The 'religion sucks' thread [lightning rod]

[Gao Bohan]

And there is no "problem of evil". God does not "permit" evil, nor did he arrange the universe so - except, of course, to allow humans to do as we choose.

I think most believers consider God both omniscient and omnipotent; I certainly did, when I was religious. The very point of theodicy is to reconcile God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence. Our "free will" is illusory. From our perspective, we make our own choice in any given circumstance, but God knew exactly what choice we would make, long before we ever came into existence. The universe was indeed "arranged" by God, in the standard view. But an omnipotent, omniscient being that created everything also knew that wars, famine, disease, and crime would cause massive suffering for his human creations. So, why so much suffering? What lesson does a kid over in Iraq learn by getting his arms blown off by a land mine? What lesson does a soldier learn by getting his faced burn to a crisp by an IED? What lesson does an old women receive by dying slowly and painfully from cancer?

[Gao Bohan]

Say I'm babysitting my nephew. He wants a candy bar. I tell him he can't have a fricken candy bar. He throws himself to the ground kicking and screaming- suffering, really, in his childish mind- because he can't have a candy bar. In his head, because he has very little experience and a limited world view, the absence of a candy bar in his grubby little hands is a travesty beyond belief. But to me, his perceived tormentor (because I'm allowing this suffering to happen when I could easily end it) it is not a tragedy. In fact, I know that I'm doing him a favor, because if he gets in the habit of eating candy before dinner long term, he'll suffer even more. The same idea could be applied to any painful experience that parents allow their child to go through, knowing there will be a valuable lesson at the end of it.

I think that works for cases with low levels of suffering that do actually result in learning valuable lessons. But the argument breaks down when applied to the far greater scale of human suffering. I supplied some other examples of things that happen to children (and adults), and for which I can see no value, no lesson worth learning.

[urodacus]

And there is no "problem of evil". God does not "permit" evil, nor did he arrange the universe so - except, of course, to allow humans to do as we choose.

I think most believers consider God both omniscient and omnipotent; I certainly did, when I was religious. The very point of theodicy is to reconcile God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence. Our "free will" is illusory. From our perspective, we make our own choice in any given circumstance, but God knew exactly what choice we would make, long before we ever came into existence. The universe was indeed "arranged" by God, in the standard view. But an omnipotent, omniscient being that created everything also knew that wars, famine, disease, and crime would cause massive suffering for his human creations. So, why so much suffering? What lesson does a kid over in Iraq learn by getting his arms blown off by a land mine? What lesson does a soldier learn by getting his faced burn to a crisp by an IED? What lesson does an old women receive by dying slowly and painfully from cancer?

nothing. there is no lesson. there is No god, just people who need something inventing shit they call god, and making up god to fill their empty hole.

[NonTocareLeTete]

Say I'm babysitting my nephew. He wants a candy bar. I tell him he can't have a fricken candy bar. He throws himself to the ground kicking and screaming- suffering, really, in his childish mind- because he can't have a candy bar. In his head, because he has very little experience and a limited world view, the absence of a candy bar in his grubby little hands is a travesty beyond belief. But to me, his perceived tormentor (because I'm allowing this suffering to happen when I could easily end it) it is not a tragedy. In fact, I know that I'm doing him a favor, because if he gets in the habit of eating candy before dinner long term, he'll suffer even more. The same idea could be applied to any painful experience that parents allow their child to go through, knowing there will be a valuable lesson at the end of it.

I think that works for cases with low levels of suffering that do actually result in learning valuable lessons. But the argument breaks down when applied to the far greater scale of human suffering. I supplied some other examples of things that happen to children (and adults), and for which I can see no value, no lesson worth learning.

