To apply the notion of justice to your suffering in the absence of the presumption of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God would be a category error. — Janus

So why must we apply the notion of justice to suffering with the presence of of God? There is no other way?

What you dismiss as a category error, I dismissed as justification - it’s the dismissal of trying to justify suffering that is the point.

Because we know how powerful God is, and we know what God would want to do with suffering, and we know God knows everything - we know God must not exist because we suffer?

We know how all of that works, how suffering, power and goodness would all be justified, and that this new justified world would have no suffering in it? There is no other logical conclusion? We might not understand what we mean by “God” or “all-good” or “all-power”?

God only wants there to be beauty and has the power to make what he wants. I have an ugly mole. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

No, the reality of a suffering world is incompatible with the usual conception of a tri-omni God.

Atheists complaining about the God they don't believe in doing things they don't believe God ought to do. :roll:

Atheists complaining about the God they don't believe in doing things they don't believe God ought to do. — Wayfarer

Atheists generally get their idea of God from elementary religious education, from interacting with casual believers and from listening to sermons in church directed mainly at casual believers. You can't really blame them for not appreciating these sophisticated, esoteric alternative accounts of God of interest mainly to a small number of theology-inclined people.

Maybe the actual problem is this massive conceptual gulf between the mainstream sky-daddy and the borderline Lovecraftian "higher being" of the theistic intelligentsia?

Maybe. I confess I only ever read one Lovecraft book, but the idea of entering other realms of being through dreams really struck me.

I think if you read it more you would find a lot of your own ideas reversed and turned into horror. Lovecraftian enlightenment amounts to confronting human ignorance and worthlessness and the absolute amorality and indifference of all things "higher".

‘Beware the Dark Side Luke’ :scream:

Atheists generally get their idea of God from elementary religious education, from interacting with casual believers and from listening to sermons in church directed mainly at casual believers. — goremand

I think the kind of atheists who the OP is referring to get their idea of God from New Atheist sermons. That group is disproportionately represented online.

I don't find that plausible. I think people get these ideas independently, then they flock to Dawkins or whoever because he gives them validation. New Atheism is (was) reactionary in that sense.

And more importantly, they always cared far more about the opinions of Al Qaeda, Kent Hovind and the Westboro Baptist Church than those of Alvin Plantinga or Thomas Aquinas.

- True, but there is a particular culture that accounts for why one is made to focus on the Westboro's and then seek validation for their focus, and it can be traced back even as far as Enlightenment Rationalism.

one is made to focus on the Westboro's — Leontiskos

As opposed to what? Who is more deserving of our focus?

Atheists generally get their idea of God from elementary religious education, from interacting with casual believers and from listening to sermons in church directed mainly at casual believers. You can't really blame them for not appreciating these sophisticated, esoteric alternative accounts of God of interest mainly to a small number of theology-inclined people.

Maybe the actual problem is this massive conceptual gulf between the mainstream sky-daddy and the borderline Lovecraftian "higher being" of the theistic intelligentsia? — goremand

In the sophisticated mainstream theological accounts of God I have encountered, he is still considered to be all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful and that conception is simply incompatible with the nature of the world he is believed to have created. So, it is not just the simplistic "sky-daddy" conception of God which is inconsistent with the suffering in the world.

Some theologians may tackle this by removing one or other of the omnis from God's CV in order to achieve some consistency, I don't know if that is so, just surmising. It's the turning of the theological backs on human notions of goodness and justice which I find indefensible.

I do know the Gnostics believed, with far greater consistency than the mainstream theologians, that this world was created by an inferior and deluded deity they called (if I remember right) Yaldobaoth.

In my experince there is always a way for theists to get God 'off the hook.' If you are passionate about your beliefs you will find a work around. Remember the exculpatory interpretations the Communists used to provide for Stalin? Everyone likes their rationalisations - even the atheists.

As it happens theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart has cited suffering as the argument that gives him the most amount of doubt and his understanding of God (disliked by some Christians as being too progressive or Left and therefore mistaken) is highly sophisticated.

When someone proffers the design argument and appeals to the perfection of nature one can always argue that this perfection is dubious at best since nature is full of horrors and fuck ups and if God were a car manufacture, he would likely be prosecuted and shut down.

It's the turning of the theological backs on human notions of goodness and justice which I find indefensible. — Janus

That's it, in a nutshell. If our human notions of goodness and justice are so far off the mark, from God's point of view, then why call God "really" good or just at all? It's just words, at that point. I think there are ways to "get God off the hook" but this isn't one of them. It's as shameful as a parent whipping a child into the hospital while saying, "But this is just a sign of how much I love you." Yeah, with love like that, who needs hatred?

So, 'salvation' is an empty word, a cruel hoax on mankind. There has never been such a state, the whole thing is a monstrous lie, foisted on mankind by unscrupulous institutions bent on exploitation. Correct?

