Suffering, Gods Mechanism for Empathy

[quantumfireball2099]

This conversation is happening on a facebook post that a 'friend' had put up. I'm not sure where to go with it and was wondering what you guys think would be an adequate response to his last post.

Him - The sufering in the world is not the failure of God's love for us; it is that love in action

Me- I find this quote highly despicable and offensive, and I think that all of the children that are being raped at this very moment would agree.

Him- That's the point. It's a quote from Shadowlands. In the context of the script. Suffering is God's mechanism to rouse a selfish world to the plight of others. By being offended, you thereby prove the premise of Lewis' theology of Suffering.

Me- And do you agree with that? That god uses suffering so that his creation will feel empathy towards those that suffer? Or are you just quoting Lewis?

Him- I don't know what I think about it yet. I think that it's definitely a possibility. I have no better explanation for why people suffer and I know that I am definitely more aware of people when they're in pain and have greater need of God when I am in pain. If I experience no suffering I would have no need to seek God because I would have no need of him. Likewise, if people only ever experience happiness then they too would have no need to seek God. So, I suppose I do agree.

Me- I think that it's quite a sick and twisted mechanism that God would allow children to be raped just so that others would be aware of it... That's disgusting. How could you call that god omnipotent and all loving.

Him- Is it possible that your presuppositions are off? If God's purpose is for everyone to be happen then you're absolutely right. What kind of god could allow such an atrocious act? But if God's reasons for allowing such a thing aren't about happiness but about the shaping of a person to be worthy of his love then there is some reason. Am I saying that God doesn't care that it happens? No. Is God the cause of this? No. He is just the omnipotent force that doesn't intervene and you assume that because he doesn't intervene then he is, therefore, either uncaring or unable. It is possible that God's reasons for such an atrocity (among other) is a result of A) Humanity's fallen nature B) God's attempt to allow humanity to delve further into their depravity or to C) God allowing humanity to see itself and look to a higher power?

That's where it's ended so far, I have yet to respond.

I'm not sure where to go at this point and don't really have time to delve deep into my philisophical self =) I'll update tomorrow with more, but for now let me know what you guys think about what he and I have said and how you guys would respond.

 

[televator]

If god could not create empathy , and everlasting appreciation for him without suffering what does that say of him?

And I love the sort of relativistic apology for god's action/inaction.

Paraphrase: "If god's intentions is for you to be happy, but there's still suffering in the world, then he is committing atrocities. If god's plan is all about needing god's love, and having unconditional love for him, then suffering is A-Okay."

That is one helluva sadistic f@ck for a god.... Is this guy a masochist?

Edited for clearer readability.

 

[quantumfireball2099]

Is this guy a masochist?

Not that I know of, but it's possible. He is going to a Christian College to be a pastor.

Here is the rest from last night -

Him-

Me-"If I were a parent, my goal for my child would be for him/her to be happy. My child would get my love by default because I had my part in creating him/her, they are worthy and deserving of my love because I brought their life into existance. If I expected them to 'earn' my love, than I would be a prick."

So your love for your child would only manifest itself in the final goal of making them happy? I wasn't implying that humanity needed to "earn" God's love only that God wanted them to be "lovable." Humanity is not inherently good no matter what you may have read. St. Augustine described an infant child as the epitome of evil because of their selfishness. Not saying that they were evil simply a metaphor for the fallen state. If your end goal is for happiness, then you squelch the various things learned through a spectrum of other emotions. God takes joy in our happiness, but a life of just happiness is one dimensional. God isn't a prick for wanting humanity to experience life's facets (not that I'm saying that being raped is one of life's facets. s. I'm speaking in the broad not specific).

Me-"I can't accept that a omnipotent, all loving god exists but yet refuses to help the innocent as they suffer. He just sits there, watching a child being molested, with folded arms and indifference.