I believe the believer argument would be that the 'far greater scale of human suffering' actually isn't so big after all. It's a problem of perspective. And the kid (or fellow, observing kids) never sees the lesson, though the parent does.
Anyways, I'm so glad I don't believe (and no longer put pressure on myself to try to believe, because I was always uncomfortable with the process of religious reasoning. The way I see it, it's like this:
There is a TRUTH, as the bible or god or a prophet states it, that makes us humans uncomfortable. To a person, this TRUTH makes our gutts churn because it is stupid, doesn't make sense, flies in the face of our experiences, etc.
A believer will try to work around reason and logic, building a rickety staircase of "evidence" to prove the TRUTH.
Doesn't matter how absurd the "evidence" or how duplicitous the argument, a believer will try to come up with anything to prove a truth that has been posited to him by some religious authority.
A non-believer looks at the evidence first. If the evidence doesn't match the TRUTH the non-believer rejects the "TRUTH". I believe the non-believer process is much more organic and rational.

[finley]

I thought it was only religious people who talk about "lessons". I always thought life was to be lived and enjoyed. True, that's probably a bit difficult if you have people sticking landmines in your backyard, but nevertheless: it wasn't God who put that landmine there, it was a guy who had a choice to do it, or not do it. The soldier blown up in Iraq had a choice not to go to Iraq. The guy who made the bomb had a choice to go home and watch TV instead. The woman with cancer had to die of something - we all will - and death is always, by definition, pretty ugly. That's what makes life worth living in the first place. None of that is God's fault, and none of it is about God teaching us lessons.

This also touches on the question of 'if there is a God, is there also a Satan?'. I wonder sometimes if things like cancer and mosquitoes were created by ... someone else. Nobody ever said God had a monopoly on creating things.

omniscient and omnipotent ... I have no idea what the implications might be. People like Steven Hawking like to tie themselves in knots over that. The meaning of those words depend on the nature of time and the physical nature of the universe. Somebody already asked ... is God omniscient and omnipotent? Does it matter? We can't imagine those concepts anyway. They're just words thrown around by religious types. Personally, I suspect that God is constrained by the ordinary physical laws of the universe, but we humans don't yet know what those constraints are, and probably never will.

[Gao Bohan]

None of that is God's fault, and none of it is about God teaching us lessons.

We've just been told by our religious interlocutors that suffering IS about God teaching us lessons. The problem of evil usually starts with certain assumptions, namely, that God exists, that God is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent. The point of this particular brand of apologetic, then, is to reconcile those assertions.

I believe the believer argument would be that the 'far greater scale of human suffering' actually isn't so big after all. It's a problem of perspective. And the kid (or fellow, observing kids) never sees the lesson, though the parent does.

These arguments have a tendency to be abstract. Let's take the Smart case for something tangible. Her abductor crept into her house, kidnapped her, and raped her repeatedly for months on end. What's the lesson here, precisely?

Let's try another. I read this CNN article this morning about a 5 year old girl in Libya who got her leg torn off from bomb shrapnel.

Misrata, Libya (CNN) -- Five-year-old Malaak is having a bad day. People coming in and out of her room have interrupted her afternoon nap.

"What's up with all these people? It did not used to be that way," she said in a tone of voice laced with contempt. "I used to be able to play and run around. Now these people disturb me."

Malaak has every reason to be frustrated. For nearly a month she has been living, sleeping and eating in a hospital bed.

"What do you want?" her father asked, trying to soothe her.

"Dad, do not make me cry," she responded. "I do not want to see anyone. I want to go home. I want to be able to play and run and do whatever I want. I do not want to feel any pain and want to leave. That's it."

Then she just stopped talking and drifted into one of her silent spells.

I wonder what lesson God wanted to teach her. "Don't be an innocent bystander in a war zone" might be it. Oh wait, it's the parents who are supposed to learn the lesson. Or other kids, or someone. Sorry, I'm having trouble figuring this out. What is the lesson, and who is learning it?

It might be a bit much to ask believers for God's plan on individual cases, so maybe we should look at grander scales of human suffering. Maybe we should start with Southern Sudan. This morning, Sudanese MiGs bombed the border state of South Kordofan, as fighting there entered its sixth day. Of course this is just the latest round of troubles for a region where entire villages have been razed, where women are gang raped and their breasts cut off to prevent them from breastfeeding their babies, where government-backed militias have killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands. Is that scale of human suffering significant enough, or do we need to go bigger? Iraq? Afghanistan?