That's it, in a nutshell. If our human notions of goodness and justice are so far off the mark, from God's point of view, then why call God "really" good or just at all? It's just words, at that point. I think there are ways to "get God off the hook" but this isn't one of them. It's as shameful as a parent whipping a child into the hospital while saying, "But this is just a sign of how much I love you." Yeah, with love like that, who needs hatred? — J

This is a bit like saying, "All teh theists are Westboro Baptists!" It's an irresponsible strawman.

Reformed theology is problematic.* Also, the Reformed constitute a tiny fraction of Christianity. So why take the beliefs of a 2.5% minority and pretend that they represent the whole group? ...Because it's fun to be indignant, and focusing on the crazy minority offers that opportunity.

* Or rather, some. It's not even fair to characterize that whole group this way.

When someone proffers the design argument and appeals to the perfection of nature one can always argue that this perfection is dubious at best since nature is full of horrors and fuck ups and if God were a car manufacture, he would likely be prosecuted and shut down. — Tom Storm

But again this predicated on the expectation that existence ought to be a state of perfection, or a state of being where there is no suffering, predation, death or loss. What is the basis of that expectation?

But again this predicated on the expectation that existence ought to be a state of perfection, or a state of being where there is no suffering, predation, death or loss. What is the basis of that expectation? — Wayfarer

My conversations with theists who argue this time and again. All these sorts of arguments exist solely as a riposte to to common arguments put out by theists. Of course, not all theists hold to this but what percentage of Christians and Muslims do you think are out there with sophisticated accounts?

I'm interested in the truth of the matter, not 'what people say'. It's obvious that a lot of what goes on in the name of religions is a complete travesty. It can't be forgotten that at the heart of this is the fact that Jesus himself suffered terribly, and believed himself utterly abandoned by God at the time of his greatest need. 'Why have you forsaken me?' He did not, as some of the gnostics say, escape to some ethereal otherworld leaving an empty body, as well as an empty tomb. Suffering is an unavoidable fact of existence, as much as one might wish it to be otherwise.

:up: Well... I'm not sure we have access to truth. Philosophy begins with folk conceptions of the world, which explains why debates like realism versus idealism persist. These foundational perspectives continue to shape metaphysical inquiry, even as our methods, frameworks, and language become more sophisticated. The Trump phenomenon partly shows what happens when folk religion is weaponized to support bigotries, so it's still a live issue. Is it philosophy? Not entirely, but not entirely unrelated either.

In my experince there is always a way for theists to get God 'off the hook.' If you are passionate about your beliefs you will find a work around. Remember the exculpatory interpretations the Communists used to provide for Stalin? Everyone likes their rationalisations - even the atheists. — Tom Storm

I would agree with you that it is a very human default tendency to rationalize in order to manufacture support for what we want to believe. But isn't the aim of philosophy the truth and isn't rationalization, in whatever area of one's life it is practiced, an impediment to seeing the truth?

Stalinists and ideologues are just as much victims and/or purveyors of blind faith as religionists in my view. On the other hand, atheism is simply lack of belief in a god. When atheists point out the inconsistency between our notions of goodness and justice and the usual conception and the biblical presentation (at least) of God, I don't see that as any kind of rationalization but as reasoned critique.

I'm not familiar with Bentley Hart, so I don't know if I would consider his conception of God to be reasonable, but I would say that any reasonable understanding of what a deity might be would not be such as to offer any comfort to us.

I agree with you regarding the supposed perfection of nature. Nature is a work in progress and is both beautiful and awe-inspiring and terrible and in some ways far from perfect.

The argument given by religious apologists that asks why we should expect nature to be without suffering and judge the notion of God as inconsistent with the suffering we see everywhere fails to take account of the fact that God is presented by religious authorities as all-goo, all-knowing and all-powerful, and also judgmental to the point of casting sinners into eternal damnation.

From the perspective of the human understanding of goodness and justice this is appalling, and the only answer religious apologists have is to say something along the lines of "God moves in mysterious ways". This seems to me a total copout. If God were really what they claim he is, he could have created a perfect world for his creatures where they always already enjoy perfect happiness. He is said to be omniscient and omnipotent after all.

So, it is only that conception of God that I have a problem with, and that I think any reasonable person should have a problem with. The thing is that by and large within the Abrahamic religions it is THE conception.

I'm not sure we have access to truth. — Tom Storm

I was rather struck by the William Butler Yeats quote, 'man can embody the truth, but he cannot know it', written days before his death in a letter to a friend. So truth is something that can only be lived, a state of being, rather than an abstract proposition. And I would hope that what is worth saving from the religions is aimed at that (and that indeed there is).

I don't know if that is so, just surmising. — Janus

You should find a theological treatment of the problem of evil and actually read it. That way your appraisal will be based on at least one piece of real evidence.

