Ep. 101: The problem of suffering

[Emery]

I still think the Christian solution to the problem of suffering is inconsistent with free will in heaven. If suffering is necessary for free will to exist on earth, it seems that must be the case in heaven. If not, can someone describe to me the sort of animal that is limited, has free will, yet does not sin?

[humanguy]

I still think the Christian solution to the problem of suffering is inconsistent with free will in heaven. If suffering is necessary for free will to exist on earth, it seems that must be the case in heaven. If not, can someone describe to me the sort of animal that is limited, has free will, yet does not sin?

Human beings are limited. We have free will. We don't sin.

I don't know if that qualifies us to be animals, though.

[Dr Mundo]

I still think the Christian solution to the problem of suffering is inconsistent with free will in heaven. If suffering is necessary for free will to exist on earth, it seems that must be the case in heaven. If not, can someone describe to me the sort of animal that is limited, has free will, yet does not sin?

In what way are we using the word sin? I still really don't understand the concept of it. Especially when you try relating it to free will, and making a comparison with any sort of combination of the two.. What does it mean to have free will, if when we sin because of our free will, we will be severely punished for it. Unless we know the magic words, or have the magic beliefs, or love someone whom we have never had a direct conversation with. How free are we, and again what does it mean to sin. To disobey God? or does it mean something more?

[Emery]

You guys need to put your Christian thinking caps on here. Knowing what you know about how Christians define sin, I'm wondering if you think I've identified an inconsistency in their explanation of the problem of suffering.

[Dr Mundo]

You guys need to put your Christian thinking caps on here. Knowing what you know about how Christians define sin, I'm wondering if you think I've identified an inconsistency in their explanation of the problem of suffering.

Here is my problem with it Emery. I feel that you have correctly identified an inconsistency given the definition of an all powerful all loving God, in combination with the suffering we see happen all around us. What we need to do is pin them down to a specific position because if we don't, people like Tony will start changing what it means to be all powerful/loving. Now all of a sudden, God isn't all powerful, he is just powerful enough to be called God, but not powerful enough to take blame for things that cause suffering. Now God isn't all loving, but just loving enough to let us suffer, so the greater good can be achieved. So yes Given what I know about the Christian God, I don't see a world consistent with that of a world created by that God. But to be honest the God of the Bible doesn't strike me to be much of a loving/considerate Character anyways. So I see inconsistencies with not just the state of the world and an all loving/powerful God, but defining characteristics, of others who claim to be Christians, of their very same God. So that is why I asked for those to be defined for me before I commented. I would rather not argue past them, like what i heard Tony do with your argument. He said he also thought that was inconsistent, when I thought you were actually describing the God of the Bible, yet in his view you didn't describe his God.

As for the argument against the existence of God because there is suffering in the world. I doubt anyone of the Atheists here would make that argument. We would all be in agreement that suffering does not disprove a generic God. So from now on is it ok if we use the shorthand God, to describe an all loving, all powerful God?

Also one last thing. Your statements comparing the actions of God, and the devil, I thought were brilliant. I would like to see if anyone else thought that was a great thing to point out and if we can have a discussion based around that as well. Tony's Surgeon and murderer analogy is off the mark I think. Because now we are not talking about the same action. A surgeon carefully making incisions into the body, vs a Murderer stabbing a knife into someone is different. A better example would be, I think this, driving a car 70 miles/hr on the freeway is ok, but through a school zone during lunch time is not. The action itself is still driving, but we are looking for the effect of those actions on others to judge it as moral. (still though the setting for the action affects what the action is as well, so I think even this falls short). Either way God giving you face cancer vs the devil giving you face cancer, is different. Now we are looking at the action, and its affects on the person and their loved ones.

[tonyenglish7]

Mr. Mundo,

Here is my problem with it Emery. I feel that you have correctly identified an inconsistency given the definition of an all powerful all loving God, in combination with the suffering we see happen all around us. What we need to do is pin them down to a specific position because if we don't, people like Tony will start changing what it means to be all powerful/loving. Now all of a sudden, God isn't all powerful, he is just powerful enough to be called God, but not powerful enough to take blame for things that cause suffering. Now God isn't all loving, but just loving enough to let us suffer, so the greater good can be achieved. So yes given what I know about the Christian God, I don't see a world consistent with that of a world created by that God.

