Why God Doesn't Prevent Terrible Things, Atheist Poll

[PhuturePriest]

I agree with this. However, the argument seems to apply to white people problems. It makes far less sense when we think of children who are starve to death before they can gain anything from their suffering. Jesus endured a lot more than most of us ever will. I think it's a stretch to say he suffered more than any human in history. 

 

What Arfink said. Also, Jesus *did* suffer the worst possible death. He experienced more pain in his death than any other human. Don't believe me? Knock yourself out and try it (And if you do, you'll be begging someone to knock yourself out so you don't feel the pain anymore).

[Maggyie]

The poll answers are foolish. I am not an atheist (duh) but I do struggle with the problem of evil lately. It used to be academic to me but now that I've experienced capital s Suffering, I feel it is almost an unsolvable problem, unsolvable from a human POV anyway. The free will argument works well when it comes to murder or arson or abuse or other carpy things humans do to each other...

 

... but say a child dies in an earthquake. That's not a result of God needing to respect our free will, it's just crazy nature being crazy. So God could theoretically reach in and say "stop being crazy nature!!!" and the tornado would stop turning right? Well we all know that's not how it works. But isn't that how it should work? He isn't forcing the barometric pressure to love him or violating its free will ya know.

 

What about those people who survive the twister and say "Thank God that He heard our prayers!" does that mean He didn't hear the prayers of the people who died? Or are the survivors sort of engaging in wishful thinking, and God was not involved in saving/not saving? Permissive will vs. active will?

 

It's true suffering can be transforming and redemptive - but couldn't the almighty God have found a way to accomplish these sames ends without "allowing" the suffering? And if He could, why doesn't he? His personal preference? Ok now I'm just being bitter and lippy.

 

I realize these are all questions without answers, or rather only one answer - the cross. But even the cross doesn't provide a specific response to all these queries, just "I know what you're going through, it's a mystery, believe that I love you."

 

I should add, none of these add up to a reason to doubt that God exists, just to doubt that a loving God exists.

[arfink]

Yeah, that is true Maggie. And I know you probably have a much more direct experience of that feeling than I have ever had. Thank you for sharing.

[stevil]

You rather misunderstand the nature of God's will and activity,

 

Yes, no doubt, I have not been taught Catholocism's explainations of the Christian god's will and activity.

 

... which is radically different from the will and activity of human beings.

 

If the Christian god, as described by the Catholicism interpretation, exists, it is certainly not behaving in a way that a loving, caring and capable human being would be expected ("moral" obligation) to behave.
 

 

You say God stands at the sidelines as children suffer, but that is hardly true.

Not quite. I don't believe that there is a god (ever watching, without physically intervening in the unfortunate plight of some human beings), I'm just playing a logic game here, and anthropomorphising this god (which I understand believers are told not to do, but humans and the Christian god are supposed to be believed as being of the same image)
 

No suffering is wasted, it is united with God's own suffering. Besides, much, if not all of the suffering in the world is not the result of God's uncaring inactivity, but because He must respect human free will. When humans harm each other, they are acting on their free will.

 

But the hypotheticals I provided are not as a result of the children acting out on their free will. Disease is random chance, a burning building could be a result of lightening, or faulty electrical equipment, a rape is the result of the choice of the attacker not the child. How does the child's free will come into play?
 

Does God directly desire everyone to suffer? Hardly. Does he allow it? Yes. Because love demands freedom. Love that cannot suffer and choose to continue loving anyway is never truly free, and love which could not have chosen otherwise is also never free.

 

Does this mean that it is unloving for a human to save a child from a burning building? If we love the child we ought to let it have the freedom to burn?
 

And before you counter by saying, "well God does not have to suffer, this is bull$hit!" I would like to remind you that there is no human suffering which can even touch the level of suffering God has put himself through for our sakes. Suffering is as much a part of love as breathing is a part of life.

Are you refering to Jesus' crucifiction?
If so, I can think of a huge amount of scenarios that involve more suffering than that.
But anyway, this is beside the point, it is not my arguement that the god must suffer in order to be justified in allowing humans to suffer.

 

 

In short: suffering is only as worthless and horrible as you want to make it be. If you want to deny that it has value, then you will probably suffer anyway, and you will become bitter and hate your suffering and the people who cause it, and your God. The way of love is the way to make suffering slightly more bearable and infinitely more useful when it inevitably happens.

 

I do think in certain circumstances that suffering can be the cause of strength, there are many people whose acheivements and/or drive can be attributed to some kind of suffering. But I also think there is much suffering that has no beneficial consequence for those involved. e.g. a person pinned under a buring car, taking a lengthy amount of time to burn to death, or a parent suffering the emotional stress of having a young child gone missing, only to find out a sleepless week later that their child's body was found, raped and mutilated in some swamp.

