Should we reject the existence of God because we cannot
completely understand Him? Philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should. In
his debate with Dinesh D’Souza, Singer argued that if God is completely good,
knowing and powerful, He wouldn’t allow suffering or evil. However, this world
is filled with disease, death and suffering. Therefore – according to Singer –
such a God cannot exist. However, this argument is built upon several shaky
presuppositions.
- Pain and suffering are somehow incompatible with an all-good and powerful God.
There are many explanations for suffering. It humbles, it
deepens, it sensitizes, it causes us to not take things and relationships for
granted, and it even seems necessary for perpetuation of love and community.
However, admittedly, we cannot explain every
catastrophe, tsunami, or avalanche in terms of its divine benefits. However, we
don’t have exhaustive knowledge about anything.
Does this mean that we must reject the little knowledge that we do have by
virtue of its incompleteness?
- There can’t possibly be a good and loving purpose for suffering.
This is an arrogant statement which assumes that the speaker
has exhaustive knowledge of both the physical world and the God who designed
it.
- Any bit of the “bad” cancels out the “goodness” we enjoy in life.
It seems that if we are going to approach this question
honestly, we should weight all of the evidence – not just the evidence of
suffering. If it is true that people vote with their feet – and it is – then the
feet of most people vote that life is worth living, that it is a gift worth
keeping. Few of us willingly reject this gift.
I think that we tend to take the divine harmonies of life
for granted. We thirst and God has provided water; we hunger, and He has provided
food; we tire, and we have been given sleep… These must also find a place in
our equations.
- We can make absolute moral judgments about “evil” and “good” and use them to reject God. For instance, because of the existence of “evil,” an all good and powerful God can’t exist because such a God wouldn’t allow it.
If there is no unchanging God, then there is no basis for
unchanging absolute moral judgments. Consequently, we lack any solid basis to
even regard something as “evil” or “bad.” We cannot use God to disprove God.
- Our failure to completely understand the God of the Bible – and reconcile His self-revelation - means that He cannot exist.
To demonstrate the absurdity of this presupposition, let’s
just apply it to science. “Failure to completely
understand science and its observations means that science must be rejected.”
Science and its attempt to understand this physical world
have revealed more mysteries than solutions or proofs. The very nature of the
fundamentals - time, space, and matter – continues to elude us. If we are
willing to accept that this physical world contains many imponderables, then we
should not reject its Creator because of the imponderables. He is greater than
His creation as the cause(s) is always greater than the effect.
We don’t reject science or rationality. However, we reject
God for insubstantial rational reasons. Perhaps we do so for reasons of the
heart.
You are still left with the problem of gratuitous suffering - if there exists any gratuitous suffering of any kind, then that is an indication that a good god does not exist.
ReplyDeleteMann: We thirst and God has provided water; we hunger, and He has provided food; we tire, and we have been given sleep…
This doesn't recognise that if your God existed, your God would have made us to thirst, grow hungry, and grow tired.
Would you praise the person who gives you the antidote to a poison they had given you?
The rejection of God is not due to matters of the heart, but simply due to a lack of rational reasons for the existence of this being.
You start your post with the assumption that God does actually exist. If this had been established in any reasonable sense, then the rest of your post might have merit. But as you are actually trying to establish the existence of this being, you are left unable to rely upon that starting premise, and the whole thing falls down around your ears.
Perhaps you should dig a little deeper, Daniel?
Mann: We don’t reject science or rationality.
ReplyDeleteActually, you DO reject science and rationality when they are contrary to your unquectionable presupposition that the God of Christianity exists - you reject geology, cosmology, biology, and more, all because you have an unjustified feeling that your interpretation of Christianity is "true".
That seems to me to be quite irrational Daniel ;-)
• “You are still left with the problem of gratuitous suffering - if there exists any gratuitous suffering of any kind, then that is an indication that a good god does not exist.”
DeleteYour statement is based upon several unfounded presuppositions:
You need to prove that there is such a thing as “gratuitous suffering.”
That gratuitous suffering is a “problem.”
That a “good god” would not permit “gratuitous suffering.”