This is the point, God is powerful enough to do anything that is logically possible. He is not powerful enough to do something logically incoherent, like make a free creature do something. So, the idea that God can create a true free creature is a greater good then God creating robots. You would rather be free then be determined, (Although in materialism you are determined by prior past events and only have the illusion of personhood and freedom).

And remember, we were discussing the argument that the atheist has the burden of proof to defend, namely that that Christian God is not compatible with a world which contains suffering. The point that Emery recognized is that the logical problem of suffering fails to prove there is no Christian God. All that is needed to defend against the positive claim of the atheist is one plausible explanation. It is just not a contradiction that suffering and a loving God coexist for the reasons we discussed.

But to be honest the God of the Bible doesn't strike me to be much of a loving/considerate Character anyways. So I see inconsistencies with not just the state of the world and an all loving/powerful God, but defining characteristics, of others who claim to be Christians, of their very same God. So that is why I asked for those to be defined for me before I commented. I would rather not argue past them, like what i heard Tony do with your argument. He said he also thought that was inconsistent, when I thought you were actually describing the God of the Bible, yet in his view you didn't describe his God.

The God of the bible is an all loving, and all just God who has the right to judge sin and demand obedience.

As for the argument against the existence of God because there is suffering in the world. I doubt anyone of the Atheists here would make that argument. We would all be in agreement that suffering does not disprove a generic God. So from now on is it ok if we use the shorthand God, to describe an all loving, all powerful God?

Also one last thing. Your statements comparing the actions of God, and the devil, I thought were brilliant. I would like to see if anyone else thought that was a great thing to point out and if we can have a discussion based around that as well. Tony's Surgeon and murderer analogy is off the mark I think. Because now we are not talking about the same action. A surgeon carefully making incisions into the body, vs a Murderer stabbing a knife into someone is different. A better example would be, I think this, driving a car 70 miles/hr on the freeway is ok, but through a school zone during lunch time is not. The action itself is still driving, but we are looking for the effect of those actions on others to judge it as moral. (still though the setting for the action affects what the action is as well, so I think even this falls short). Either way God giving you face cancer vs the devil giving you face cancer, is different. Now we are looking at the action, and its affects on the person and their loved ones.

My point is that evil is a bad relationship between persons. Things not relating correctly between persons. Cancer is a flaw in the function of the body, rust is the corrosion of the metal, murder is the unfair stealing of a life, a lie is the distortion of something true. The question is, does God do evil? No, I don't think God does evil. All evil is caused by free will beings rebelling against the goodness and oughtness of morality which is grounded in the nature of God. But God definitely allowed evil. So, in the Christian view, there is a higher purpose, a long range plan, a better world that would not be possible without freedom and suffering having been allowed. Is this true? Maybe or maybe not. But it is enough to show that the argument from suffering is not strong enough to prove atheism. And since atheism really has no other arguments, and since theism has many strong arguments, it is more rational to be a theist and more specifically a Christian.

[tonyenglish7]

Emery,

I still think the Christian solution to the problem of suffering is inconsistent with free will in heaven. If suffering is necessary for free will to exist on earth, it seems that must be the case in heaven. If not, can someone describe to me the sort of animal that is limited, has free will, yet does not sin?

Again, Are we free enough to freely give up our freedom to sin if offered? I think that is the offer of the Christian life. We will be glorified into a new being that has the same character as God, with the inability to sin. Yet we will have freely chosen that state of being. This is what is meant to be set free from the slavery of sin. I don't see how that is a logical problem? God is not free to sin yet is a free being...

[humanguy]

You guys need to put your Christian thinking caps on here. Knowing what you know about how Christians define sin, I'm wondering if you think I've identified an inconsistency in their explanation of the problem of suffering.

I'd say that you have, yes. But with all respect, regard and affection I have to add: so what?

Scrutinizing the details of Christianity only reveal how inane it all is. But inanity doesn't mean that something isn't real. Inconsistency on a human being's part isn't in and of itself evidence that the human being isn't real.

I really think that getting into the dirty little details of what Christianity is about is to miss the point. You may as well point out inconsistencies in the Superman story.

Anyway, I thought heaven was supposed to be a whole new ball game, no suffering, no sin, just happy times and noodle salad.

[Emery]

Again, Are we free enough to freely give up our freedom to sin if offered?