As far as popular writers who come to mind, there's Brian Davies, Eleonore Stump, David Bentley Hart, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, C. S. Lewis, N. T. Wright...

So, 'salvation' is an empty word, a cruel hoax on mankind. There has never been such a state, the whole thing is a monstrous lie, foisted on mankind by unscrupulous institutions bent on exploitation. Correct? — Wayfarer

No, definitely not. I'm saying the opposite. It would be a monstrous lie, cruel hoax, etc, if there were indeed no salvation, no possibility of an afterlife. But I believe there is, and not for nothing is this the central metaphysical tenet of traditional Christian theology. I think that when the Western tradition speaks of a god of love and justice, those words mean just what they mean to any ordinary human being. In order for God to truly deserve being described with those qualities, however, this life cannot be the end of the story.

But we can't play games with words and try to maintain that "love" in God's eyes "really" means what humans mean by "cruelty" or "indifference."

I can see that. But I still feel that what we experience as divine indifference is understandable in the Augustinian framework of the privation (or deprivation) of the good. We experience this as lack or want - lack of health, lack of ease, lack of sustenance, and lack of love. On account of that we're separated, other than, outside of, exiled, or cut off. Hence the motif universal to Christianity, although not nearly so explicit in Protestant Christianity, of theosis, of union, as the healing of that sense of 'otherness'. But I agree, it's a very deep and difficult issue.

The plain fact that one believes in a personal God is enough to dismiss their arguments about said God. It doesn't even get of the ground as a concept, so the arguments around what the God should or shouldn't do are basically a way of making fun of those types of people.

If you truly think the Christian God is the author of reality, whether or not he likes priests to bum infants is hte least of your worries.

That's it, in a nutshell. If our human notions of goodness and justice are so far off the mark, from God's point of view, then why call God "really" good or just at all? It's just words, at that point. I think there are ways to "get God off the hook" but this isn't one of them. It's as shameful as a parent whipping a child into the hospital while saying, "But this is just a sign of how much I love you." Yeah, with love like that, who needs hatred? — J

Yes, I agree. But I note that you also said in a response to another poster:

It would be a monstrous lie, cruel hoax, etc, if there were indeed no salvation, no possibility of an afterlife. But I believe there is, and not for nothing is this the central metaphysical tenet of traditional Christian theology. I think that when the Western tradition speaks of a god of love and justice, those words mean just what they mean to any ordinary human being. In order for God to truly deserve being described with those qualities, however, this life cannot be the end of the story. — J

I don't agree with this for two reasons. An all-powerful all-loving all-knowing God could have created paradise to begin with. There is no need to torture his creatures even if the reward (for some?) is eternal happiness thereafter.

The other reason is that no mention of an afterlife is posited for the animals, who also suffer. Given those two issues I would still say that no three-O God cuts the mustard from the POV of humans notions of goodness and justice.

I know there are different conceptions of God than the one that posits the three O's although I'm not sure there are mainstream theologians who hold them. I also know that any theodicy which insists on maintaining the three O's is fatally flawed from the point of view of a human conception of justice and goodness, and I find any position that claims that we can't really understand divine justice and goodness ridiculous and in fact pernicious.

You'll hear apologists saying it's an issue deep and difficult to understand, but I agree with Nietzsche that is merely obfuscation: muddying the waters to make them appear deep. So, I don't need to read into an area I'm not really interested in, given that I find in myself no need to believe in God, and do not find the idea at all plausible from a rational standpoint in any case.

The plain fact that one believes in a personal God is enough to dismiss their arguments about said God. It doesn't even get of the ground as a concept, so the arguments around what the God should or shouldn't do are basically a way of making fun of those types of people. — AmadeusD

If it doesn't "get off the ground" as a concept, then I don't think it's a matter of making fun of them but of pointing out the flaws in the concept and hoping they will be disabused of the idea. You don't educate people by making fun of them.

And I would hope that what is worth saving from the religions is aimed at that (and that indeed there is). — Wayfarer

That's fair.

It's the turning of the theological backs on human notions of goodness and justice which I find indefensible. — Janus

But it works as solution to the problem, and for a philosopher that is all that matters.

My point is that I find it hard to blame a these more politically animated New Atheist types for attacking the conception of God with the greatest social relevance. Of course we shouldn't lower ourselves to that level.

why take the beliefs of a 2.5% minority and pretend that they represent the whole group? — Leontiskos

Then why should we listen to Wayfarers conception of God? How many % does he represent?

It's the turning of the theological backs on human notions of goodness and justice which I find indefensible.
— Janus

But it works as solution to the problem, and for a philosopher that is all that matters. — goremand

I don't understand why you would think that something that rejects human rationality is a solution to any problem and especially in the context of philosophical thought.