• “Would you praise the person who gives you the antidote to a poison they had given you?”
Perhaps I needed the poison?
• The rejection of God is not due to matters of the heart, but simply due to a lack of rational reasons for the existence of this being.
If you could present a rational alternative, you case might be somewhat coherent. However, I do not regard materialism and naturalism as supportable in any sense.
• “You start your post with the assumption that God does actually exist.”
No! This post is merely pointing out the unfounded presuppositions of those who use the problem-of-evil to disprove the existence of God.
• “You are still left with the problem of gratuitous suffering - if there exists any gratuitous suffering of any kind, then that is an indication that a good god does not exist.”
DeleteYour statement is based upon several unfounded presuppositions:
1. You need to prove that there is such a thing as “gratuitous suffering.”
2. That gratuitous suffering is a “problem.”
3. That a “good god” would not permit “gratuitous suffering.”
• “Would you praise the person who gives you the antidote to a poison they had given you?”
Perhaps I needed the poison?
• The rejection of God is not due to matters of the heart, but simply due to a lack of rational reasons for the existence of this being.
If you could present a rational alternative, you case might be somewhat coherent. However, I do not regard materialism and naturalism as supportable in any sense.
• “You start your post with the assumption that God does actually exist.”
No! This post is merely pointing out the unfounded presuppositions of those who use the problem-of-evil to disprove the existence of God.
The concept of the Fall says the world is not the way God created it. God had said the world was good. Well, it is not good now. Humans did our own thing and fouled up God's creation. One can say that God's existence is assumed in this and that is true. Just like a lot of scientists can assume that Chance can explain all of reality. Anthony Flew eventually saw the futility of this.
ReplyDeleteI notice that the word "rational" is used a lot by those who oppose a transcendent God. Yet, as an ethics professor once told me quite forcefully, "Rational only means if this, then that". In these aforementioned arguments rational seems to be defined as materialistic. A word change is slipped in and the speaker probably does not even know it.
Larry: The concept of the Fall says the world is not the way God created it. God had said the world was good. Well, it is not good now. Humans did our own thing and fouled up God's creation.
DeleteGod, conceived of as perfect, could only make things which were perfect.
Something which is perfect surely cannot become imperfect.
Also, finite beings like us cannot possibly interupt the plans of an omnipotent being.
Larry: One can say that God's existence is assumed in this and that is true. Just like a lot of scientists can assume that Chance can explain all of reality.
Larry, your understanding of science is very limited. Scientists don't assume that "Chance" can explain everything. All they do is investigate and see what they can explain.
You seem to be the sort who assumes the only alternative to "God" is "Chance". You also seem to be the type who assumes all scientists are atheists, which is false.
Larry: Anthony Flew eventually saw the futility of this.
For a start, Flew ended up at best a Deist. Secondly, there were serious concerns about Flew's mental health at the time of his "conversion".
I always find it amusing when people bring up Flew, as if it's some sort of knock down case against atheism.
The name Peter Singer in a post on suffering is an interesting irony. Singer advocates killing those who do not measure up to his human-value criteria. I think one could argue that Singer is causing suffering but, with his Utilitarian viewpoint, he would see that the suffering caused is less than the happiness gained and thus is a moral good.
ReplyDeleteLarry,
DeleteSinger might have moderated his views somewhat, since he has been refused speaking engagements in certain countries troubled by his stance.
But yes, he is a utilitarian who assigns personal value according to certain pragmatic measures like intelligence (and usefulness?).
Mann: 1. You need to prove that there is such a thing as “gratuitous suffering.”
ReplyDeleteChildhood diseases which kill the child, especially infants seem to be fairly obviously gratuitous - there seems to be nothing learnt by the child to outweigh the suffering they endure.
Mann: 2. That gratuitous suffering is a “problem.”
gratuitous suffering is only a problem if you posit an all good, all powerful, all knowing deity, since an all good deity would not allow suffering which served no purpose.
If you're happy with a deity which is not those things, then you can avoid the problem, but you're no longer talking about the god of traditional Christian theism.
Mann: 3. That a “good god” would not permit “gratuitous suffering.”