" Yes, I am familiar with the problem of evil. It's been some time so forgive me for not directly bringing it in this discussion. 1) I never asked you to accept my god. 2) But nonetheless, for the purpose of this discussion, thank you for accepting the presupposition that he exists. Without this presupposition there is really no purpose to this discussion. It would be just one of morality (Raping children is wrong). You assume indifference is the reason for lack of action, but once again you're not even bringing into the discussion my point. You're almost setting me up as a straw man. . . almost. Also, I'd like to point out that I refuse to resort to the theological raspberry, "He's God. He has his reasons." All of this to say: The purpose of this is to hash out why an omnipotent God would allow the raping of children.

Him-Now another issue that this brings up is, "love." What do we mean by love? He isn't in love with us no matter what modern Christian music sounds like. Generally speaking, we view God as a benevolent old man. God does not want to see us only happy. The rejection and depravity of this world indicates that those rejected and subject to torment were not made for this world. Humanity was not made for this world. The suffering we endure allows us to let go of the things of this world in expectation of the next. That was Lewis' point in A Grief Observed (the reason for this discussion). If you presuppose with me that the Bible is true and that YHWH exists, then you also presuppose that eternal life exists. If a reward exists for those that endure the hardships of this life (i.e. being raped as a child) then the hardships of this life pale in comparison to the reward on the other side. Am I saying that evil is right? No. That it should be a part of this world? No. Rape, in general, is disgusting. We are simply discussing the purpose of suffering. You say that due to suffering no god can exist. I'm saying that God can and does.

If you just gave something to your child without them having known any other circumstance then that would become the norm until the point that they took it for granted. If you allow them to experience the darker points of life while guiding them through it then they have a full appreciation of what they have been given and how precious it truly is.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Me (The quotes of what he wrote, the "----" annotate my response)

"So your love for your child would only manifest itself in the final goal of making them happy?"

----No, that's not what I mean. My love for my child would be the default. I would love it unconditionally because I helped create it.
　
"I wasn't implying that humanity needed to "earn" God's love only that God wanted them to be "lovable." Humanity is not inherently good no matter what you may have read. St. Augustine described an infant child as the epitome of evil because of their selfishness. Not saying that they were evil simply a metaphor for the fallen state."

----Why should we have to do anything to be 'loveable'? God, in his perfection, created us. That in itself should be enough. I don't know where you stand on the literal reading of the bible, and whether or not there was a Garden of Eden and original sin so I'll let you explain that before I continue on this particular issue.

"If your end goal is for happiness, then you squelch the various things learned through a spectrum of other emotions. God takes joy in our happiness, but a life of just happiness is one dimensional. God isn't a prick for wanting humanity to experience life's facets (not that I'm saying that being raped is one of life's facets. I'm speaking in the broad not specific)."

----Sure, life is a learning experience, but you wouldn't put your child at the top of the stairs, knowing he was going to fall down them, would you? God could just have easily created a life, wherein we experience all facets of life except those that do not build us up (murder, rape, starvation), could he not? He is omipotent, right?


"Also, I'd like to point out that I refuse to resort to the theological raspberry,
"He's God. He has his reasons."

---- Good to hear =) That is always quite convienient.

"Now another issue that this brings up is, "love."
What do we mean by love?
He isn't in love with us no matter what modern Christian music sounds like. Generally speaking, we view God as a benevolent old man. God does not want to see us only happy. The rejection and depravity of this world indicates that those rejected and subject to torment were not made for this world. Humanity was not made for this world."

---- Humanity was not made for this world? Could you please explain?

The suffering we endure allows us to let go of the things of this world in expectation of the next. That was Lewis' point in A Grief Observed (the reason for this discussion). If you presuppose with me that the Bible is true and that YHWH exists, then you also presuppose that eternal life exists. If a reward exists for those that endure the hardships of this life (i.e. being raped as a child) then the hardships of this life pale in comparison to the reward on the other side.

---- I will pre-suppose only up to a certain point The Bible being 'true' is not one of them, whatever you mean by true (as the bible is full of errors and inconsistancies)

"Am I saying that evil is right? No. That it should be a part of this world? No. Rape, in general, is disgusting. We are simply discussing the purpose of suffering. You say that due to suffering no god can exist. I'm saying that God can and does."
　
---- Ok, so lets say your version of god does exist. The short version of my take, again from The Problem of Evil, sorry to be repetative, but I can't explain it any better;
"If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist."
So we can say that he exists, but he would not be perfectly good, either that or he is
incapable of doing anything about evil.

