God acts through people ...not by some form of magic.
Modern times have brought new perils, Drunken drivers is only one of them. These things are the result of Mans own choices and inventions, they are freely made.
All men have the capability to be strengthened by God in these situations. Atheists and others, perhaps, deny themselves this opportunity, it is their choice.
I see these two arguments as conflicted. To the extent that God "acts through" people, to that same extent God is responsible for the actions of people.
Not necessarily. God's knowledge and understanding is so vastly superior to ours that I simply don't believe we are in a position to decide whether God is "reasonably good" or not. We are expected to act in the best interest of our fellow men, and to do what we can to keep harm from coming to others, but we must do so with a limited knowledge.
But the point I was trying to get at is that there's a conflict in the mainstream theist position.
I'm not trying to argue that God is necessarily cruel or stupid. I'm saying that if we assume that he's not, then the implication is that failing to intervene to alleviate suffering is the right thing to do.
I can kinda understand the
"there's unseen good in suffering" position; at least, I see how it's logically consistent. I
don't understand the
"there's unseen good in suffering, so I'll try to alleviate suffering myself" position.
God, on the other hand, sees things from a different perspective than we do. I believe there are many times when He does intervene, when a person's life is spared without that person ever even knowing that it happened. I don't know why God allows some people to live long, relatively trouble-free lives and permits others to live only a few short years, possibly in horrible conditions the entire time.
... but you think there's a purpose, right?
Why, then, when God has intervened where he has seen fit to do so and left the rest of the suffering in place as part of some all-knowing, morally good plan, would any human intervene themselves to relieve this suffering that God, in his infinite wisdom, has seen fit to keep?
I will admit that I do get very frustrated even trying to explain how I feel when I am talking to an atheist (and you're one of the few I will even make an effort to discuss the matter with).
And I do appreciate you talking about it.
Obviously, as I've already said, I believe that God is as good as a "reasonably good person." I also believe that He is millions of times more intelligent that the 100,000 most intelligent people who have ever lived, all rolled into one. Hypothetically speaking, if there is a God who created the billions of galaxies out there in the universe and all of the forms of life here on Earth, wouldn't it stand to reason that He knows what He's doing? He is not stupid and He is not incompetent. Atheists who argue that He is, nevertheless, cruel, are basing that assumption upon their own limited intelligence and understanding. If a person believes in God at all, he pretty much has to respect not only His power but His knowledge. If we can't explain His power, why should we be expected to explain His knowledge?
It's not a matter of explaining God's knowledge; it's a matter of explaining the theist position on this issue.
So God's on the case and he knows what he's doing; even though the world seems deficient to us in many ways, all the negative-seeming things all work toward some higher purpose that's beyond our knowledge... fine - but doesn't this kill any possible motivation for us humans to do good in the world? God's already done everything worth doing, and everything he's left undone is better undone than not... so what's left for us?
That's because you don't believe that there is a better life after this one. Maybe, when God lets a child die of starvation, it's to stop the suffering once and for all. If that child's spirit is suddenly released from a body that has known only suffering, but continues to exist outside of that body in a place of peace and rest, who are we to say that God was evil for not miraculously providing food for that child instead? When it gets right down to it, the phrase "saving a life" is really only relative. What is being "saved"? A mortal existance, not an eternal one.
Yes, it is. It's God saying, "I know what's best and it's best that this physical body die at this point. This person has learned what I knew he needed to learn when I sent him to Earth; he has had experiences and challenges that, while they have weakened his body, have strengthened his spirit. It is now time that he is received into an existance free of suffering."
Well, there's more to it than just life and death. There's suffering as well. And I don't think the fact that we can learn from suffering in some cases means that suffering is
necessary for us to learn.
I know that this isn't going to make an ounce of sense to anyone who doesn't believe in God. It's just not. And since there probably isn't a single thing I can add to make it more clear, I probably won't even try unless I can see that it might make a difference to somebody. I'm just not going to continue to debate for the sake of debating. It's pointless.
I can
appreciate the arguments put forward by religious people. I just can't square them up with the reality that I see of many, many religious people diligently working toward helping to save lives and alleviate suffering, whether it's caused by manmade causes or "acts of God"... people who then turn around and praise God for his inaction. I think they speak against that argument with their actions.
... although at the end of the day, I suppose I'm okay with this. I realized a while ago that I'd much rather that people be kind than that be absolutely consistent with their beliefs.
