God and Suffering

[Christosfer]

I am sure that everyone of us has been involved in discussions such as these that end up arguing for or against the presence of God... and we all know how they end up. Despite my better judgment, I'll take a crack at the question.

Things are not "right" or "wrong" independent of a standard... I believe this standard is the "anchor" to which you referred. Some believe that standard to be God's word... it is right to behave a certain way because God wants me to behave that way. Other believe that standard is life... it is right to behave a certain way because it allows me to live. No doubt both sides would present an argument as to whose standard is objective, however, I think they would need to come to a common understanding on the definition of "objective".

This is all true, but I am referring to the that part of us that inherently knows a thing. Torturing babies for fun or profit is wrong. We don't need to discuss the ethics of it. I would even say that in any context we can say that it is wrong. If it were part of some cultural or religious tradition we should say that it is wrong. Not that it is wrong in our opinion. Do you see the difference? At some level there things that we just know are wrong or right.

Like C.S. Lewis said, (paraphrase) when someone does us wrong, like cut in line, or take our seat, and when we call them on it they don't respond with to hell with your rules, they will try to convince you that there are special circumstances that should be considered in this situation.

[Christosfer]

Renee1111,

Great post, I loved the imagery and explanation.

I would say “all” is a context not an “illusion” because an illusion is absence of substance or structure. Context would be the framework in which “all” is made evident, even if it is infinitely and perpetually transient. Framework would allow for laws and complexity on which to build “all”.

I can’t say that I share the idea that accepting this explanation would revolutionize human interaction. Many people put little value on life whether it is somebody else’s or their own. Interconnection would have no mitigating affect on the actions of these people. We see daily how people appear to be ever more willing to take their own life in order to end the lives of others so I don’t see how the thought that their lives were connected would in any way make them fundamentally change. Further if all life is inextricably linked what would it matter? I am just moving on to another state of being. Nothing was, or can, be accomplished in this life, nothing solved, the root problem, whatever it was that motivated the hatred, would carry on to the next state, that is if consciousness transcends this current state of our existence. If the consciousness does not transcend our current state it is meaningless, it is only present as a blip in eternity. If it has no cause and no purpose what we do is of little consequence as it only pertains to fractions of time to small to calculate in between the void where a perceived order is congealed from nothing and then returns, nothing more.

Fantastic response. I am quite impressed. I wish I had thought of it.
I have read it several times, and I have concluded that your response is much better than mine. :D

[Christosfer]

Renee1111,

Great post, I loved the imagery and explanation.

I would say “all” is a context not an “illusion” because an illusion is absence of substance or structure. Context would be the framework in which “all” is made evident, even if it is infinitely and perpetually transient. Framework would allow for laws and complexity on which to build “all”.

I can’t say that I share the idea that accepting this explanation would revolutionize human interaction. Many people put little value on life whether it is somebody else’s or their own. Interconnection would have no mitigating affect on the actions of these people. We see daily how people appear to be ever more willing to take their own life in order to end the lives of others so I don’t see how the thought that their lives were connected would in any way make them fundamentally change. Further if all life is inextricably linked what would it matter? I am just moving on to another state of being. Nothing was, or can, be accomplished in this life, nothing solved, the root problem, whatever it was that motivated the hatred, would carry on to the next state, that is if consciousness transcends this current state of our existence. If the consciousness does not transcend our current state it is meaningless, it is only present as a blip in eternity. If it has no cause and no purpose what we do is of little consequence as it only pertains to fractions of time to small to calculate in between the void where a perceived order is congealed from nothing and then returns, nothing more.

Fantastic response. I am quite impressed. I wish I had thought of it.
I have read it several times, and I have concluded that your response is much better than mine. :D

[1968]

This is all true, but I am referring to the that part of us that inherently knows a thing. Torturing babies for fun or profit is wrong. We don't need to discuss the ethics of it. I would even say that in any context we can say that it is wrong. If it were part of some cultural or religious tradition we should say that it is wrong. Not that it is wrong in our opinion. Do you see the difference? At some level there things that we just know are wrong or right.

The question begs an answer that does not support your conclusion. I do not share your belief that there is such a thing as "inherent knowledge", nor is it necessary that anyone do so in order to reject moral relativism... the view that "right" and "wrong" are merely a matter of opinion. I do not believe that we are born knowing right from wrong. I believe we are born tabula rasa and acquire knowledge to determine what is right and what is wrong.

[AngryFish]

The torture of children is arguably practiced by the major religions of the world already in the form of male, and what western society finds so horrible, female circumcision. If you attempt to diferenciate based on whether or not their is a religious consideration other forms of depraved behavior would fall under the catagory of being rejected because they serve to devalue or introduce disease both of which are not conducive to life. Further the study of the human brain shows fundamental and demonstrable structural difference in the brains of people who act in such ways suggesting that environment and education are not the issue.

[chip anderson]

These acts are preformed by men. Not God.

[Christosfer]

The question begs an answer that does not support your conclusion. I do not share your belief that there is such a thing as "inherent knowledge", nor is it necessary that anyone do so in order to reject moral relativism... the view that "right" and "wrong" are merely a matter of opinion. I do not believe that we are born knowing right from wrong. I believe we are born tabula rasa and acquire knowledge to determine what is right and what is wrong.

I might come to a crisis point in which I have no prior experience, on what criteria should I base my decision?
I am curious as to how you would reject moral relativism with what sounds like cultural or localized morals. Let me put it another way.
You said "determine right and wrong", and that is where I want to make a distinction. I would say that I do not determine what right and wrong are, I would discover right and wrong.
Would you agree with this clarification?
If not, once again, how would you reject moral relativism if you are the determiner of right and wrong?

[1968]

I might come to a crisis point in which I have no prior experience, on what criteria should I base my decision?

You cannot knowingly reach a "crisis point" devoid of context. You must have some experience and knowledge to recognize something as a crisis.

I am curious as to how you would reject moral relativism with what sounds like cultural or localized morals. Let me put it another way.
You said "determine right and wrong", and that is where I want to make a distinction. I would say that I do not determine what right and wrong are, I would discover right and wrong.

"Determine": "To establish or ascertain definitely, as after consideration, investigation, or calculation. See synonyms at discover." Source: http://www.answers.com/determine&r=67

[Bill West]

what A Bunch Of Junk !

[Christosfer]

I found this article last night and thought it was interesting considering our conversation. I am sure that many of you are familiar with Anthony Flew, this article link is to an interview with him by Prof. Gary Habermas. Anthony Flew was in a discussion group with the likes of C.S. Lewis and JRR Tolkien. He was an athiest of highest order. He now says he believes that there is a creative intelligence behind the universe.
Flew says that he has not been impressed with the moral argument, and that is the argument I have been putting forward in this discussion. Oh well. I intend to press on anyway.

paste and copy this address. link doesn't seem to work.

www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?

[Christosfer]

You cannot knowingly reach a "crisis point" devoid of context. You must have some experience and knowledge to recognize something as a crisis.

"Determine": "To establish or ascertain definitely, as after consideration, investigation, or calculation. See synonyms at discover." Source: http://www.answers.com/determine&r=67

So you agree with me then. :)

[Christosfer]

Okay, let me try this again. I have been trying to argue that there are moral laws that govern people. Much like gravity governs us. There is another law, the law of non contradiction, if something contradicts itself it is not true. This is not a law that anyone made up, it is out there to be discovered. Likewise, moral laws exist. I would say that murder is wrong rather you believe it is true or not, it is not a matter of opinion.
This was all to support the argument that the existence of suffering, objectively speaking, suggests that there is meaning to life. (Review previous posts) Suffering is not meaningless. It suggests an ought.


I will leave it at that for now. I hope this will spur some more conversation.

[rinselberg]

This discussion isn't my "cup of tea"; too abstract; too much like all the discussions I've ever encountered concerning the historic treatises of philosophers. But I think I saw that there's a relation here to the question of human altruism: How or where did that come from?

One of the most extreme manifestations of human altruism is the hero who sacrifices his or her own life to save the lives of others.

I recommend this four-page article that's available on the MSNBC website under the title "The hidden cost of heroism: Scientists mystified by people who put the lives of strangers over their own ..."

Find it here ...



Climate change
The eerie purple glow that threatens humanity ...

[1968]

Okay, let me try this again. I have been trying to argue that there are moral laws that govern people. Much like gravity governs us. There is another law, the law of non contradiction, if something contradicts itself it is not true. This is not a law that anyone made up, it is out there to be discovered. Likewise, moral laws exist. I would say that murder is wrong rather you believe it is true or not, it is not a matter of opinion.
This was all to support the argument that the existence of suffering, objectively speaking, suggests that there is meaning to life. (Review previous posts) Suffering is not meaningless. It suggests an ought.


