand (to exchange our traditional site roles as optimist and pessimist, YesNo ), having will enough to choose sin implies having will enough to choose the Good over instinct--as for example one might choose to love one who has damaged you despite instincts for rage or revenge.

No doubt there are a lot of constraints upon us, both biological and cultural. They are not ultimately an excuse for our behavior, neither as individuals nor as a group.

What occurred to me when I wrote that post was only a slight difference to what we have been discussing. The way I originally looked at the problem was how could there be a loving God if I perceived the world as fallible. This assumed I was innocent. But what if there aren't any innocents? Now I see the problem as how could there be a merciful God, if I am the guilty party?

When viewed in that manner there is no longer any problem of evil that I need to complain about. There is only the problem of the existence of mercy in the face of justice. Is the loving God also merciful? As the guilty party, do I really want that God to be just?

The second issue your statement doesn't really address is so-called Natural Evil (but since I think we all view this phenomenon as amoral rather than immoral, perhaps we should simply call it Natural Suffering). Having "enough free will to be fallible" does not account for why toddlers suffer and die of a childhood cancer (with all the pain that applies for parents); or why a random twitch of the sea floor can bring horrific death in tsunami waves. It is a mystery to me how an omnipotent god can do nothing while such things happen; nor can I accept your suggestion that because "we have likely caused others to suffer at some point in our lives, then the suffering we experience now could be viewed as part of the justice given back to us." A just and loving God is neither amoral nor an abusive or murderous parent. To me, these things remain a mystery, but they certainly do not suggest an inherently good material universe. Perhaps we are east of Eden after all.

I don't know if natural evil is amoral or not. However, I think animals have the ability to make choices and therefore are also fallible.

Are toddlers innocent? Perhaps they are as individuals, but not as part of a group or species.

When you complain that "a just and loving God is neither amoral nor an abusive or murderous parent", I assume you are speaking from the perspective of an innocent party who feels misused expecting justice from God rather than from the perspective of a guilty party looking for mercy.

[Pompey Bum]

I think you've been hanging around with Protestants too much, YesNo. You are starting to sound like John Calvin on a bad hair day. Seriously, when I read your comment I wondered if you were spoofing me (and you still may be). Please don't take offense. But as Gandhi is supposed to have said when told that Indian protesters were offering flowers to British soldiers: "Maybe I have gone too far."

What occurred to me when I wrote that post was only a slight difference to what we have been discussing. The way I originally looked at the problem was how could there be a loving God if I perceived the world as fallible. This assumed I was innocent. But what if there aren't any innocents? Now I see the problem as how could there be a merciful God, if I am the guilty party?

Why should your share in humanity's sin constitute a restriction on God's mercy? That would require a legalistic and mechanical God--in effect a computer program. The notion is easily defeated by God's omnipotence. God gets to be as merciful as He chooses.

When viewed in that manner there is no longer any problem of evil that I need to complain about. There is only the problem of the existence of mercy in the face of justice. Is the loving God also merciful? As the guilty party, do I really want that God to be just?

What makes you think justice and mercy are mutually exclusive? Or that mercy would not be a condition of divine justice? Again, unless you are a Newtonian deist (and maybe you are), you are not talking about God the software package. And if you are inherently sinful, it seems to me you want to trust to God's mercy--which for me means turning from one's instinctive nature and "try[ing] to do it God's way" (which Gandhi actually did say, I think), no matter how many times you mess up. That's how it works for me anyway.

Are toddlers innocent? Perhaps they are as individuals, but not as part of a group or species.

What a question! (This is when I wondered if you were spoofing me). Of course a toddler's participation in our flawed humanity does not make childhood suffering or childhood cancers just! Why would a God capable of forgiving characters like you and me (and much worse) inflict such cruelty on the least guilty among us? That does not come close to solving the problem of natural suffering or evil. It changes nothing.

[YesNo]

Why should your share in humanity's sin constitute a restriction on God's mercy? That would require a legalistic and mechanical God--in effect a computer program. The notion is easily defeated by God's omnipotence. God gets to be as merciful as He chooses.

What makes you think justice and mercy are mutually exclusive? Or that mercy would not be a condition of divine justice? Again, unless you are a Newtonian deist (and maybe you are), you are not talking about God the software package. And if you are inherently sinful, it seems to me you want to trust to God's mercy--which for me means turning from one's instinctive nature and "try[ing] to do it God's way" (which Gandhi actually did say, I think), no matter how many times you mess up. That's how it works for me anyway.

