It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God"

Great Debates
1

People often point to all the suffering in the world as an argument against God. Sometimes it’s to argue against the existence of God, sometimes it’s to imply that if there is a God, he’s evil.

Christopher Hitchens gets asked in this video what “anti-theism” has contributed to the world. Hitchens responds by saying that theism seemed to offer nothing to Joseph Frtizl’s daughter.

But it got me thinking. Why do atheists so often point to the suffering in this world to argue against God? If we take the Abrahamic faiths as our example, we know that the inhabitants of hell will suffer far beyond what any person has suffered in this world. Islamic tradition narrates the story of an inhabitant of the hellfire who will spend every waking moment thinking that nobody could be suffering as much as he is, when in actual fact, he will be the person who is suffering the least. To put it another way, every single inhabitant of hell would, by all accounts, trade their spot with Fritzl’s daughter in the blink of an eye. Or, I’ll put it another way: If you want to talk about the worst kinds of suffering, you look silly talking about anything earthly.

But silly seems to be how a lot of God bashers don’t mind looking.

The Abrahamic faiths also seem to indicate pretty strongly that those who suffer the worst in this life, will have it “the best” in the next life.

If we say for the sake of argument that the God of Abraham is the one true God. I then ask you which scenario is worse:

Spending 24 years locked in a cellar, being raped by your father nearly every day, eventually being freed, living (most likely) for no more than 90 odd years, in which you then transition to the next life, where you will enter a state of eternal bliss, the likes of which you couldn’t ever hope to experience here on earth.

Or…

Live a fairly comfortable life here on earth, but due to a pretty selfish existence, burn for an eternity in hell.

If eternal bliss was offered to me for the price of an earthly torment, I’d take it.

Wouldn’t anyone?

2

I don’t take the suffering to argue against the existence of God (which is a waste of time), but rather to point out the flaws in any religious interpretation that claims to understand God and that God is merciful and just.

3

I just wanted to point out that “thoedicy” is my new word for the day. Thank you.

4

The problems of evil and arbitary suffering do not disprove the existence of god, but it does suggest that a benevolent god does not exist.

I find that absurd, why should it be necessary to pay such a price?

In my view, any god that would create a hell does not deserve to be worshipped, only feared.

5

I don’t believe you can “…point out the flaws in any religious interpretation…” with anything but a form of witnessing.

Do you?

6

What if he didn’t create such a hell?

How does that change things?

7

Well, of course.

The problem is that there isn’t any eternal bliss. Atheists aren’t arguing the pros and cons of earthly suffering versus eternal paradise. They’re pointing out the fact that there is no eternal paradise. There’s no equation to be worked out there. The existence of earthly suffering is simply one of a jillion arguments against the existence of God; in the sense of the Abrahamic God, earthly suffering is pointless (a person who doesn’t suffer much is just as equally rewarded in Heaven as one who does, as long as she’s pious.)

I’d agree earthly suffering isn’t the strongest argument against God’s existence, but only because there are so many other even stronger arguments.

But as Bryan Ekers points out, earthly suffering points to another weakness in the Abrahamic mythology. Even if you were to believe in the invisible-man-in-the-sky monotheistic God, the nature of earthly suffering argues against the default Abrahamic assumption that God loves human beings. If He does, then why bother with life on Earth at all? Why not just create the souls and plop them directly into Heaven? There’s no logical argument for the arrangement we have now if God is eternally loving and merciful - so maybe if there is God, He isn’t eternally loving and merciful. Perhaps God is sadistic and cruel. Why not? Based on the available evidence it’s every bit as reasonable a conclusion.

And historically, “you’ll be rewarded in the afterlife” has been used far too often as a way of excusing NOT helping those who are suffering in real life.

8

Thanks for a great post. I suspect you and Pascal would be drinking buddies.

But the responses so far I think are missing your point.

9

Your theodicy is that suffering by God in Hell is worse than anything anyone can suffer on earth, therefore allowing suffering on earth is not inconsistent with an omnimax God? That makes no sense whatsoever. You’re actually kind of arguing against yourself. Hell itself cannot be consistent with an omnibenevolent God. Arguing that God can be more evil than Joseph Fritzi is not exactly a defense of God’s goodness.