If sin is defined the same way in heaven as it is here on earth, then to "give up our freedom to sin" is no different than giving up our free will. I suppose we can choose to give up our free will, but if that is all God wanted--to assemble a group of humans willing to give up their free will--then he could have done so from the beginning by only creating people he knew would be willing to do so, and sparing the rest of us the agony of existence.

I think that is the offer of the Christian life. We will be glorified into a new being that has the same character as God, with the inability to sin. Yet we will have freely chosen that state of being. This is what is meant to be set free from the slavery of sin. I don't see how that is a logical problem? God is not free to sin yet is a free being...

What act is God not free to do? Can God not kill? Can he not torment? Can he not deceive? It's sort of like saying that the Ambassador from China cannot speed because he has diplomatic immunity. Just because he cannot get a ticket does not mean he is not speeding.

[Emery]

You guys need to put your Christian thinking caps on here. Knowing what you know about how Christians define sin, I'm wondering if you think I've identified an inconsistency in their explanation of the problem of suffering.

I'd say that you have, yes. But with all respect, regard and affection I have to add: so what?

Scrutinizing the details of Christianity only reveal how inane it all is. But inanity doesn't mean that something isn't real. Inconsistency on a human being's part isn't in and of itself evidence that the human being isn't real.

I really think that getting into the dirty little details of what Christianity is about is to miss the point. You may as well point out inconsistencies in the Superman story.

Anyway, I thought heaven was supposed to be a whole new ball game, no suffering, no sin, just happy times and noodle salad.

Sure, there are those who think the whole debate is a waste of time, and I admit that often it is. However, unlike the Superman story, the Christian myth affects how people live, how they raise their children, and how they conduct their own lives. Often this affect is positive, but it can also be negative and sometimes devastating. For me it was the latter, so my mission is to tell what I know in hopes of helping someone else like me break free of the bonds maybe a little bit sooner.

For those unaffected by Christianity, I can totally see how this is a wasted endeavor. My wife, for example, was raised with no Christian influence at all, so doesn't really get the podcast. If I were in her shoes, I'd probably feel the same way.

[mitchellmckain]

I think that the so called "inconsistency" is derived from several oversimplifications with regards to what is sin, what is free will or what heaven is all about, either by Christians or "christians" who don't concern themselves with such logical problems or by atheists who indulge in what amounts to straw-man like argumentation because they simply have no interest in looking for the resolution of such logical inconsistencies. It is the typical approach of creationists to argue against evolution based on the most idiotic explanations of the theory. Having no interest in an understanding of evolution that actually makes sense, they argue against the theory based on the most childishly idiotic description of the theory. It is the same kind of selective stupidity that was described in that article about my-side bias. The point is not that there are no christians with an inconsistent understanding of sin, free will and heaven but simply that this is not an inherent flaw in Christianity itself.

The oversimplification I am talking about typically equates sin with making mistakes, breaking rules or acting in anyway contrary to the expectations of a deity. Obviously if every choice you make is between what the deity wants you to do and any other alternative, then equating sin to the latter is not going to leave any compatability between free will and being without sin, and is certainly going to make you wonder why in the world we should have any free will in the first place. This points right to one of the most basic flaws in Emery's argument which is that it makes free will solely about the choice of whether to sin or not. But the absurdity of this is revealed when you compare this to saying you have no freedom to eat what you want at the dinner table unless there are poisoned entrees there as well. Just as there are plenty of choices on the dinner table without having any poisoned dishes to choose from, the absence of sin does not mean there is no free will. Clearly it makes no sense for God to give us free will just so that we can sin if we want to, but rather that free will is a necessity for love and that sin and evil is just an unfortunate possibility that unavoidably comes along with it.

Making mistakes is how we learn and thus equating sin with the making of any mistake whatsoever leaves no room for learning in human life, which equates a sinless life with that of a mindless robot. But if we accept this basic fact that mistakes is a natural part of the learning process and then ask what sin could be, then the most natural answer would be something that interferes with the natural process of learning from our mistakes and there are a number of bad habits which do this. A big part of the problem here is religous legalism and the use of religion as a tool of power to control and manipulate other people. It is rather easy to see how such a distortion of religion is going to quickly come into conflict with the exercise of free will and thus it is no surprise at all that tends to make sin into something which is incompatable with free will.

The oversimplifications of free will and or heaven is closely related to those described above about sin. If heaven a place where God dictates everything that people do, or where there is no more mistakes or learning, then it is hard to see how there is any place for free will there at all. Certainly visions of heaven where people are totally blissed out doing nothing but sing praises to God 24/7 does not sound like a place where free will plays any role, and that does not sound any more desirable to me than it does to most atheists. Since I see growth, excitement, learning, creativity, challenges, and passion as indispensible parts of anything that I can call life, then I have to expect that all these things an unlimited supply must be a part of any heaven where eternal life is to found. And since it seems rather clear to me that what is comfortable and easy very rarely promotes learning and growth, I rather doubt that these are descriptive of such a place. On the contrary, just as suffering is an indispensible part of the development of life in the process of evolution, so also does suffering play an unavoidable role in anything which can be called life and that must include the eternal life which is promised in heaven.

BUT there is a kind of suffering that does not promote growth and learning but crushes it. I am talking about the hopeless kind suffering where things simply go from bad to worse because people not only refuse to learn from their mistakes, but typically deny any responsibility for the misery they cause one another. Such is the essence of every place and situation that can be described as a kind of hell.

[humanguy]

Sure, there are those who think the whole debate is a waste of time, and I admit that often it is. However, unlike the Superman story, the Christian myth affects how people live, how they raise their children, and how they conduct their own lives. Often this affect is positive, but it can also be negative and sometimes devastating. For me it was the latter, so my mission is to tell what I know in hopes of helping someone else like me break free of the bonds maybe a little bit sooner.

For those unaffected by Christianity, I can totally see how this is a wasted endeavor. My wife, for example, was raised with no Christian influence at all, so doesn't really get the podcast. If I were in her shoes, I'd probably feel the same way.

I understand, and I'm sorry if what I said came across as dismissive, Emery.

Tony English is a bad person. What good will come from engaging with him? It almost legitimizes him, him and his violent anti-human fantasies.

You're too nice to Tony. If you want to help someone who's going through the kind of upbringing that you had, then show them what it's like to stand up to an obdurate puffed-up petty-minded humanity-hating religious bully like Tony English.

[Dr Mundo]

Welcome back Tony. Honestly hope all is well for you. Lets get down to business though:

This is the point, God is powerful enough to do anything that is logically possible. He is not powerful enough to do something logically incoherent, like make a free creature do something.

Okay you can say that, but I have no reason to believe you. How did you find out this information about the limitations of your God? First of all I don't even believe you when you say it does exists, I have no reason to believe that either. But lets skip that part for now.

(Although in materialism you are determined by prior past events and only have the illusion of personhood and freedom).

That seems like an absurd view of materialism. It is my opinion that we are limited by our genes as to what we can do, but within those limitations we are free enough to be held personally responsible for our actions. As for person-hood only being an illusion within materialism, I don't even know what you mean by that. How are people any less persons without a belief in supernatural concepts?

And remember, we were discussing the argument that the atheist has the burden of proof to defend, namely that that Christian God is not compatible with a world which contains suffering. The point that Emery recognized is that the logical problem of suffering fails to prove there is no Christian God.

I got a different message from Emery than you did apparently. A specific view of the Christian God does seem to be at odds with the suffering of this world.

All that is needed to defend against the positive claim of the atheist is one plausible explanation. It is just not a contradiction that suffering and a loving God coexist for the reasons we discussed.

Sure if you are limited in power than suffering of any amount is reasonably expected, given the way our world as we know it is developed. But when you mix in the concepts of a both All powerful and All loving God, then yes there seems to be a problem. But now you can define the God to not be all powerful and solve your problem. You still have to demonstrate that this God even exists and what the limit to his powers are. Or you can, like I feel you have done all along, just define away problems and change meanings of words so that you can still have your God concept "work" for you.

The God of the bible is an all loving, and all just God who has the right to judge sin and demand obedience.

Then I think you and I have a different concept of Love, and Justice. I feel like yours is warped by trying to justify the actions of a monster whom you feel is always right. (I love Emery's comment on the speeding diplomat.) Do you think Killing all the first born of the Egyptians is an action that is compatible with an all loving moral character? That is just one of many moral problems I see with your God.

My point is that evil is a bad relationship between persons. Things not relating correctly between persons.

Do you count God or the Devil as a "person"? Because then the devil is exempt from your definition of Evil, isn't it?

