If God exists why does He allow suffering?

[Trailblazer]

The religions talk a good game, but the evidence tells a different story. Humanity has made moral progress over the past few centuries by abolishing slavery and giving equal rights to women and homosexuals. Religious leaders have been dragged along, kicking and screaming, because their sacred texts don't support these advances.

No, the Bible does not support these advances, because it would have to be rewritten in order to do so. The Torah and the Bible were not ever intended by God to apply to the modern age, but Jews and Christians are still trying to make them fit because they cannot move on and accept that God has spoken once again through a new Messenger.

I believe the reasons that humanity has made this moral progress is because of religion; not the old outdated religions, but the Baha'i Faith.

The Baháʼí Faith was founded by Baháʼu'lláh among 19th century Iranians who adhered to Islamic views on slavery. Baháʼu'lláh formally abolished the practice of slave trading among Baháʼís in the Kitab-i-Aqdas in 1873.
Baháʼí Faith and slavery - Wikipedia

The Bahá'í Faith affirms gender equality; that men and women are equal. Bahá'u'lláh noted that there was no distinction in the spiritual stations of men and women.[32] `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote that both men and women possess the same potential for virtues and intelligence, and compared the two genders and the progress of civilization to the two wings of a bird where each wing is needed to provide flight.[33] In this sense, the equality of the sexes is seen as Bahá'ís as a spiritual and moral standard that is essential for the unification of the planet and the unfoldment of world order, and in the importance of implementing the principle in individual, family, and community life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai_teachings

 

[joe1776]

I already answered that. I was only offering my personal opinion. It is not an argument because I am not trying to win anything, as that is ego.

You seem to be confusing a reasoned argument (with premises) and an argumentative opinion.

It is your argument. Why are you obfuscating?

Now, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that you aren't trying to disprove my argument but then ask me questions with that very intent.

All I would have to do is find people who have not suffered but have nevertheless changed to disprove your premise. Many people change without suffering and in fact many people who are suffering find it difficult to change. The people who are making all the positive changes in the world are happy people, not depressed people. In fact, they are most likely people who have never even been depressed. The following quote explains why that is the case

That paragraph tells me that you are struggling to stay on topic. We aren't talking about people changing or making positive changes. We are talking specifically about people making moral progress.

 

[joe1776]

You don't need to be a very good person to feel motivated to make others happy. You only need to be able to feel good about making others happy.

We humans by nature are a selfish animal. Those who are frequently motivated by making each other happy are fairly rare, IMO.

When we see someone suffering it is normal to feel empathy but that by itself doesn't mean that empathy is necessary for moral progress. There is a distinction to be made between sufficient and necessary here.

I didn't follow that. Is empathy necessary for moral progress or not?

 

[Koldo]

We humans by nature are a selfish animal. Those who are frequently motivated by making each other happy are fairly rare, IMO.

Actually, it happens quite often. Giving an extra tip to an waitress, giving a gift that someone loves, giving an elder your seat...

I didn't follow that. Is empathy necessary for moral progress or not?

No. I was drawing the distinction between what is necessary and what is sufficient. While empathy might be sufficient (and that is quite a simplification that depends on your moral model), it is not necessary.

 

[joe1776]

No, the Bible does not support these advances, because it would have to be rewritten in order to do so. The Torah and the Bible were not ever intended by God to apply to the modern age, but Jews and Christians are still trying to make them fit because they cannot move on and accept that God has spoken once again through a new Messenger.

You're making excuses for religion. You aren't supporting your claim that religion motivates humanity's moral progress.

I believe the reasons that humanity has made this moral progress is because of religion; not the old outdated religions, but the Baha'i Faith.

That's an outrageous claim. Most of humanity has never heard of the religion much less knowledgeable about its moral teachings.

The Baháʼí Faith was founded by Baháʼu'lláh among 19th century Iranians who adhered to Islamic views on slavery. Baháʼu'lláh formally abolished the practice of slave trading among Baháʼís in the Kitab-i-Aqdas in 1873.
Baháʼí Faith and slavery - Wikipedia

The abolition movement was already 170 years old by that time. Denmark-Norway 1729 as I recall.

The Bahá'í Faith affirms gender equality; that men and women are equal. Bahá'u'lláh noted that there was no distinction in the spiritual stations of men and women.[32] `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote that both men and women possess the same potential for virtues and intelligence, and compared the two genders and the progress of civilization to the two wings of a bird where each wing is needed to provide flight.[33] In this sense, the equality of the sexes is seen as Bahá'ís as a spiritual and moral standard that is essential for the unification of the planet and the unfoldment of world order, and in the importance of implementing the principle in individual, family, and community life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai_teachings

In Great Britain, the Women'smovement traces back to Mary Wollstonecraft in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792)

 

[joe1776]

Actually, it happens quite often. Giving an extra tip to an waitress, giving a gift that someone loves, giving an elder your seat...

Sure, that works as long as it is no great sacrifice.