Actually, I was thinking that you were the closet Newtonian deist. It is interesting that you had the same view of me.

What a question! (This is when I wondered if you were spoofing me). Of course a toddler's participation in our flawed humanity does not make childhood suffering or childhood cancers just! Why would a God capable of forgiving characters like you and me (and much worse) inflict such cruelty on the least guilty among us? That does not come close to solving the problem of natural suffering or evil. It changes nothing.

No, I'm not kidding. So, on what basis do you establish your innocence to make a claim that the universe is guilty?

Incidentally, I've started reading Ricoeur's "The Symbolism of Evil." There is nothing to report as of yet.

[Pompey Bum]

So, on what basis do you establish your innocence to make a claim that the universe is guilty?

I don't. Our bodies are made of universe, are they not? How should I be innocent? But maybe I don't understand what you mean by guilty. My view is that zoe (life)--or perhaps for a more conventional Christian pseuxn (soul)--is inherently good (and ontologically authentic), but that it is corrupted by the bodies we live in/fell to, whose biochemistry holds us prisoner to their evolutionary instincts. The best we can do is to choose to turn from this "default nature" to the Good, trusting to God's mercy for the forgiveness of our many mistakes.

Incidentally, I've started reading Ricoeur's "The Symbolism of Evil." There is nothing to report as of yet.

I haven't read Ricoeur. He thought Augustine technically lost the works debate to Pelagius but was right anyway (or something). I think he's also going to tell you that that we can't speak of Original Sin outside the context of the Eden mythos. I'm not sure if I'm doing that or not; but to anticipate the conversation a little, if I am, I'm just going to shrug and say: Fine, so just it's just evolution doing it, then. It's still an ontological moral predicament.

And how could you possibly think I was a Deist, YesNo?

[YesNo]

I don't. Our bodies are made of universe, are they not? How should I be innocent? But maybe I don't understand what you mean by guilty. My view is that zoe (life)--or perhaps for a more conventional Christian pseuxn (soul)--is inherently good (and ontologically authentic), but that it is corrupted by the bodies we live in/fell to, whose biochemistry holds us prisoner to their evolutionary instincts. The best we can do is to choose to turn from this "default nature" to the Good, trusting to God's mercy for the forgiveness of our many mistakes.

But if the body isn't good, why would you want to resurrect it?

I see biochemistry in a more positive light. For example, sex gives us a disposition to take care of each other.

Also, don't your sacred texts say, for example in Genesis, that what God made was good?

I haven't read Ricoeur. He thought Augustine technically lost the works debate to Pelagius but was right anyway (or something). I think he's also going to tell you that that we can't speak of Original Sin outside the context of the Eden mythos. I'm not sure if I'm doing that or not; but to anticipate the conversation a little, if I am, I'm just going to shrug and say: Fine, so just it's just evolution doing it, then. It's still an ontological moral predicament.

I'm still going through the introduction. He is defining what he means by a "symbol" and says he is looking to "re-enact" the original experience of "the crisis of the consciousness of fault". Here is a nice line (page 8):

Sin makes me incomprehensible to myself: God is hidden; the course of things no longer has meaning.

And how could you possibly think I was a Deist, YesNo?

Deism seems to me to be the default cultural theistic position in the USA. A faith such as Christianity is added on top of it. If a theist is not at heart a deist, the theist must also be counter-cultural. For example, if you believe in the selfish gene, you are not counter-cultural, but very much a part of the culture and Jesus is sugar-coating on top of that. If you believe in determinism, you are not counter-cultural, but very much a part of the culture. I would be in the same situation as you are since I live in the same culture and try to define theism against that culture.

That is why I like to talk about near and shared death experiences or psi phenomena. They go against the deistic and atheistic assumptions of what is possible. They are counter-cultural. So I don't fall off the deep end, I try to only accept what I think science can justify.

I agree with atheists such as Ecurb and Iain Sparrow: the deistic god does not exist. They would probably say no Gods exist, but I suspect all they can imagine with their atheism is a deistic god. Some, but not all, Christians can't imagine any other God either even though they have a rich tradition to lean on.