"If you just gave something to your child without them having known any other circumstance then that would become the norm until the point that they took it for granted. If you allow them to experience the darker points of life while guiding them through it then they have a full appreciation of what they have been given and how precious it truly is."

---- Sure, this is taking into account that we are not omnicient. Again, would you put you child at the top of the stairs if you KNEW he/she would fall down them?

EDIT: Cleaned up the post a bit.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You can't claim an omnipotent, omniscient "God" character who at the same time is forced to come up with crude Rube Goldberg contraptions to get shit done. The complexity of these sort of apologetics are actually an argument AGAINST an all-powerful, all-knowing being.

If I need to lift an engine out of my car to work on it, I need an engine hoist. If I am amazingly strong, I can lift it out with my bare hands. If I have some level of super powers, I can repair the engine without removing it at all. If I've got really good super telepathic engine maintenance powers, my engine never breaks down. If I'm Superman, I can just fly everywhere and leave the car. If I'm this "God" character, I don't need to go anywhere because I'm everywhere.

The same thing goes for giving human beings some sort of knowledge or emotional capacity. As a normal person, I can tell and show people things that might influence them. If I am a powerful politician, I can make those lessons bigger and put some weight behind them. If I'm a supernatural telepath, maybe I can reach out and change everyone's mind. If I'm "God" I should be able to make a person correctly the first time, and not have to go through all of this nonsense to retrofit people with empathy.

 

[quantumfireball2099]

If I'm "God" I should be able to make a person correctly the first time, and not have to go through all of this nonsense to retrofit people with empathy.

Agreed. But it seems to me that they are describing a god that is some sort of extremely bored psycopath, and we are his playthings. Another person posted a response to me which makes me even more disgusted at the whole thing.

Other guy -

"Is it possible that the result of love is not always happiness? My parents love me, but if they were to do everything possible to make me happy then I would never grow up. If the parent makes you always happy you end up with an extremely ...selfish child who demands that everyone around them make them happy. Also, who is to say that by stopping certain suffering the world might be worse off? If the suffering that Hitler faced near the end of WWII was stopped the world would have been much worse off. (Not that I believe God would have done that, just suggesting a hypothetical).

This argument is also relying on the fact that this reality around us is all that will ever exist. What if there is more? What if the suffering that occurs here allows a greater happiness there? Which would be more evil then, to allow happiness here and eternal suffering there or temporary suffering here while eternal happiness there?

I also notice that much of your arguing is based on the suffering of children. And yes, it is a terrible thing when children suffer, but then again adults suffering is not as much a shock factor is it? But the suffering of the world extends far beyond those that we see as innocent. The suffering of the world extends far beyond that, all the way to those that are in old age and die of cancer. I know about some of that suffering since I watched my grandfather suffer in that way. I'm not saying that I fully understand any of those, and pithy comments on the nature and reason for suffering do not ease that in any way. But I think that there is some truth in that statement by Lewis, even if I don't completely get it. Answers to things like this never come easily."

Me -

---- One thing to remember is that your parents were not omnicient. If they were, and they still let you make mistakes that would truely hurt you, such as putting your hand on a hot iron or letting you run around with a pencil then they would lose custody of you, and rightly so. Do you agree?

---- This reality is the only reality that we KNOW exists. What if there is more? What if Satan wrote the bible and is tricking everyone into believing in YHWH? What if there is a god who put us on the planet but he will only accept those who reject religion?

Also, would you really worship a god who plays games like this? More suffering here on earth allows greater happiness in heaven... he makes the rules, why should he play these silly games? Is he really that bored?

----Yes, I use children as examples because they are innocent and crimes against them are some of the worst I could imagine.

It makes my stomach churn when people admit to thinking like this...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Agreed. But it seems to me that they are describing a god that is some sort of extremely bored psycopath, and we are his playthings. Another person posted a response to me which makes me even more disgusted at the whole thing.