Cancer is a flaw in the function of the body

There is no intention for malice exibited by the Cancerous cells, or the carcinogenic that causes the cancer itself, So I see no Moral implications within biological frameworks.

rust is the corrosion of the metal,

Again now you are just talking about Chemistry, I am unaware of any intentions to deform something you think is shinny. its just chemistry doing what it does best, Changing matter/energy.

murder is the unfair stealing of a life

This I think would be evil. Murder isn't justifiable I don't like the death penalty for this reason. I assume you are also against the death penalty?

a lie is the distortion of something true.

I am of the opinion that honesty is the best policy. Depending on the situation though distorting the truth isn't always evil.

The question is, does God do evil? No, I don't think God does evil. All evil is caused by free will beings rebelling against the goodness and oughtness of morality which is grounded in the nature of God.

So by definition your God cannot do evil? How convenient. So what do you make of the commands issued by your God to murder other tribes of people, because they did not live their lives according to its standards. Does the action automatically become not evil because its of divine authority? And what of the trauma caused to Abraham's son upon being tied to a sacrificial alter? Waiting for death, and for that death to be delivered to you by the hands of your own father, to me seems to be an evil command. I say to me because we all have different aspects as to what is evil, so your claim that evil is free will beings rebelling against the goodness and oughtness of morality, really should read. "FWB rebelling against the goodness and oughtness of Tony's morality." because we clearly don't share the same views on good/evil, moral/immoral, or the concept of justice.

But God definitely allowed evil. So, in the Christian view, there is a higher purpose, a long range plan, a better world that would not be possible without freedom and suffering having been allowed.

And you know this how?

Is this true? Maybe or maybe not.

The cell phone monster that eats souls on their way to heaven, wants you to send me 1000 Dollars a day, through FedEx and if you don't it will bite your fingers off one by one at some arbitrary night some time in the future. is this true? Maybe or Maybe not. Okay what did I accomplish by that?

But it is enough to show that the argument from suffering is not strong enough to prove atheism.

There are no arguments strong enough to Prove Atheism. Proving atheism is a stupid Goal to have, in my opinion. I don't expect you to prove to me that the Cell phone monster named Geesous doesn't exist. I just have no good reason to believe and so, it is more tenable (to me) to with-hold belief in such a being, until evidence is presented to us, to have sufficient reasons to believe in it.

And since atheism really has no other arguments, and since theism has many strong arguments, it is more rational to be a theist and more specifically a Christian.

Tony, please don't think I am saying this to be offensive It is not my intention but if it comes off that way then just tell me what you honestly think of it. I think you would benefit from enrolling in an Intro to Logic class taught at a local university or community college. I found that class to be immensely helpful in formulating my own arguments, and being able to identify that validity/soundness of others. If I am wrong in this than please Atheists/Theists tell me in what way I am in error here. I don't know if you have taken those classes or not, But I think that going back to look at that information again would be of great benefit to anyone really, but you specifically.

[tonyenglish7]

Emery,

If sin is defined the same way in heaven as it is here on earth, then to "give up our freedom to sin" is no different than giving up our free will. I suppose we can choose to give up our free will, but if that is all God wanted--to assemble a group of humans willing to give up their free will--then he could have done so from the beginning by only creating people he knew would be willing to do so, and sparing the rest of us the agony of existence.

Interesting point? But would that really be fair? And how about second order morals like long-suffering, bravery and loyalty? For those being saved there is purpose and for those who are, they serve a purpose. God is able to create vessels for honor and for dishonor. There has to be black pixels in the TV for the lighted ones to shine through. And existence is a gift itself, even with suffering, most would still prefer to exist then not to exist even given a fair judgement. But there are some that would have preferred not to exist. Jesus said of Judas, it would have been better for him if he was never born.

[tonyenglish7]

Mundo,

That seems like an absurd view of materialism. It is my opinion that we are limited by our genes as to what we can do, but within those limitations we are free enough to be held personally responsible for our actions. As for person-hood only being an illusion within materialism, I don't even know what you mean by that. How are people any less persons without a belief in supernatural concepts?

Materialism is the view that nothing exists except matter and energy. So, you evolved by chance without any purpose or reason and traits developed that aided in the passing on of genes. Consciousness is an illusion because it arose only to help propagate the gene pool and came about by simple chance events. So, even the decision to be a materialist is not made by a personal rational mind, but is made by a brain of synapses firing due to prior simple events that allowed them to survive. Therefore, a materialist is completely determined, even if they are under the illusion that they are not. There is no way to determine what is actually true in materialism, all is the result of simple events which are random and chance by nature.