Macs II
01-31-2008, 07:54 PM
Some people say “Why is God so hateful and non-loving that He causes (or allows) suffering?” This has what I call an ‘implication of bias’ (and is a prime example of a fallacy of presupposition). Some people choose to hold God responsible for suffering, with no substantiating evidence. The bias comes from the observed presupposition that God is hateful and non-loving. So it follows that any event that is “bad” is attributed to a non-loving God. This is also perpetuated by a choice to not attribute what is considered “good” to God. From a critic’s perspective, if anything “good” was attributed to God, then God might not be so hateful and non-loving after all, right?
Rather, I think a more productive question could be ‘What were the chain of events that led to a particular event of suffering?’ and ‘What long term benefit exists for an individual to persevere through a suffering event?’
If God is not “good”, then presumably it would not be in His character to tolerate goodness. From an observer perspective, this does not seem like a realistic or accurate representation of God, or of reality. We see examples of goodness and altruistic behavior all the time and throughout human history. In order to justify the view that God is hateful and non-loving, the critic is compelled to maintain this view in order to remain ‘right’ in his/her own mind. In this case, being ‘right’ is more important than acknowledging what is good. This does not seem rational.
We are not in a position to know all the facts surrounding God’s causing or allowing a particular suffering event. It follows then, that we cannot make a fully informed assessment of any suffering event. It seems naïve then, to blame God as if it is a priori, when we have the opportunity to first ask “Could it be that God’s reasons and purposes are greater than our own?
I think it is usually expected that God “allows” suffering to happen. Goodness flows from His character, and so it is to be expected that God would not cause (or allow) suffering without a good reason. Rather than assume that God is non-loving, and since there is no good evidence that God is not loving (and abundant evidence that God IS loving), I think it is more relevant to ask…
‘Why would God, being loving, also allow suffering?’
Some examples have been.. children in a hospital burn ward, or children burned with napalm during the Vietnam war… examples guaranteed to result in a great emotional appeal. This seems normal, as we are emotion-full beings, though sometimes at the expense of reason.
However, by making a great emotional appeal to one particular example of suffering that you are observing, your perspective is not from the one suffering, but from one who is observing it. Unless you experience the same degree of suffering, you don’t really know what degree of later benefit it would have to a person.
For example. You are happily married, but you have a friend who is going through a divorce. You observe a great deal of emotional suffering in your friend. From your friends’ perspective, the divorce is a bad thing. From your perspective, your friends’ suffering is a bad thing. Tracing the chain of events that led to this suffering event, it can be seen that both the divorce and your friend’s suffering are not caused by God, but evidently are allowed by God. From your, and the divorcees’ perspective, no good thing is immediately noticed about the current situation. However, later, the divorcee (presumably) would learn lessons from that experience that build the his/her character, teach him/her things about mistakes they made (or understand mistakes the other person made), and possibly (hopefully) encourage a new resolve to not make the same mistakes, and to handle conflicts or situations differently than before. The result of persevering through that period of suffering could be an increased quality of a future relationship through the wisdom gained, new communication skills learned, or any number of benefits that serve to enhance the quality of a relationship, leading to more joy than that person experienced before.
From the divorcee perspective, suffering could result in character development, increased hope, no disappointment and rejoicing. From the observer perspective, suffering is unjustly blamed on an alleged non-loving God, while the benefits are not attributed to God at all. Unless more information is known to support God’s presumed non-loving involvement, I think we can all see that this is case of implication from bias. In actuality, the direct cause of both the temporary suffering, AND the opportunity for indirect, future life-long benefits was the offending party, not God. In blaming God for the suffering event, the critic is then unwittingly accusing God of being non-loving AND loving.
If God is so bad for allowing or helping these instances of death and suffering to happen, then how are you so much more morally superior than God?
By what standard of rightness are you judging God as being wrong?
Is your rightness absolute, or could you be wrong and God be right? How would you know?
In trying to judge God, what is the source of your presumed superior morality, and what is it's source et etc.
And finally, it seems presumptuous to try to judge God on a moral basis, when we do not know all that He knows, do not know the reasons for His allowing suffering, and because He Himself is the locus of all moral values that we live by, knowingly or not. Is our moral judgment now greater than His, simply because a suffering event results in our emotional appeal? By the way, by claiming God is so "bad", at least the atheist is indirectly acknowledging that God exists. Seems to me, from an ex-atheist perspective, that making a moral judgment on God is simply a waste of time and energy. If I was a committed, fundamentalist atheist, I think it would be a better use of time and energy to just be indifferent about the whole matter.
In my opinion, God is loving whether a person suffers physically or emotionally. It is only our perspective that changes during that time, or an observer perspective. If God was hateful and non-loving, then life would be much worse for us, would it not? God does not change to accommodate our perspective. He knows all things, so He must also know what pain is and has the capacity to experience the same physical and emotional pain that we do. If one’s perspective allows God to only appear hateful and non-loving, then demonstrations of kindness, love, patience, forbearance and radical altruistic behavior must be unsettling to the critic. Presumably, a hateful, non-loving God would not allow such “good” behavior to occur. If God’s character was “bad”, then it would be against His “bad” nature to allow “good” things to happen. However, if one's perspective allows a God that is loving, then one can see comfort and Christ-like altruism in the responses that compassionate and empathetic people demonstrate to those who do suffer. God can then be perceived as no less loving whether suffering occurs or not.