As I indicated above, a good God would not allow it, and hence any instance of gratuitous suffering is evidence that the Christian God as traditionally presented, does not exist.
Mann: Perhaps I needed the poison?
ReplyDeleteEither give the reason or accept that you have no reason.
It's that simple Daniel.
Mann: However, I do not regard materialism and naturalism as supportable in any sense.
That is simply because you are unable or unwilling to honestly investigate the matter, as I've demonstrated repeatedly to you.
Mann: This post is merely pointing out the unfounded presuppositions of those who use the problem-of-evil to disprove the existence of God.
They're not unfounded Daniel, as I've pointed out.
You might want to retreat in a skeptical theist position, claiming that we cannot understand God's purposes, but doing so leads you to accept that you cannot claim God as being all good either, since you have admitted you cannot know this.
The problem of evil put's the person claiming the existence of God in the difficult position of having to disregard some of the attributes they claim for their God in order to have their God fit the reality around us.
• You might want to retreat in a skeptical theist position, claiming that we cannot understand God's purposes, but doing so leads you to accept that you cannot claim God as being all good either, since you have admitted you cannot know this.
DeleteHavok, There is a big difference between what I have confessed – not having COMPLETE knowledge – and having no knowledge at all. Since I do have some knowledge, I can declare with certainty that “God is good!”
• The problem of evil put's the person claiming the existence of God in the difficult position of having to disregard some of the attributes they claim for their God in order to have their God fit the reality around us.
I don’t have to “disregard some of the attributes” of God. Nor do I have to dismiss any of the counter-evidence, namely my own pains and disappointments. However, I have overriding truths.
My wife may do things that trouble me and that I don’t understand. However, we have years of history together, and therefore I am assured of her love for me.
You give this as an example of “gratuitous suffering”:
• Childhood diseases which kill the child, especially infants seem to be fairly obviously gratuitous - there seems to be nothing learnt by the child to outweigh the suffering they endure.
You are discounting the reality of an eternal life that can bring justice to what you regard as injustice.
Mann: There is a big difference between what I have confessed – not having COMPLETE knowledge – and having no knowledge at all. Since I do have some knowledge, I can declare with certainty that “God is good!”
DeleteActually, since you don't have complete knowledge you can't declare that with certainty.
And since reality as it stands is not compatible with the existence of an all good, all powerful, all knowing God, as you conceive this being to be, then your God siply does not exist, end of story.
Mann: I don’t have to “disregard some of the attributes” of God. Nor do I have to dismiss any of the counter-evidence, namely my own pains and disappointments. However, I have overriding truths.
Actually, you do. It's just a matter of what and how you'd like to limit the attributes of your God.
Of course, you can live in denial, and simply assume without argument that your God exists and has overriding reasons for allowing all of the suffering in the world, but that is different.
Mann: However, we have years of history together, and therefore I am assured of her love for me.
Yet the existence of your God is not nearly as solidly attested as the existence of your wife. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
Mann: You are discounting the reality of an eternal life that can bring justice to what you regard as injustice.
I wasn't talking about injustice Dabiel, but suffering.
What you need to do now is either:
- argue convincingly that gratuitous suffering does not exist (which I doubt you can do)
- argue convincingly that an omnibenevolent God would allow gratuitous suffering (which seems to be a logical incompatibility)
- argue convincingly that by not doing what you or I would do if we could (eliminate gratuitous suffering), your God continues to be morally praiseworthy and omnibenevolent.
You've done none of this above, yet you assume there is an adequate response. Don't assume, actually proivide :-)
• since you don't have complete knowledge you can't declare that with certainty.
DeleteThat’s just simply wrong. I certainly don’t have “complete knowledge” about George Washington, but I can say with certainly that he was the first president of the USA.
• And since reality as it stands is not compatible with the existence of an all good, all powerful, all knowing God, as you conceive this being to be, then your God simply does not exist, end of story.
This is simply a bald assertion. If you want to make such assertions, you need some supporting evidence. You need to do better than this if you want me to publish your diatribes. For you, this argumentation is no more than a pastime – a mere game. For me, it is life and it is truth. I am not motivated to play a game or to even show you up. I am only interested in influencing for Christ. Why then should I waste my time in this manner?