[finley]

We've just been told by our religious interlocutors that suffering IS about God teaching us lessons. The problem of evil usually starts with certain assumptions, namely, that God exists, that God is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent. The point of this particular brand of apologetic, then, is to reconcile those assertions.

Well, in the case, I'm with you on that one - it's all a pile of unmitigated bollocks.

Like I said, I don't "do" religion. I've got no time for people who make it their business to tell us who God is, what he wants, and how he works - like they know! If there is a God - and my own personal belief is that there is - then those questions are unknowable. We can be sure about that because our little brains can't even grasp the size of the universe, let alone the concept of a being who might know what's going on inside it. Anyone who pretends to be the gatekeeper of those ultimate truths is a snake-oil salesman.

It's irrelevant anyway. Let's say, f'rinstance, that God is constrained by the speed of light (with all the implications of that) like the rest of us. Does that actually change anything? It probably still gives him a massive amount of scope to be God.

I wonder what lesson God wanted to teach her. "Don't be an innocent bystander in a war zone" might be it. Oh wait, it's the parents who are supposed to learn the lesson. Or other kids, or someone. Sorry, I'm having trouble figuring this out. What is the lesson, and who is learning it?

Uh ... yeah, again, bollocks. I'm pretty sure God isn't the great kindergarten teacher in the sky, and I don't know where anyone got that idea or why they're going around telling people that's what faith is about - they're not doing themselves any favours.

Sudanese MiGs bombed the border state of South Kordofan

If you want to believe that God is trying to teach us something in that case, it's to get off our lazy asses and put a proper peacekeeping force in countries where you can't even have a birthday party without precipitating a civil war. Or perhaps there's a lesson for the Russians to stop selling bombers to fucked-up countries. If you get upset about people being slaughtered in Sudan, and assuming God is a benevolent God, imagine what he must be feeling about it all (we can't, of course, but maybe we can take a guess). But seriously, what would you have him do? Does he have to come marching in every time this happens, arrange a Live Aid concert, and miraculously start building schools, farms, roads? Train politicians, judges and military leaders to behave themselves? Here's the thing: if the Sudanese were Christians, they wouldn't be doing things like that in the first place. Whether or not you hack your neighbours to death depends entirely on the way you think about your neighbours.

[Dairyllama]

'God save us from people trying to do god's work.'

I find the only path which makes any sense is that of agnosticism. If there is any god (or gods) we cannot possibly hope to know anything about them. We can take drugs or work ourselves up into stupors where think we perceive a higher level or reality or grasp at some universal truth, but it is an illusion.

The only sensible course of action is to keep learning and keep studying - finding out everything we can from many points of view and try to form our own collection of moral and ethical beliefs, whilst avoiding the temptation of thrusting such beliefs upon others. If god exists, s/he is nothing like what the various religions claim god to be.

-Of course, god is not necessarily anthropomorphic or what we would call, in our colossal egotism and sentimentality, "a decent person".

[Satellite TV]

If Heaven is a realm in which there is no evil, then do its inhabitants have free will?

Certainly it is, and certainly they do. However, its inhabitants do not have the propensity for evil we do, because they are a different kind of being.Our evil acts derive from direct or indirect selfishness, the natural instinct of independent biological organisms to self-optimize; to improve their standard of living, to reproduce, and to take steps to survive.

There is not such entity as evil even though it's a good adjective to use. Evil is a man created idea it does not exist outside of humanity.

Religions were created by man to be used as a form of social control and to get people to conform to very limited real knowledge of the world.

Are these people evil?

[engerim]

Are these people evil?

1) They are Sikh, not Muslims
2) I've seen worse art done by non-religious
3) it was at a sand sculpture fair (in the US), done by (famous) Indian sand sculptor Sudarshan Patnaik