Other guy -

"Is it possible that the result of love is not always happiness? My parents love me, but if they were to do everything possible to make me happy then I would never grow up. If the parent makes you always happy you end up with an extremely ...selfish child who demands that everyone around them make them happy. Also, who is to say that by stopping certain suffering the world might be worse off? If the suffering that Hitler faced near the end of WWII was stopped the world would have been much worse off. (Not that I believe God would have done that, just suggesting a hypothetical).

This argument is also relying on the fact that this reality around us is all that will ever exist. What if there is more? What if the suffering that occurs here allows a greater happiness there? Which would be more evil then, to allow happiness here and eternal suffering there or temporary suffering here while eternal happiness there?

I also notice that much of your arguing is based on the suffering of children. And yes, it is a terrible thing when children suffer, but then again adults suffering is not as much a shock factor is it? But the suffering of the world extends far beyond those that we see as innocent. The suffering of the world extends far beyond that, all the way to those that are in old age and die of cancer. I know about some of that suffering since I watched my grandfather suffer in that way. I'm not saying that I fully understand any of those, and pithy comments on the nature and reason for suffering do not ease that in any way. But I think that there is some truth in that statement by Lewis, even if I don't completely get it. Answers to things like this never come easily."

It makes my stomach churn when people admit to thinking like this...

It is sickening, and shows just how intellectually bankrupt theists really are. This nonsense falls under an idea that I've been kicking around for a few years that I guess I can call the "marginally better world" disproof of 'God'. It doesn't take an omnipotent or omniscient being to imagine a world even slightly better than the world we actually live in. The fact that we can easily picture a better world than this one proves that there's no such thing as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. It is also really strong evidence that there's not even a fairly powerful, pretty intelligent, somewhat decent being watching over us either. You don't have to engage in any mental gymnastics to imagine a better world, but you have to tie your brain in knots to claim that this is the best world that a loving and all-powerful being could come up with.

The sickening part is that one of the knots that theists tie in their brain is to turn off their empathy towards other people in order to pretend that their imaginary deity isn't a twisted sociopathic clown.

 

[Andiferous]

The same thing goes for giving human beings some sort of knowledge or emotional capacity. As a normal person, I can tell and show people things that might influence them. If I am a powerful politician, I can make those lessons bigger and put some weight behind them. If I'm a supernatural telepath, maybe I can reach out and change everyone's mind. If I'm "God" I should be able to make a person correctly the first time, and not have to go through all of this nonsense to retrofit people with empathy.

If god could not create empathy , and everlasting appreciation for him without suffering what does that say of him? And I love the sort of relativistic apology for gods action/inaction. If god's intentions if for you to be happy, but there's still suffering in the world, then he is committing atrocities. If god's plan is all about needing god's love, and having unconditional love for him, then suffering is A-Okay. That is one helluva sadistic f@ck for a god.... Is this guy a masochist?

Yes but, you're built in his image, or, so I've read.

This conversation is happening on a facebook post that a 'friend' had put up. I'm not sure where to go with it and was wondering what you guys think would be an adequate response to his last post.

Him - The sufering in the world is not the failure of God's love for us; it is that love in action

Me- I find this quote highly despicable and offensive, and I think that all of the children that are being raped at this very moment would agree.

Him- That's the point. It's a quote from Shadowlands. In the context of the script. Suffering is God's mechanism to rouse a selfish world to the plight of others. By being offended, you thereby prove the premise of Lewis' theology of Suffering.

Me- And do you agree with that? That god uses suffering so that his creation will feel empathy towards those that suffer? Or are you just quoting Lewis?

Him- I don't know what I think about it yet. I think that it's definitely a possibility. I have no better explanation for why people suffer and I know that I am definitely more aware of people when they're in pain and have greater need of God when I am in pain. If I experience no suffering I would have no need to seek God because I would have no need of him. Likewise, if people only ever experience happiness then they too would have no need to seek God. So, I suppose I do agree.

Me- I think that it's quite a sick and twisted mechanism that God would allow children to be raped just so that others would be aware of it... That's disgusting. How could you call that god omnipotent and all loving.