• What you need to do now is either: - argue convincingly that gratuitous suffering does not exist (which I doubt you can do)
You fail to understand the challenge posed against theism by atheism through the problem-of-evil. It is the atheist who claims that there is gratuitous evil, and as a result of this “fact,” the atheist then concludes that such a God cannot exist.
Therefore, they are the ones who must prove that gratuitous evil actually exists. It’s part of THEIR argument, not mine!
Mann: That’s just simply wrong. I certainly don’t have “complete knowledge” about George Washington, but I can say with certainly that he was the first president of the USA.
DeleteActually, you can't say that with certainty either - there is always the possibility that George Washington was not the first president. It might be a slim possibility, but it is a possibility nonetheless.
It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand this.
Mann: This is simply a bald assertion. If you want to make such assertions, you need some supporting evidence.
I pointed out in a previous comment on this thread why gratuitous suffering is not compatible with the existence of an omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient being. You didn't interact with that, so I'll just assume that my argument stands.
Mann: For me, it is life and it is truth. I am not motivated to play a game or to even show you up. I am only interested in influencing for Christ. Why then should I waste my time in this manner?
Daniel, you are only interested in influencing for Christ, which is completely different to wanting to promote the truth. the two could coincide, but the aims are different even if that is the case.
Me - I want to find out what the truth is, understand why, and promote it to those who promote falsehoods, whether knowingly or unknowingly. I don't car what the truth actually is.
Mann: Therefore, they are the ones who must prove that gratuitous evil actually exists. It’s part of THEIR argument, not mine!
I gave an example of gratuitous evil Daniel. You simply handwaved it away without further argument.
So, it is up to you to now demostrate that either there is no gratuitous evil, or that somehow gratuitous evil is not logically incompatible with the concept of god you are defending.
By claiming otherwise you're trying to shift the burden of proof :-)
• There is always the possibility that George Washington was not the first president. It might be a slim possibility, but it is a possibility nonetheless.
DeleteHavok, it’s also a slim possibility that you don’t exist. But I have enough certainty to waste my time to respond to you.
• I pointed out in a previous comment on this thread why gratuitous suffering is not compatible with the existence of an omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient being. You didn't interact with that, so I'll just assume that my argument stands.
Instead, I’ve been asking you to prove that gratuitous (pointless) suffering exists – that it is impossible for God to work all of my suffering for good. However, you have offered absolutely nothing.
• Me - I want to find out what the truth is, understand why, and promote it to those who promote falsehoods, whether knowingly or unknowingly. I don't car what the truth actually is.
I certainly hope that you do find the truth. However, our biggest stumbling block is ourselves. We hate the truth, as Jesus had commented:
• “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." (John 3:19-21)
You have only one hope, and that is the Lord who you reject without a shred of evidence.
I consider this discussion closed!
Mann: Instead, I’ve been asking you to prove that gratuitous (pointless) suffering exists – that it is impossible for God to work all of my suffering for good. However, you have offered absolutely nothing.
DeleteDaniel, let's assume you're correct, that there is no gratuitous suffering or evil.
If such were the case, then we would have no moral obligation to help other people or to reduce suffering, since there must be a purpose for all suffering, we don't (can't?) know what that purpose is, and by interfering with God's plan, we could be causing great evil.
In short you are committed to having an obligation to not reduce suffering.
It seems to me that whatever theists like yourself claim in order to avoid the problem of evil, you end up being committed to something which is rather disgusting and usually quite obviously false.
Havok - You are very wrong about science and me. I love it, especially Physics. I know about methodology and measurements. But I also look deeper than the techniques to what it is science telling us about the universe. Hawking has his M-theory with multiverses (not to mention nothingness at the beginning but quantum fluctions, which of course means that there is Not nothing). The whole direction of Hawking's recent thought and the reason Chance is needed to explain Life (by a Multiverse the very low probability of Life developing by Chance is spread over several universes so the probability is made mor feasible)is as an alternative to a Transcedent something which is not withinin the realm of science to measure.
