Suffering and evil

[muhammad_isa]

Therefore, you mentioning constructive suffering as if that was an excuse for the existence of evil was irrelevant..

It's not an excuse .. it's an example.

 

[Koldo]

It's not an excuse .. it's an example.

Read the post I originally quoted again.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Said who? Reaching this conclusion through what rationale?



Elaborate.

Judgement is a snare that binds the one judging.
What we have to remember is that we are always working with limited information, because we are limited beings, so when we judge God, we are trying to put ourselves in a position of authority over him, as if we could ever see the whole picture. We are inside the story... We are too close to look at it objectively. We should bow to the one who has all knowledge and all goodness and our best at heart, and let him be the only judge.

 

[Koldo]

Judgement is a snare that binds the one judging.
What we have to remember is that we are always working with limited information, because we are limited beings, so when we judge God, we are trying to put ourselves in a position of authority over him, as if we could ever see the whole picture. We are inside the story... We are too close to look at it objectively. We should bow to the one who has all knowledge and all goodness and our best at heart, and let him be the only judge.

You don't need to be outside the story to understand that multiple people can be responsible for any given outcome, nor to reach the conclusion that an omnipotent and omniscient being is responsible for everything that happens, be it because of his actions or lack of.

 

[Trailblazer]

It takes a lot of faith to believe that about a god that lets you suffer now.

Tell me about it!
And that is kind of the point, what God is trying to accomplish, to see who will lose their faith and who won't.

“Meditate profoundly, that the secret of things unseen may be revealed unto you, that you may inhale the sweetness of a spiritual and imperishable fragrance, and that you may acknowledge the truth that from time immemorial even unto eternity the Almighty hath tried, and will continue to try, His servants, so that light may be distinguished from darkness, truth from falsehood, right from wrong, guidance from error, happiness from misery, and roses from thorns. Even as He hath revealed: “Do men think when they say ‘We believe’ they shall be let alone and not be put to proof?” 5

Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 8-9

 

[Wildswanderer]

You don't need to be outside the story to understand that multiple people can be responsible for any given outcome, nor to reach the conclusion that an omnipotent and omniscient being is responsible for everything that happens, be it because of his actions or lack of.

Ah but you never see the complete picture. You can never know what is the greatest good. So the omnipotent and omniscient being is the only one who knows which actions are the right ones to allow and which ones should not be allowed

 

[muhammad_isa]

“Meditate profoundly, that the secret of things unseen may be revealed unto you, that you may inhale the sweetness of a spiritual and imperishable fragrance, and that you may acknowledge the truth that from time immemorial even unto eternity the Almighty hath tried, and will continue to try, His servants, so that light may be distinguished from darkness, truth from falsehood, right from wrong, guidance from error, happiness from misery, and roses from thorns. Even as He hath revealed: “Do men think when they say ‘We believe’ they shall be let alone and not be put to proof?” 5

Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 8-9

Yes .. and that quote is from the Qur'an..

1 Alif. Lam. Mim.
2 Do men imagine that they will be left (at ease) because they say, We believe, and will not be tested with affliction?
3 Lo! We tested those who were before you. Thus Allah knoweth those who are sincere, and knoweth those who feign.
4 Or do those who do ill deeds imagine that they can outstrip Us: Evil (for them ) is that which they decide.

5 Whoso looketh forward to the meeting with Allah (let him know that) Allah's reckoning is surely nigh, and He is the Hearer, the Knower.
6 And whosoever striveth, striveth only for himself, for lo! Allah is altogether Independent of (His) creatures.
7 And as for those who believe and do good works, We shall remit from them their evil deeds and shall repay them the best that they did.
- Qur'an The Spider -

 

[Koldo]

Ah but you never see the complete picture. You can never know what is the greatest good. So the omnipotent and omniscient being is the only one who knows which actions are the right ones to allow and which ones should not be allowed

Which still has zilch to do with whether God is responsible for what happens.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The explanation I like best is: The greater the challenge, the greater the reward. Those who rise above the worst of the worst ( death and suffering of innocents ) and are able to maintain their faith, continue to be productive, never quit are rewarded greatly.

What is the reward?

 

[dybmh]

What is the reward?

I honestly don't know. It's just a theory. Sorry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am blaming WWI and WWII on exactly that !

I asked, "Are you blaming industrialization or the Enlightenment for war?" Then you should be able to make the argument that explains why those wars resulted from either the Enlightenment or the industrial revolution.

It's not hard. I have already said that this life is as "a blink of an eye" compared to eternity. Almighty God is Eternal and our souls belong to the eternal God. There is suffering in this life but compared to the life hereafter, our suffering right now is nothing compared to what it will be like in the hereafter for those who choose rebellion and evil.

I don't consider that a justification for allowing suffering now.

The fact that God has chosen for us to "police ourselves" seems to be above your head.

Did you forget that I'm an atheist? And did you forget the argument against the existence of a tri-omni God? You're trying to explain this deity's lack of involvement in our lives, yet claim that it is omnibenevolent. That's incoherent. Remember, there is no problem if there is no claim that a god is tri-omni. Then one might have a deity that wouldn't intervene as benefactor in our daily lives whether because it wasn't aware of us, didn't have the ability, or was indifferent to man's plight, but those are not possible when one posits that it knows everything, can do anything, and is our benefactor. That's what I mean by incoherent. The parts don't cohere. They are in conflict.

I'm not trying to talk you into anything. I'm telling you why your argument doesn't answer the theodicy problem. I'm telling you why a person who reasons properly knows that a tri-omni deity doesn't exist. You have disagreed, but never tried to refute that. When I point out that the deity is not omnibenevolent, instead of arguing that it actually is that, and that this apparent indifference is actually benevolence, you explain that it's not a big deal in the long run and that that's not his job anyway. OK, but there goes tri-omni.

Ah but you never see the complete picture. You can never know what is the greatest good. So the omnipotent and omniscient being is the only one who knows which actions are the right ones to allow and which ones should not be allowed

Greatest good for whom? Not man if the complete picture includes allowing his suffering to no apparent benefit. There is no scenario where man is benefitted by that. And arguments about not being a god or not being omniscient are irrelevant. We need to make judgments with the minds we have, including whether to believe the claims of Abrahamic theists regarding their tri-omni God. What the faith-based thinker is saying is that one needs to turn those reasoning and moral faculties off and just accept that anything is possible however irrational it sounds. To the critical thinker, that's an admission that the beliefs can't be justified, that they just need to be accepted uncritically. To me, that's a poor choice to make and the closest thing to a sin against the self I can imagine.

Speaking of seeing a complete picture, I imagine at times what it would be like if there actually were creators that we might meet in an afterlife. What would they be like? What would please or disappoint them if anything? I have nothing to go by but the creation to indicate what they value. These are the beings that gave us those faculties. Should I hope that their plan was that I turn them off and accept the unevidenced claims of people speaking for them however absurd? If I have creators, if they gave me these faculties, and if they have expectations for me, it would not for me to ignore their message the faculties send. How would I answer them if I had? How would you?

That was a rhetorical question. I don't expect an answer to it. How could you address such creators short of, "Oops. My bad," and I don't expect you to say that, because I don't expect you to seriously consider that you might be mistaken and answer from that perspective. I expect a response that indicates that question doesn't deserve your consideration. Surprise me and tell me what you think you would say in that hypothetical situation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Then you should be able to make the argument that explains why those wars resulted from either the Enlightenment or the industrial revolution..

I already have .. British Empire was driven by commerce that was financed by usury. Usury was banished by Holy Roman Empire before the advent of the Reformation.

..just as an interesting side-show, this animation of how modern Europe came to be, is found in this dynamic political map..
>> Animation: How the European Map Has Changed Over 2,400 Years <<

 

[SalixIncendium]

How does your religion explain why suffering and evil happen? Things like birth defects, the death of innocent people, starvation and sickness in developing nations, dictators, etc. I can't believe in a god that doesn't keep these things from happening.

Karma.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm not a big fan of blaming the victim.

If you drop a hammer on your toe, who do you blame? The manufacturer?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I asked, "Are you blaming industrialization or the Enlightenment for war?" Then you should be able to make the argument that explains why those wars resulted from either the Enlightenment or the industrial revolution.



I don't consider that a justification for allowing suffering now.



Did you forget that I'm an atheist? And did you forget the argument against the existence of a tri-omni God? You're trying to explain this deity's lack of involvement in our lives, yet claim that it is omnibenevolent. That's incoherent. Remember, there is no problem if there is no claim that a god is tri-omni. Then one might have a deity that wouldn't intervene as benefactor in our daily lives whether because it wasn't aware of us, didn't have the ability, or was indifferent to man's plight, but those are not possible when one posits that it knows everything, can do anything, and is our benefactor. That's what I mean by incoherent. The parts don't cohere. They are in conflict.

I'm not trying to talk you into anything. I'm telling you why your argument doesn't answer the theodicy problem. I'm telling you why a person who reasons properly knows that a tri-omni deity doesn't exist. You have disagreed, but never tried to refute that. When I point out that the deity is not omnibenevolent, instead of arguing that it actually is that, and that this apparent indifference is actually benevolence, you explain that it's not a big deal in the long run and that that's not his job anyway. OK, but there goes tri-omni.



Greatest good for whom? Not man if the complete picture includes allowing his suffering to no apparent benefit. There is no scenario where man is benefitted by that. And arguments about not being a god or not being omniscient are irrelevant. We need to make judgments with the minds we have, including whether to believe the claims of Abrahamic theists regarding their tri-omni God. What the faith-based thinker is saying is that one needs to turn those reasoning and moral faculties off and just accept that anything is possible however irrational it sounds. To the critical thinker, that's an admission that the beliefs can't be justified, that they just need to be accepted uncritically. To me, that's a poor choice to make and the closest thing to a sin against the self I can imagine.