Him- Is it possible that your presuppositions are off? If God's purpose is for everyone to be happen then you're absolutely right. What kind of god could allow such an atrocious act? But if God's reasons for allowing such a thing aren't about happiness but about the shaping of a person to be worthy of his love then there is some reason. Am I saying that God doesn't care that it happens? No. Is God the cause of this? No. He is just the omnipotent force that doesn't intervene and you assume that because he doesn't intervene then he is, therefore, either uncaring or unable. It is possible that God's reasons for such an atrocity (among other) is a result of A) Humanity's fallen nature B) God's attempt to allow humanity to delve further into their depravity or to C) God allowing humanity to see itself and look to a higher power?

That's where it's ended so far, I have yet to respond.

I'm not sure where to go at this point and don't really have time to delve deep into my philisophical self =) I'll update tomorrow with more, but for now let me know what you guys think about what he and I have said and how you guys would respond.

I still do not believe there is a win argument for this stuff, only a win lesson.

 

[Ad Initium]

I had a small postal argument yesterday underneath a video. It started when I claimed ... "if you want to have morals, you must become an Atheist" ... Needless to say a religious guy responded and wanted to know why ... as he did not understand.

Ofcourse he does not. Their frame of mind is so fixed on that book, they will never understand unless they really open their minds.

To the OP ... perhaps you should add something to this whole discussion. Ask them about the truly inmoral acts God has commited to "his children". Tell them or ask them: "The bible is a book filled with inmoral acts commited by either God or his followers"

Then let them first respond to it.

And then explain it, when they are done ranting about it.

I would give a simple explaination. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorra was an inmoral act by God. Why? No matter what these cities have done, the mere destruction of them was inmoral because as in any human cities it would have had babies and children. What inmoral act could a baby have done in the eyes of this deity?

Perhaps they will reply: "You have no proof children were there"

Then I would mention the Flood. It is the same inmoral act done by God himself, in which he kills children and babies undiscriminately because he considered their parent not worthy to have a life. God is a massmurdering son of a bitch. It would be the same as claiming Ted Bundy is a prophet and Osama Bin Laden the second comming of Christ. These 2 have commited less "sin" then God himself.

Atleast Ted Bundy never killed babies, but for his other inmoral acts we killed him none the less.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I had a small postal argument yesterday underneath a video. It started when I claimed ... "if you want to have morals, you must become an Atheist" ... Needless to say a religious guy responded and wanted to know why ... as he did not understand.

Ofcourse he does not. Their frame of mind is so fixed on that book, they will never understand unless they really open their minds.

To the OP ... perhaps you should add something to this whole discussion. Ask them about the truly inmoral acts God has commited to "his children". Tell them or ask them: "The bible is a book filled with inmoral acts commited by either God or his followers"

Then let them first respond to it.

And then explain it, when they are done ranting about it.

I would give a simple explaination. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorra was an inmoral act by God. Why? No matter what these cities have done, the mere destruction of them was inmoral because as in any human cities it would have had babies and children. What inmoral act could a baby have done in the eyes of this deity?

Perhaps they will reply: "You have no proof children were there"

Then I would mention the Flood. It is the same inmoral act done by God himself, in which he kills children and babies undiscriminately because he considered their parent not worthy to have a life. God is a massmurdering son of a bitch. It would be the same as claiming Ted Bundy is a prophet and Osama Bin Laden the second comming of Christ. These 2 have commited less "sin" then God himself.

Atleast Ted Bundy never killed babies, but for his other inmoral acts we killed him none the less.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that you must become an atheist to have morals. Even though I'm more towards amoralism, I would guess that a deist could also have morals.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Being empathy a mechanism which enables to ourself into someone elses shoes so not to harm them, then what exactly would be the point to create harm so we can not harm each other? It there was no harm in the first place wouldn't empathy be.. idk USELESS!!!
And the poor excuse of original sin and fall from graceto justify all the world evils whil at the same time call God omnibenevolent. So why dos he have to behave like a dick? Why can't he just forgive everyone and get over with all this fucking nonsense? God must have been really mad for not being able to bake his apple pie such as big (and to think he was supoused to be omnipotent).