No. I was drawing the distinction between what is necessary and what is sufficient. While empathy might be sufficient (and that is quite a simplification that depends on your moral model), it is not necessary.

Do you have a reason to support your opinion that empathy is not necessary? I ask because your opinion runs counter to the accepted position that the degree of empathy is the basis for a keen conscience.

 

[joe1776]

In order to prove that suffering is not necessary to make moral progress all we would have to do is find a subset of people who say they have not suffered. If those people made moral progress, then we would know it is possible to make moral progress without suffering.

And how do you figure you could find that subset if it exists?

 

[Trailblazer]

Now, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that you aren't trying to disprove my argument but then ask me questions with that very intent.

Nobody tells me what my intent is. Only I know my intent. I might be pointing out the holes I see in your argument but I am not trying to disprove anything because personal opinions can be neither proven nor disproven.

That paragraph tells me that you are struggling to stay on topic. We aren't talking about people changing or making positive changes. We are talking specifically about people making moral progress.

Okay, how do you think that suffering with depression or anxiety leads to moral progress? Be specific.

 

[Koldo]

Sure, that works as long as it is no great sacrifice.

And, therefore...?

Do you have a reason to support your opinion that empathy is not necessary? I ask because your opinion runs counter to the accepted position that the degree of empathy is the basis for a keen conscience.

I have exemplified a case where empathy plays no role. Therefore empathy is not necessary.

 

[joe1776]

This is the question that started this topic: Why does suffering exist?

The question is not: Why does suffering exist, in general?

The intention of that question is to address all the suffering that exists and existed.

Nonsense the in general. is implied because any other reading would be absurd.

 

[joe1776]

Have you never heard of deductive reasoning?

I can't read you mind. What point do you want to make about deductive reasoning?

 

[Koldo]

Nonsense the in general. is implied because any other reading would be absurd.

I am afraid that is not the case.
The reason for this is so: Any instance of evil or suffering, any at all, is posited as logically contradictory to an omnimax god. This is typical for any formulation of the problem of evil.

Have you read about the problem of evil before?

 

[Koldo]

I can't read you mind. What point do you want to make about deductive reasoning?

The conclusions we reach through deductive reasoning revolve around absolute certainty.

 

[joe1776]

I have exemplified a case where empathy plays no role. Therefore empathy is not necessary.

Empathy is necessary in most of humanity's important moral progressive movements.

 

[Koldo]

Empathy is necessary in most of humanity's important moral progressive movements.

Can you show that to be the case?

 

[joe1776]

I am afraid that is not the case.
The reason for this is so: Any instance of evil or suffering, any at all, is posited as logically contradictory to an omnimax god. This is typical for any formulation of the problem of evil.

Have you read about the problem of evil before?

I'm not interested in the least in the "problem of evil" as formulated by religions or those who oppose religions. I have an understanding of the problem formed by a study of human nature with a special emphasis on morality.

 

[joe1776]

Can you show that to be the case?

I'm not going to take the time to give you the long answer. Here's the short one:

Our moral judgments are based on conscience. Conscience seems to be concerned with harm. Harm always involves suffering. Empathy allows us to experience some of the suffering. Thus when legal slavery was abolished, it was because empathy allowed people to feel some of the suffering that slaves might feel in being owned as property.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's an outrageous claim. Most of humanity has never heard of the religion.

How many people have heard of the Baha’i Faith is completely irrelevant and how few Baha’is there are is also completely irrelevant. It only matters whether the religion is the truth from God, what the teachings and laws are, and whether they are conducive to spiritual growth and moral progress. Moreover, if more people followed the teachings and laws of the Baha'i Faith there would be much moral progress.

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

The abolition movement was already 170 years old by that time. Denmark-Norway 1729 as I recall.

When were slaves abolished in the United States?

January 31, 1865

Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or ...Sep 8, 2016
13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery ...

In Great Britain, the Women's movement traces back to Mary Wollstonecraft in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792)

What were women's rights in 1776?

Married women in 1776 could not own property, sign contracts or bring legal suit, and their wages, if they earned any, legally went to their husbands. (Single women had a few more rights.) No woman could vote or hold political office.
`All men . . . unalienable rights' did not include women in 1700s ...

 

[joe1776]

The conclusions we reach through deductive reasoning revolve around absolute certainty.

Unless they come from textbooks on critical thinking, arguments rarely involve only deductive reasoning.

 

[joe1776]

How many people have heard of the Baha’i Faith is completely irrelevant and how few Baha’is there are is also completely irrelevant. It only matters whether the religion is the truth from God, what the teachings and laws are, and whether they are conducive to spiritual growth and moral progress. Moreover, if more people followed the teachings and laws of the Baha'i Faith there would be much moral progress.


How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

This was your claim on behalf of the Baha'i Faith:

I believe the reasons that humanity has made this moral progress is because of religion; not the old outdated religions, but the Baha'i Faith.

Maybe you didn't mean it but it reads to me like you're claiming humanity's progress was due to your faith. Your "appeal to the people" fallacy doesn't apply.