[dairygirl4u2c]

even if you dont like the tone of the poll, even a theist id think would have to admit "he doesnt want to" must be true, at least on some level. 

 

this poll reminds me of that quote...

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

[Nihil Obstat]

:yawn:

[KnightofChrist]

[Laudate_Dominum]

I like this poll! It's exciting!

 

 

Edited June 21, 2013 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

Can I get a towel, please?

[fides' Jack]

The problem with atheists is that everything is right here, right now.  The benefits to be gained from suffering are mostly not even here in this lifetime (though they can be from time to time).  It's a problem of understanding that even many Catholics share - and so the question comes out further refined: why would God permit unnecessary evil?  Which of course is just side-stepping the whole basis of the answer.  

 

Death is not evil.  Earthquakes and tornadoes and tsunamis are not evil.  Poverty and hardship are not evil.  

 

People should not mistake living comfortably for goodness.

[fides' Jack]

even if you dont like the tone of the poll, even a theist id think would have to admit "he doesnt want to" must be true, at least on some level. 

 

 

This explains why you don't understand theists, then.

 

The problem isn't with God.  God wants to help whenever and wherever He can.  The problem is with us - we reject His help.  This is evidenced by the existence of atheists.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It's weird that this poll ignores the possibility that God doesn't intervene in people's lives as much as they would like to think. It confuses me whenever someone praises God after landing a job interview. It implies that the divine cares more about helping out with small petty things than with preventing wars or natural disasters. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

This explains why you don't understand theists, then.

 

The problem isn't with God.  God wants to help whenever and wherever He can.  The problem is with us - we reject His help.  This is evidenced by the existence of atheists.

 

Sorry to budge in, I'm just curious.... Whenever and wherever he can? Why is he limited? Do you believe natural disasters could be prevented if people had more faith?

Edited June 21, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[fides' Jack]

It's weird that this poll ignores the possibility that God doesn't intervene in people's lives as much as they would like to think. It confuses me whenever someone praises God after landing a job interview. It implies that the divine cares more about helping out with small petty things than with preventing wars or natural disasters. 

 

All glory, honor, and praise to our Father in heaven.  He can do all things - and He cares about all things.  Why limit Him in number or quality?

 

Sorry to budge in, I'm just curious.... Whenever and wherever he can? Why is he limited? Do you believe natural disasters could be prevented if people had more faith?

 

It was a poor choice of words.  He always wants to help us.

 

I think people could move mountains if they had more faith.  So, in a way, yes.  But generally I don't think it matters.  If the right thing for God is that a natural "disaster" is avoided, then God will do what is right.  My point is simply that the things you see as disasters need not be seen the same way by God.  To question God based on your own understanding is like trying to speak without a mouth.

 

We distance ourselves from God and so the things that matter to us are really self-centered, ridiculous things.  The closer we get to God the less this life means to us, natural disasters, wars, and all.  Don't take that the wrong way - it doesn't mean that we don't suffer because of them.  Rather that the suffering itself becomes a good thing to us, because we believe it's part of God's will.

 

But that's been discussed time and time again on here.  I'm only reiterating it because I'm not sure how a Buddhist would take it.  This world is such a tiny part of our existence.  In the end, a tragic event like a tsunami (which isn't good or bad) that kills thousands is only meaningful if it helps some people get closer to God.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

All glory, honor, and praise to our Father in heaven.  He can do all things - and He cares about all things.  Why limit Him in number or quality?

 

What I meant by my post was that I felt people tended to limit God to their own bubble, as if the everyday events of their lives mattered more than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was a poor choice of words.  He always wants to help us.

 

I think people could move mountains if they had more faith.  So, in a way, yes.  But generally I don't think it matters.  If the right thing for God is that a natural "disaster" is avoided, then God will do what is right.  My point is simply that the things you see as disasters need not be seen the same way by God.  To question God based on your own understanding is like trying to speak without a mouth.  

 

 

Interesting. A theology teacher of mine in high school had a view similar to the one I posted. I wonder if there is an official Catholic position on this.

 

 

We distance ourselves from God and so the things that matter to us are really self-centered, ridiculous things.  The closer we get to God the less this life means to us, natural disasters, wars, and all.  Don't take that the wrong way - it doesn't mean that we don't suffer because of them.  Rather that the suffering itself becomes a good thing to us, because we believe it's part of God's will. 

 

But that's been discussed time and time again on here.  I'm only reiterating it because I'm not sure how a Buddhist would take it.  This world is such a tiny part of our existence.  In the end, a tragic event like a tsunami (which isn't good or bad) that kills thousands is only meaningful if it helps some people get closer to God.

 

 I've always felt bad for atheists/agnostic who become religious in response to a tragic event in their lives. I don't know if people adopting religion as a coping mechanism is necessarily a good thing in such cases. Not saying it's bad, I just don't see how that would be the preferred route for conversion. 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl