The idea that Gods will necessarily aligns with what is good is one of "our" notions of goodness, people just don't necessarily get that it implies that God is fine with human misery. When you do get there you can choose to reject the notion that "God is good" or the notion that "misery is bad", but I wouldn't say either choice makes you irrational.Positing a purported goodness that is not good according to our understanding of goodness or a purported justice that is not just according to our conception of justice is irrational. — Janus
The other reason is that no mention of an afterlife is posited for the animals, who also suffer. — Janus
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 — Wayfarer
But I agree, it's a very deep and difficult issue. — Wayfarer
Accepting that God exists, He could not be Good considering the existence of Evil in the world. Good and Evil are fundamental features of reality, and both are necessary. To my understanding, God must be neutral regarding Good and Evil, so all problems are resolved.The argument is simple and emotionally powerful: if God is all-powerful and all-good, then why does He allow terrible suffering? — Wayfarer
I don't need to read — Janus
So why must we apply the notion of justice to suffering with the presence of of God? There is no other way? — Fire Ologist
Then why should we listen to Wayfarers conception of God? How many % does he represent? — goremand
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. — goremand
Along the same lines, I think this is just false. The caricatures that atheists present are not found in elementary religious education, among casual believers, or in church sermons—unless the atheist limits themselves to Westboro Baptist sermons, which they may well do. — Leontiskos
There is continuity between the academy and the general population. Parishioners learn from pastors who read theologians. They are all on the same page, it's just that there is a time lapse between the academy and the general population. — Leontiskos
Atheists who draw from more able minds are not as vocal (because they are drawing from thinkers like Nietzsche, Marx, Feuerbach, Comte, etc., and these thinkers are much more careful and nuanced in their representations of theism). — Leontiskos
Well these people sound nice. I wonder why it is that when I spoke of "atheists generally" your mind went straight to Dawkins and Hitchens and not to these guys. — goremand
A far cry from the timeless, genderless, emotionless, unfathomable "being" all the serious thinkers seem to end up with. — goremand
The seed is already there, so to speak. — goremand
If you say so. My impression is that a lot of stuff gets lost in this game of telephones. The God of the common believer has always felt very "human" to me, he's our father, he loves us, he'll take care of us in the end, etc. A far cry from the timeless, genderless, emotionless, unfathomable "being" all the serious thinkers seem to end up with. — goremand
I wonder why it is that when I spoke of "atheists generally" your mind went straight to Dawkins and Hitchens and not to these guys. — goremand
I don't know whether you've had the misfortune of watching a parent suffer the loss of a child — J
The idea that Gods will necessarily aligns with what is good is one of "our" notions of goodness, people just don't necessarily get that it implies that God is fine with human misery. When you do get there you can choose to reject the notion that "God is good" or the notion that "misery is bad", but I wouldn't say either choice makes you irrational. — goremand
Completely agree. Traditional Christian theology is primitive, in this area. But I think we can "expand the circle of compassion" without necessarily moving out of the Abrahamic traditions entirely. (FWIW, I've been an animal-rights advocate -- and vegan -- for decades.) — J
When you {plural} use the word "God" are you referring to A) the triune God of Christianity, one aspect of whom is a person capable of empathizing with human suffering? Which may be an attempt to reconcile the "notion of justice" with an omniscient abstract God, incapable of suffering . Or B) to the omnipotent (necessary & sufficient) God of Spinoza, which is the non-personal force of Nature, that is no respecter of persons, hence dispenser of impartial natural justice (it is what it is)? — Gnomon
The problem with this esoteric (and sometimes apophatic) version of God is that it's so hard to get people interested in it. Why would they care? Theistic personalism seems to have more vitality. — Tom Storm
Where I live, neither atheism nor theism interests most people. They seem to be default atheists, with no particular arguments against gods, just a lack of interest — Tom Storm
Christian theism is both philosophically and Scripturally informed, and therefore in that case a "personal" God is not unphilosophical. — Leontiskos
If God is fine with human misery then he is not good according to the human conception of goodness. Misery cannot but be bad according to that conception. — Janus
Now I'm sure some good work has been done to stich together "the God that draws the crowds" and "the God that wins internet arguments" and I don't want to sell that short, but fundamentally that is what I take it to be: reconciling two very different ideas of God created for two very different purposes. — goremand
We have had personal tragedies in my immediate and extended family, but I’ve never felt that it was something God did. The question ‘how could God let this happen?’ never occurred to me. — Wayfarer
What I can criticize are rational arguments for the existence of God, and weak apologetics...I've examined them all and none of them work. If you are a believer why not accept that, simply believe on the strength of feeling alone. like Kierkegaard's arational "leap of faith" and leave others to their own feelings in the matter? For many reasons I don't think it is an interesting or fitting topic for philosophical discussion. — Janus
Preachers need a God with charisma, it's in their interest not to make him too "weird". — goremand
More directly, the Christian claim is that God descends to man in man's hour of need, so it's not surprising that the "bottom-up" part would also be in place. — Leontiskos
I guess I don't see why philosophical and religious notions of God must be incompatible. — Leontiskos
If God is fine with human misery then he is not good according to the human conception of goodness. Misery cannot but be bad according to that conception.
— Janus
Exceedingly narrowminded, in my opinion. "Suffering is good" is perhaps a strange and disturbing claim but I wouldn't say it's a literal contradiction in terms. Maybe it is a contradiction under your conception of goodness, but that's all it is: your conception. — goremand
As it happens, I agree with you about the rational arguments. I believe religion begins where philosophy ends. And theology, that halfway house, has never interested me much. But let me push back a little on your final sentence, or at least the "fitting" part. Whether it is true -- whether it's fitting for philosophy to examine rational apologetics -- is itself a philosophical question. The arguments themselves may or may not fit comfortably within philosophical practice. But that too is a philosophical question.
I'm pointing out this peculiarity of philosophy: To consider whether something should be ruled in or out of philosophy is . . . to do more philosophy! And I'm sure you're not saying that the meta-question itself is inappropriate. — J
I think the idea that misery is bad is universal, or almost universal. Do you really believe anyone thinks it is good to be miserable? I doubt there are any or at least many. It seems it is your assertion that misery could be considered good, that is out of step and is merely "your conception". — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.