The Morality of God

[Robert Tuck]

Why should I or Sam Harris do the theists homework for them?

Simple, it's not the theist's homework. Sam Harris is going on the offensive by making the claim that suffering and the God of the Bible are incompatible. The burden of proof is on him to back up his claim.

Unless he can show that it is impossible, or at least improbable, he hasn't demonstrated his argument to be true or even probably true. As I've said, no one has shown it is impossible, or even improbable, for both God to exist and suffering to occur.

Therefore one is justified, and perfectly rational, to believe in God even in the midst of suffering. No argument from impossibility or improbability has been given to disprove - this is the world with the least amount of suffering and the most free will choices for salvation.

 

[bullethead]

From another website:

Atheism offers the best explanation for unjustified pain and suffering in the world. Let me be clear. I do not mean to imply that God cannot allow some pain and suffering in the world, if he exists, since it would be possible for an all loving God to allow pain that we all can learn from, like that of the pain after touching a hot stove, or maybe even pain that leads to some greater good, like that felt after a root canal. In these cases pain is justifiable, instead, my claim is that it is impossible for a morally perfect God to allow unjustifiable suffering, like pain that teaches nothing and in which there is no greater good.

For example, consider the severe pain suffered by most people suffering from cancer, there is no conceivable justification for it, they are going to die anyway. As caring and compassionate human beings we do what we can to ease and their suffering, with the limited resources available to us (e.g. painkillers). But if God exists, he is even more caring and compassionate than we are , and has an even greater ability alleviate pain than we do. Since no one can be morally superior to God, we would expect God to also do something ease the entirely unnecessary pain in cancer victims. But he doesn’t. Yet as even theists admit, unnecessary pain and suffering cannot, there has to be some ultimate justification. But God hasn’t shared it with us. And those speaking on his behalf hasn’t figured it out yet. In contrast, if atheism is true, we have an explanation. A sensation of pain happens naturally as body’s way saying something is wrong, but since an evolution is not intelligent process, it never figured a way to turn the pain off when there was no more need of warning, thus since only atheism is compatible with unjustifiable pain and suffering, and because it appears that unjustifiable pain and suffering exists, the existence of unjustifiable pain and suffering is evidence for atheism and against theism.

 

[JFS]

Unless he can show that it is impossible, or at least improbable, he hasn't demonstrated his argument to be true or even probably true. As I've said, no one has shown it is impossible, or even improbable, for both God to exist and suffering to occur.

Seems improbable. Back to the choices of impotent, evil or omnipotent, suffering fits well with the first two but not the last. To steal String's favorite analogy, if you see a man raping a young child, is it "impossible" that he is good? I don't know about impossible, but I think the burden has now shifted to explain how that person is in fact good. Here we have god causing or permitting grievous suffering to young innocent children, same as the rapist, yet you maintain the burden is on non-believers to prove such acts aren't in fact bad. Absent any rules to the game both sides can insist the burden is on the other side, but I have a hard time seeing how objectively one could look at that and not feel the burden lies with those seeking to claim the child rapist or god is in fact good.

 

[Robert Tuck]

Seems improbable....

Hey JFS,

I understand that emotionally it may seem improbable, but intellectually I don't see the improbability. Please view this short 4 minute video, it outlines why it is an insurmountable task to either emphatically or probabilistically show there is no morally sufficient reason for God to permit suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ps36TV_vI&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EcdXA1dVgb7-C0lXtp6LFp4&index=2

Remember, it is up to the offensive side to provide proofs for their arguments. It is then up to the defending side to counter those proofs as best they can. This is debating 101. Think of the courtroom. If the prosecution merely asserts the defendant is guilty but can offer no proofs, the case should never go to court or should be thrown out. The atheist is positing a huge, insurmountable claim; that there is a possible world with less suffering and more free will decisions for salvation.

 

[atlashunter]

Simple, it's not the theist's homework.

Of course it is. Who is to say that killing millions of children every year is necessary to providing a greater amount of free choice and even if it was who is to say that doing so is moral? If that is the theists defense for the world we live in then it is the theists job to make and substantiate it. I can tell you now if that is the justification it is an easy one to shoot down based on what theists themselves believe.

 

[atlashunter]

The atheist is positing a huge, insurmountable claim; that there is a possible world with less suffering and more free will decisions for salvation.

Actually Harris does address this with the Epicurean challenge. If the above is your position then what you are saying in response to that challenge is that god is impotent. That he is unable to create a world in which men have free will but evil does not exist. If that is what you are saying then that has very interesting implications for the garden of eden story as well as the concept of heaven as a place without evil.

 

[JFS]

it is up to the offensive side to provide proofs for their arguments.

I'll watch when I get to work, but I don't have a side. Yet I still, as we all do, have to draw my own conclusion. This doesn't seem like the kind of issue that can be "proven", merely analyzed on the balance of evidence. But when you see or think about the suffering, that presents at least a prima facia case for evil or impotence (or at least absence). There doesn't seem to be any rebuttal other than "oh that god works in mysterious ways". But that's just arguing from your preconceived conclusion, not actually weighing the evidence at hand.

 

[atlashunter]

But that's just arguing from your preconceived conclusion, not actually weighing the evidence at hand.

^This

 

[Robert Tuck]

Of course it is. Who is to say that killing millions of children every year is necessary to providing a greater amount of free choice and even if it was who is to say that doing so is moral? If that is the theists defense for the world we live in then it is the theists job to make and substantiate it. I can tell you now if that is the justification it is an easy one to shoot down based on what theists themselves believe.