I will leave it at that for now. I hope this will spur some more conversation.

You're losing me, too. I don't think you had to go through all of this to assert that suffering exists.

[Christosfer]

You're losing me, too. I don't think you had to go through all of this to assert that suffering exists.

THe point was not to prove the existence of suffering, but to point out the ought that is seen when looking at it as we are.

[Christosfer]

what A Bunch Of Junk !

Why do you say that?

[LandLord]

In Man's Search for Meaning, it's said that the meaning of life and suffering is different for each person. Frankl observed that the prisoners who decided they had something to live for, or a reason to suffer, could withstand much more than those without meaning.

Suffering doesn't prove God.

[abocandy]

God did create us, the earth, the trees and every living thing.
We are put here for his purpose - which is to help others. We all have feelings, a spirit, a soul, we are given FREE WILL to do what is right or wrong. Face it when you do something wrong- you know it is wrong you feel it in your gut. Well that is the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the only way! He is the way (to eternity-Heaven)
He is the truth (the word of God)
He is the life (for our souls to have eternal Peace)

God Loves you and wants you to seek him, If you read his word (the Bible)
and seek him, he will give you answers.
Do not judge his goodness by "hypocrites" of the world "man"
We all fall short of the Glory of God. WE ARE ALL FORGIVABLE (if you ask and receive it)
We don't always understand why things happen (suffering- pain)
But Give it to God , he will comfort you, and make a way for you to over come ANYTHING!!!
I know this is more info then you wanted but..................:p

[chip anderson]

You are! What more do you want from God?

[Pete Hanlin]

Wow, this might be the first thread ever to quote from both Ravi Zacharais (sp?) and C.S. Lewis (two excellent authors/philosophers).

Lewis would also argue that the very concept of pleasure necessitates the existence of suffering (after all, how do you define anything without creating a definition of the opposite- i.e., the opposite or absence of what you are describing).

Back to the original question- suffering would not exist without God, to the extent that God is the primary cause of all existence. That is not to say God causes suffering, however. For example, perhaps I purchase a car for my son. I teach him how to operate the car safely, but he decides to drive irresponsibly and ends up causing a fatality. While I did provide the means for the accident (the car), I did not cause the accident (his decision did).

Ah, but why does God give us something (i.e., free will) that allows us to cause suffering? For the same reason I provide a car to my son (i.e., providing the opportunity for good is a good thing- however, by definition if good things can happen there must also be the potential for bad- otherwise, how would we define good).

God created the opportunity for the Holocaust to happen- I happen to believe God also had foreknowledge the Holocaust would happen. That is not the same as God causing the Holocaust.

[Christosfer]

Back to the original question- suffering would not exist without God, to the extent that God is the primary cause of all existence. .

I like your post Pete. I agree with your sentiment and like the way you stated it. I may have said somewhere in all this that without God there is no suffering. This is my reasoning; if there is no God that created all and is ruler over all creation, then there is no justification to say that X=suffering.

[Christosfer]

I thought I would pose another question to see what kind of response I get.

It seems to me that some suffering is evidence of evil. The holocaust was mentioned so I will draw that to your attention.
I would suggest that this is evidence of evil.

Suffering shows that evil exists absolutely.
Evil is real.

Comments?

[rbaker]

I have been taking a class this fall at the college where I am employed. The class meets a general education requirement for my degree.

The semester is over. All of the OptiBoard opinions are in.

Did you pass the course? Of greater importance, have you come to any personal conclusions that you can share with us?
.

[1968]

I may have said somewhere in all this that without God there is no suffering. This is my reasoning; if there is no God that created all and is ruler over all creation, then there is no justification to say that X=suffering.

That is an assertion, not a line of reasoning. One could just as easily assert that "all" was not created by God and that suffering still exists.

[LandLord]

Suffering does not prove God.
Suffering does not prove Evil.
Evil does prove God.

If there were no God or evil, there would still be suffering because we can feel pain in many ways.

Selfishness is the basis of all evil.

If there were no God, then there would be no evil, or good, no right or wrong. There would just be our own personal opinions. Without God, who is to say that murder is wrong?