Speaking of seeing a complete picture, I imagine at times what it would be like if there actually were creators that we might meet in an afterlife. What would they be like? What would please or disappoint them if anything? I have nothing to go by but the creation to indicate what they value. These are the beings that gave us those faculties. Should I hope that their plan was that I turn them off and accept the unevidenced claims of people speaking for them however absurd? If I have creators, if they gave me these faculties, and if they have expectations for me, it would not for me to ignore their message the faculties send. How would I answer them if I had? How would you?

That was a rhetorical question. I don't expect an answer to it. How could you address such creators short of, "Oops. My bad," and I don't expect you to say that, because I don't expect you to seriously consider that you might be mistaken and answer from that perspective. I expect a response that indicates that question doesn't deserve your consideration. Surprise me and tell me what you think you would say in that hypothetical situation.

You are assuming you know way more than you actually know. Yes, the greatest good for man may very well be suffering. Why do you assume that the greatest good is something as elusive as warm fuzzy feelings? There's are scenarios where suffering brings out the best in man and many religions understand that. In fact, constant comfort often does just the opposite, it brings out the worst in us, and makes us selfish.
If your facilities do not indicate to you that you should be striving to be a better individual, you have the choice to alter them. The mind and emotions are not set in stone, they are malleable and can be controlled by us. We get to choose whether whatever situations we go through make us better or worse.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

British Empire was driven by commerce that was financed by usury. Usury was banished by Holy Roman Empire before the advent of the Reformation.

So your argument is that the Enlightenment (the rise of humanism) and Industrial Revolution led to usury - presumably as a result of the rise of Protestantism judging by your reference to the Reformation - and that this was the cause of WWI and WWII? War is in man's blood from time immemorial. Modernity only increased the scale and killing power of the weapons used, as did the Middle Ages relative to antiquity with the advent of gunpowder weaponry.

So no comment on the windfall that those two were to humanity? When you asked "better for whom," I answered,

"Better for those who prefer that machines do whatever they find difficult or impossible, better for those able to enjoy electric lighting and air conditioning, better for people that wish to see the world or communicate in realtime with others in remote locations, better for people who enjoy television and the Internet. In our home, we have machines that wash our dishes, wash and dry our clothes, and several to cook our food, which stays fresh longer because we also have refrigerator. Almost anything machines make will be less expensive and probably more uniform in quality than handmade equivalents. I really appreciate my remote garage door opener. And my car. And the stereo in it."

That doesn't even mention the rise of democracy, another gift of the Enlightenment and humanist philosophy. No longer are we spirited off in the night by the king's guard to languish in a dungeon without trial. Today, we are autonomous citizens with guaranteed personal rights rather than peasants and subjects, and most citizens of Western democracies live middle class lives. The human condition has never been better than now. Life has never been so good for so many. How much credit shall we give the church for that?

the greatest good for man may very well be suffering

Please explain how that might be possible.

Also, that's a dangerous idea if incorrect. Who do you suppose I'm quoting here: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering" and "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you."?

Spoiler

That was from Mother Teresa, the head of multiple hospices, which mission is to relieve suffering. I've mentioned that I was a hospice medical director for over a decade. I knew many religious people dying who refused analgesia based in that belief, or the belief that suffering cleansed the soul, which is on the minds of those believers preparing to meet their makers

There's are scenarios where suffering brings out the best in man and many religions understand that.

There are many more scenarios where suffering is just suffering. Or maybe you buy into the Mother Teresa idea that all suffering must be Christ's kiss? I'm thinking of deforming rheumatoid arthritis of the hands now, a thing of the past where modern medicine is available. It's very painful and disabling. We can prevent it now with the newer DMARDs. Do you think that maybe we shouldn't?

constant comfort often does just the opposite, it brings out the worst in us, and makes us selfish.

It also often leads to good, comfortable people. I know many people that have lived comfortable lives and been of service to those around them. I live among many now.

I see that you chose not to answer the hypothetical question I asked you. Not a problem.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So your argument is that the Enlightenment (the rise of humanism) and Industrial Revolution led to usury - presumably as a result of the rise of Protestantism judging by your reference to the Reformation

You have it the wrong way round.
It was due to the Reformation, that Amsterdam became a banking capital, followed by London after William of Orange invaded Southern England, becoming King.
This is what drove the Industrial Revolution, and the enmity that spread round the world.

That doesn't even mention the rise of democracy..

No .. because that is not the subject being discussed.

..another gift of the Enlightenment and humanist philosophy..

Democracy was not "invented" in the17th. century.
Every nation has its own story to tell.

The human condition has never been better than now..

..from the point of view of global median wealth, you mean?
Is that your "benchmark" for success and quality of life?

Global median wealth per adult: $8,360
North America: $95,255
Africa: $1,111
List of countries by wealth per adult - Wikipedia

 

[Wildswanderer]

I see that you chose not to answer the hypothetical question I asked you. Not a problem.

The question of what God is like? God is love. He wants the greatest good for us.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Please explain how that might be possible.

I already did. Most comfortable, wealthy people are selfish and actually give less than people with less.
I'm not advocating living in poverty and suffering for its own sake, but that we take the lessons learned from suffering to become better.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not a big fan of blaming the victim.

This is exactly how I have always viewed the concept of karma. I find it to be rife with ethical flaws.