10

That’s a pretty sadistic view of things you have there, OP, if you’re trying to establish a view whereby God tortures people on Earth just so he can slap them on the back when they get to heaven and say, “Was just messin’ with ya. Have to test you to make sure you’re worthy, ya know?”

And anyway I’d take the comfortable life on Earth any day, laughing my ass off at the ones who purposely bring hardship and suffering unto themselves because they think they are scoring some sort of Afterlife Points, only to find out that when they die nothing happens except that they rot in a box.

11

I would not be interested in that deal, no, but the bigger problem with that as an answer to the POE is that no such condition is necessary or logically reconcilable with a benevolent God. Only an evil God would impose rape, or torture or childhood leukemia as a condition for his so-called “Heaven.”

12

The traditonal idea of Eternal Hell as punishment imposed from outside is indeed inconsistent with the idea of an O-B God. However, if souls are eternal and a soul can harden itself to be eternally irreconcilable to an all-good God, then that soul’s eternal rebellion & resulting resentment against that God Who just will not go away is indeed a totally just & proper Hell. While I hold to Annihilation & Universal Salvation as possible options, I cannot deny that a form of Eternal Torment as posited by C.S. Lewis &/or the Eastern Orthodox may well be the final fate of incorrigible souls.

13

Firstly, if all the suffering in the world can’t be used to argue against the existence of God, then neither can all the wonders and beauty be used as an argue for him. I’m frequently told that surely God exists, because there’s love and flowers and rainbows and butterflies. But I believe if he gets credit for the good things, he should get credit for the bad things. And if he’s responsible for the bad things, then he’s not as loving as much as indifferent to his creation. And if he’s indifferent, then he doesn’t really care for us or our love for him. He’s not very lovable or understanding.

Secondly, it’s easy to accept suffering if you know there’s an external bliss waiting for you. But doesn’t that sound awfully convenient? It’s no different than the fantasies a wretched prisoner dreams up to help him cope through solitary confinement. The question is, would you still love God even if there was no promise of heaven or hell? Would you follow his commandments and love others even if death was death and there wasn’t another door on the other side?

Sounds to me that the concept of heaven is the only incentive for being a Christian, given that God chooses who he’ll help or hurt regardless of how much love they have for him. Take away the heaven thing and you’re left with nothing but a diety who likes to create both beautiful and ugly things, and allows people to suffer or live abundantly based on a mix of random and non-random factors. Doesn’t sound like a very lovable diety to me. Sounds like Chaos.

I’ll ask it again: If there was no promise of heaven in the Bible, would you still love God?

14

What does it mean for a soul to “rebel” against God?

How can an individual “resent” something he/she does not believe exists?

How can God expect people to reconcile themselves with him if he is not willing to communicate with them or prove his own existence?

How does any of that justify allowing suffering on earth?

15

Fair enough. But why is it when God bashers/atheists want to present some evidence against God, whether in regards to his existence, his benevolence, theism vs atheism, etc, and they clearly want to present suffering as their evidence, do they pick such silly and comparatively mild examples? Not only do they go for these strange examples, but any sane person would choose an earthly torment for eternal paradise.

Whatever point an atheist is making when he/she references earthly suffering, I sure can’t figure it out.

16

What sort of piss-weak god do you worship? Why doesn’t this god have the power to let the mortal have their cake and eat it too, living a life without constant rape and then still getting the good ending?

17

Because the existence of hell is not universally accepted by theists.

18

Why did you go for rape, torture and childhood leukemia as your examples? Why not go for runny noses, cold weather and peak hour traffic?

Seems like you wanted to go for some extreme examples of suffering, yes?

Well, you failed pretty badly if this is the worst you could come up with.

19

No problem. Let’s assume that those who suffer the worst in this life, have it the best in the next life.

How much suffering would you be prepared to go through during your 90 or so years of earthly existence?

20

(hijack) Hitchens’ Quo Vadis joke was originally told by Winston Churchill about Labour MP’s Christopher Mayhew, and post-war socialism in general.