ReplyDeleteAs far Flew you amuse quite easily. I know he became a Deist but the rationale for it was the unlikelihood of Life occuring from nothing. Saying he had mental issues is an ad Hominem attack because Flew changed his beliefs. Remember when Stephen Gould said the unmentioned secret of palentology was there were no fossile showing transistions between specises? Gould was ripped by his peers for not believing in evolution. Gould backed off by saying that of course evolution is a fact but we do not know how it works. If Gould had not said that, he might have been accused of being mentally unstable, also. As far as scientists not being atheist, I know. I hsve heard them speak. I believe their peers find that embarrassing.
The topic was eveil and this is off the track but it was needed response to your comments.
Larry,
DeleteInteresting about Gould!
I just came back from a display on bioluminescence (BL) at the Natural History Museum. I seems that evolutionists agree that BL evolved independently on more than 50 occasions!!! This along with other admissions regarding “convergent evolution” make mockery of evolution’s claim that the commonalities prove common descent.
Consequently, similarities prove common descent. However, they also prove “convergent evolution.” Heads I win; tails you loose.
Larry: Hawking has his M-theory with multiverses (not to mention nothingness at the beginning but quantum fluctions, which of course means that there is Not nothing).
DeleteI'm not sure Hawking is an M-Theory-ist - I find he tends to back his no-boundaries model, rather than the M-theory derived from string theory.
And yes, Hawking's "nothing" is not absolute nothing, but then again, neither is the theists - Hawking's nothing does seem to be rather simpler than the theists "nothing", and far more parsimonious with current knowledge.
Larry: The whole direction of Hawking's recent thought and the reason Chance is needed to explain Life (by a Multiverse the very low probability of Life developing by Chance is spread over several universes so the probability is made mor feasible) is as an alternative to a Transcedent something which is not withinin the realm of science to measure.
It's not as an alternative, it's because there is no scientific reason to think a transcendent something exists, as you seem to indicate. Making the claim that science cannot measure this thing seems simply to simply be an attempt to render such a thing unfalsifiable, which has the corrallary effect of making it explanatarily impotent.
Larry: I know he became a Deist but the rationale for it was the unlikelihood of Life occuring from nothing. Saying he had mental issues is an ad Hominem attack because Flew changed his beliefs.
It's not an ad hominem - it's an admittedly external observation of his mental capacities, including the poor reasoning he used to justify his belief.
I don't really care that Flew changed his beliefs, but rather why he changed his beliefs - they were not good reasons.
Larry: Remember when Stephen Gould said the unmentioned secret of palentology was there were no fossile showing transistions between specises?
What Gould was actually talking about was the lack of support for consistent and gradual transformation of forms, as is made clear at this link dedicated to eradicating such misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
Larry, why are you misrepresenting Gould in such a manner?
Mann: Consequently, similarities prove common descent. However, they also prove “convergent evolution.” Heads I win; tails you loose.
DeleteThis is rather hypocritical coming from someone whose "God hypothesis" explains everything and it's negation, cannot be tested, falsified or verified, and is therefore completely useless as far as explanations go.
Really Daniel, you ought to try a little harder :-)
You use the word "hypocritical" very casually, especially in light of the fact that I have already provided many proofs for the existence of God.
DeleteIf you continue to make these empty charges, I will not publish you!!!
Larry: The topic was eveil and this is off the track but it was needed response to your comments.
ReplyDeleteI would be happy to discuss the problem of evil, if you'd prefer? :-)
• “If such [that there is no gratuitous evil] were the case, then we would have no moral obligation to help other people or to reduce suffering, since there must be a purpose for all suffering, we don't (can't?) know what that purpose is, and by interfering with God's plan, we could be causing great evil.”
ReplyDeleteYou are unjustifiably assuming that whatever God allows should become normative for us. You also wrongly assume that because we don’t understand everything about God’s purposes, we run the danger of “interfering with God's plan.”
However, God has made His normative will – our duties - very clear. There is absolutely no imperative to mindlessly follow and re-duplicate the events of nature.