Rather, I think a more productive question could be ‘What were the chain of events that led to a particular event of suffering?’ and ‘What long term benefit exists for an individual to persevere through a suffering event?’
If God is not “good”, then presumably it would not be in His character to tolerate goodness. From an observer perspective, this does not seem like a realistic or accurate representation of God, or of reality. We see examples of goodness and altruistic behavior all the time and throughout human history. In order to justify the view that God is hateful and non-loving, the critic is compelled to maintain this view in order to remain ‘right’ in his/her own mind. In this case, being ‘right’ is more important than acknowledging what is good. This does not seem rational.
We are not in a position to know all the facts surrounding God’s causing or allowing a particular suffering event. It follows then, that we cannot make a fully informed assessment of any suffering event. It seems naïve then, to blame God as if it is a priori, when we have the opportunity to first ask “Could it be that God’s reasons and purposes are greater than our own?
I think it is usually expected that God “allows” suffering to happen. Goodness flows from His character, and so it is to be expected that God would not cause (or allow) suffering without a good reason. Rather than assume that God is non-loving, and since there is no good evidence that God is not loving (and abundant evidence that God IS loving), I think it is more relevant to ask…
‘Why would God, being loving, also allow suffering?’
Some examples have been.. children in a hospital burn ward, or children burned with napalm during the Vietnam war… examples guaranteed to result in a great emotional appeal. This seems normal, as we are emotion-full beings, though sometimes at the expense of reason.
However, by making a great emotional appeal to one particular example of suffering that you are observing, your perspective is not from the one suffering, but from one who is observing it. Unless you experience the same degree of suffering, you don’t really know what degree of later benefit it would have to a person.
For example. You are happily married, but you have a friend who is going through a divorce. You observe a great deal of emotional suffering in your friend. From your friends’ perspective, the divorce is a bad thing. From your perspective, your friends’ suffering is a bad thing. Tracing the chain of events that led to this suffering event, it can be seen that both the divorce and your friend’s suffering are not caused by God, but evidently are allowed by God. From your, and the divorcees’ perspective, no good thing is immediately noticed about the current situation. However, later, the divorcee (presumably) would learn lessons from that experience that build the his/her character, teach him/her things about mistakes they made (or understand mistakes the other person made), and possibly (hopefully) encourage a new resolve to not make the same mistakes, and to handle conflicts or situations differently than before. The result of persevering through that period of suffering could be an increased quality of a future relationship through the wisdom gained, new communication skills learned, or any number of benefits that serve to enhance the quality of a relationship, leading to more joy than that person experienced before.
From the divorcee perspective, suffering could result in character development, increased hope, no disappointment and rejoicing. From the observer perspective, suffering is unjustly blamed on an alleged non-loving God, while the benefits are not attributed to God at all. Unless more information is known to support God’s presumed non-loving involvement, I think we can all see that this is case of implication from bias. In actuality, the direct cause of both the temporary suffering, AND the opportunity for indirect, future life-long benefits was the offending party, not God. In blaming God for the suffering event, the critic is then unwittingly accusing God of being non-loving AND loving.
If God is so bad for allowing or helping these instances of death and suffering to happen, then how are you so much more morally superior than God?
By what standard of rightness are you judging God as being wrong?
Is your rightness absolute, or could you be wrong and God be right? How would you know?
In trying to judge God, what is the source of your presumed superior morality, and what is it's source et etc.
And finally, it seems presumptuous to try to judge God on a moral basis, when we do not know all that He knows, do not know the reasons for His allowing suffering, and because He Himself is the locus of all moral values that we live by, knowingly or not. Is our moral judgment now greater than His, simply because a suffering event results in our emotional appeal? By the way, by claiming God is so "bad", at least the atheist is indirectly acknowledging that God exists. Seems to me, from an ex-atheist perspective, that making a moral judgment on God is simply a waste of time and energy. If I was a committed, fundamentalist atheist, I think it would be a better use of time and energy to just be indifferent about the whole matter.
In my opinion, God is loving whether a person suffers physically or emotionally. It is only our perspective that changes during that time, or an observer perspective. If God was hateful and non-loving, then life would be much worse for us, would it not? God does not change to accommodate our perspective. He knows all things, so He must also know what pain is and has the capacity to experience the same physical and emotional pain that we do. If one’s perspective allows God to only appear hateful and non-loving, then demonstrations of kindness, love, patience, forbearance and radical altruistic behavior must be unsettling to the critic. Presumably, a hateful, non-loving God would not allow such “good” behavior to occur. If God’s character was “bad”, then it would be against His “bad” nature to allow “good” things to happen. However, if one's perspective allows a God that is loving, then one can see comfort and Christ-like altruism in the responses that compassionate and empathetic people demonstrate to those who do suffer. God can then be perceived as no less loving whether suffering occurs or not.