Atlas, if you take the affirmative it is your job to prove it. I know it's a claim you can't substantiate, but that doesn't mean you can put it off on the theist. If I was auguring in the affirmative, that because suffering exists there must be a God, then I would have to provide proofs for that position. I believe, given our lack of knowledge of the interconnected ripple effect of choices across billions of people over so many years, one cannot argue this point in the affirmative rationally from either side. I believe there are far better arguments from the atheists and the theists than the argument from suffering.

 

[Robert Tuck]

....If the above is your position then what you are saying in response to that challenge is that god is impotent. That he is unable to create a world in which men have free will but evil does not exist....

You do realize what free will is right? I don't take the stance that God can create round squares, but I do believe he is omnipotent.

 

[Robert Tuck]

But that's just arguing from your preconceived conclusion, not actually weighing the evidence at hand.

^This

If Atlas or Harris cannot supply proofs that God has no morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering, then it is they who are arguing from "preconceived conclusions". Also, they cannot possibly "weigh the evidence at hand". This is my point, neither Harris or Atlas know the cause and effect relations of trillions of choices effecting billions of people. So tell me, who's not weighing the evidence in the argument from suffering? The atheist, for it would be impossible.

I openly admit I cannot weigh all the evidence and take the affirmative and argue that God exists do to the perfectly formed world of least suffering and most free will decisions of salvation, because I can't weigh such a thing. But I see no reason why I cannot hold this view to be rational.

 

[TripleXBullies]

I would say that would be tantamount to asking God to draw a square circle and then pointing out how he isn't all powerful because he couldn't.

I would argue that for there to be a choice for me to Love God, then there would have had to be someone else on whom I could place my love.

People in heaven make their selection for eternity here.

We could ask him to do anything... and most of the time, he'd do nothing... Which believers would just say is his will so he really did exactly what you wanted.

 

[TripleXBullies]

Listening to the radio the other night Jeff Foxworthy came on a commercial for childhood cancer. A VERY serious topic for which I have complete sympathy and respect. He said that some very low percentage of cancer research goes in to childhood cancers and that we should donate money specifically to this charity or,

"we might as well just pray a lot."

The topic, again, is very serious and I am have complete respect for it... But it would seem that Foxworthy, who I would believe to be a noted christian, would blatantly, on air, speak like that about the power of god and prayer. He even realizes it....

 

[atlashunter]

If Atlas or Harris cannot supply proofs that God has no morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering, then it is they who are arguing from "preconceived conclusions". Also, they cannot possibly "weigh the evidence at hand". This is my point, neither Harris or Atlas know the cause and effect relations of trillions of choices effecting billions of people. So tell me, who's not weighing the evidence in the argument from suffering? The atheist, for it would be impossible.

I openly admit I cannot weigh all the evidence and take the affirmative and argue that God exists do to the perfectly formed world of least suffering and most free will decisions of salvation, because I can't weigh such a thing. But I see no reason why I cannot hold this view to be rational.

You could have saved a lot of verbiage by just saying "God is mysterious. Qho can know the mind of God?" Harris already addressed that defense. Again, this isn't an argument against God's existence as much as an argument against the nature of the God claimed.

 

[stringmusic]

Listening to the radio the other night Jeff Foxworthy came on a commercial for childhood cancer. A VERY serious topic for which I have complete sympathy and respect. He said that some very low percentage of cancer research goes in to childhood cancers and that we should donate money specifically to this charity or,

"we might as well just pray a lot."

The topic, again, is very serious and I am have complete respect for it... But it would seem that Foxworthy, who I would believe to be a noted christian, would blatantly, on air, speak like that about the power of god and prayer. He even realizes it....

I just listened to 3 different commercials that Foxworthy did for "CURE", I can't find where he said this. I'm not saying he didn't, but do you have a link to it?

 

[stringmusic]

From the standpoint of nature there is no difference.

You're asking for a scientific explanation for why we value our lives and the lives of others?

Skip to the 24 min. mark

 

[stringmusic]

Interesting quote form Kai Nielson, Canadian philosopher and professed atheist.

“We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me… Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”1

- Kai Nielsen (1926 – Present)

 

[ddd-shooter]

When you don't have an invisible friend to fix your problems then you can fully understand and accept the responsibility for doing whatever you can to improve your condition and the condition of others.

For the non-believer you are right, it isn't nature itself that is good or bad. For example physics isn't evil if a tsunami kills a couple hundred thousand people. What is evil is having the power to eliminate the suffering of millions of children and refusing to do so. Absent the mythical figures we have to rely on ourselves and each other to make the most of the world as it is. It's when you posit that one of these figures is real that the moral judgments come into play based on the claims made.

Why should we do those things in bold?

 

[Robert Tuck]

You could have saved a lot of verbiage by just saying "God is mysterious. Qho can know the mind of God?" Harris already addressed that defense. Again, this isn't an argument against God's existence as much as an argument against the nature of the God claimed.

Atlas...tisk tisk, putting words in my mouth on a forum where people can look and see what I said. When I say I have no ability to weigh the trillions of choices and outcomes across humanity and therefore would never use this argument from the affirmative to proof the God of the Bible exists, it doesn't mean I think God is mysterious when it comes to suffering. I hold the belief that God can and did measure the trillions of choices and created a world with the least amount of suffering with the highest free will choices for salvation.

What's "mysterious" is how Sam Harris and yourself conclude that God has no morally sufficient reason to allow suffering. As if somehow, mysteriously, you know the potential outcomes of every decision and have come to the conclusion that a better free will world could have existed. That is a mysterious conclusion, one to which I have yet to see a proof of in this thread.

 

[TripleXBullies]

I just listened to 3 different commercials that Foxworthy did for "CURE", I can't find where he said this. I'm not saying he didn't, but do you have a link to it?

Can't find it...