Part 9 of 10: The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Answers vs. the 1 Naturalistic

[RattyRandnums]

Nice videos. Thought provoking and interesting.

And holy hell I love Reel Big Fish but I never thought about "My Imaginary Friend" in religious terms, I'd always just sort of skimmed over it as one of the better songs in what was ultimately a lack luster addition to their library. But looking at the lyrics it's clearly about discovering ones atheism. That is so awesome! Automatically raises that whole album in my esteem.

[ToddAllenGates]

@RattyRandnums

> Nice videos. Thought provoking and interesting.

Thanks!

> I love Reel Big Fish but I never thought about "My Imaginary Friend" in religious terms ... But looking at the lyrics it's clearly about discovering one's atheism ... Automatically raises that whole album in my esteem

Yes, agreed!

[ceezmad1]

one god? two gods? 3?

If there are any gods out there they must be at least 52!

[RabidApe]

votemeat is good

[natewheatshelf]

Votebots are bad.

[RabidApe]

votemeat is good

[RabidAp3]

comment

[senorspiegel]

it must be painful to have to argue such basic ideas, but good job. very nice series

[ToddGates]

> it must be painful to have to argue such basic ideas

Too bad it's necessary - but it is, especially here in America, where the majority of people manage to convince themselves that there's no significant contradiction between their religious beliefs, and all of nature's built-in suffering.

> good job. very nice series

Thanks!

[hugesinker]

Your scrutiny here is really against an intervening God in general, and not specific to this explanation of suffering.

One could easily make the counterargument that even though floods or tornado are natural, they don't HAVE to kill or wound people or create a whole new level of devastation-- thus allowing for the interaction of a less-than all-good God

However, I can't think of anything better, except to confront the absurdity of such a God's motivations and imperfect justice..

[ToddAllenGates2]

1 of 3:

> Your scrutiny here is really against an intervening God in general, and not specific to this explanation of suffering.

Well, this specific explanation of suffering comes mainly from dualistic and polytheistic religions: that evil supernatural powers are the cause of suffering---the evil Zoroastrian god Ahriman, or Zeus when he's in a funk, etc.

[ToddAllenGates2]

2 of 3:

My counter-argument is that the randomness in which natural disasters strike suggest there's no "intention" to cause harm: that Poseidon's trident may sometimes drown sailors and wipe out coastal villages, but Poseidon also seems to be furious at areas in the middle of the ocean where there's no one but fish to notice (and who probably aren't even bothered). This weakens the notion that there are supernatural forces purposefully out to "get us."

[ToddAllenGates2]

3 of 3:

And *especially* when we consider all the natural disasters that have struck the earth prior to the arrival of humans, such as the asteroid that wiped out so much of the earth's life some 65 million years ago. (The work of a demon with a bad sense of timing? Or maybe one that just hated dinosaurs?)

[lauragabriel]

I think one of my previous comments was erased. I'll post it again: you say that free will does not explain natural disasters. Alvin Plantinga (well known philosopher on the problem of evil) claims that natural disasters happen as a result demons' free will. Ultimately, all the problem of suffering comes down to free will.

[ToddGates]

1 of 9:

> I think one of my previous comments was erased. I'll post it again

Curious---I know I didn't delete anything from you. Maybe it contained some character combination that YouTube blocked (through much trial & error, for example, I found that YouTube blocks anything with three "w's" in a row). At any rate, thanks for re-posting.

[ToddGates]

2 of 9:

> Alvin Plantinga ... claims that natural disasters happen as a result demons' free will. Ultimately, all the problem of suffering comes down to free will.

I discussed this briefly back in Part 4---the idea that God gave not only humans Free Will, but *angels* too, so one of them turned into Satan, others into Satan's Helpers---but in retrospect, I think I should have dwelled upon it a bit more (as if this video series isn't long enough already!).

[ToddGates]

3 of 9:

I think this "the devil(s) did it" explanation could arguably apply to a *limited* set of observations: the lightening bolt that sets a town ablaze, the earthquake that destroys a village, the congenital birth defect that makes a child suffer for years before dying.

[ToddGates]

4 of 9:

But look at all the lightening bolts that appear harmlessly in the sky, and the earthquakes that occur in unpopulated areas---do demons cause these too, and simply miss their targets? Look at the birth defects that occur in *all* species, including slugs and cockroaches. Do demons use their evil magic powers to "get" lower life forms too? Seems a waste of wickedness ...

[ToddGates]

5 of 9:

On the other hand, look at how much more coherently the non-supernatural explanation can make sense of *all* observations, and make predictions that agree with future observations. Earthquakes happen because the earth's core is hot and the heat makes the giant plates of the earth's surface moving in a way that results in earthquakes ...

[ToddGates]

6 of 9:

... and these conditions occur *regardless* of whether there's a nearby population to inflict suffering upon. Same with the conditions that make for lightening, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.

[ToddGates]

7 of 9:

Of course, the answer that we live in an indifferent non-magical universe is unacceptable to theists (which I assume you are), primarily for reasons that have nothing to do with suffering (the First Cause argument, the Intelligent Design argument, the Spiritual Sensation argument, etc.---but let's not go into those tangents!).

[ToddGates]

8 of 9:

So I understand why you have to account for suffering in some way that can be reconciled with your belief in a Supernatural Creator---that it *can't* be true that we live in an indifferent universe. So within that realm of "there HAS to a supernatural answer," the answer "the devil(s) did it" is as good as any of the others.

[ToddGates]

9 of 9:

But the main reason *I* don't believe in demons is not b/c they don't coherently explain suffering, but for the same reason I don't believe in unicorns: I can't say I *know* that no such creatures exist, I just see no evidence to believe in them.

So--demons, unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy: I see them as all in the same category, in the sense that there's no evidence to conclude that they stem from anywhere other than the fertile human imagination.

[lauragabriel]

Theodicists may even agree that there is no evidence for God or demons. Their task is not to prove God's existence (that is actually the task of the natural theologian), but rather, to prove that suffering is not an argument against the existence of God.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> Their task is ... to prove that suffering is not an argument against the existence of God.

I actually agree. To quote Dawkins: "I have never found the problem of evil very persuasive as an argument against deities. There seems no obvious reason to presume that your God will be good. ...

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

"... I have always thought the 'Problem of Evil' was a rather trivial problem for theists, compared to the Argument from Improbability which is a genuinely powerful, indeed knockdown argument against the very existence of all forms of unevolved creative intelligence."

(From "The Theology of the Tsunami")

[lauragabriel]

Yes, Dawkins is amusing as usual. Yet, one may consider the last part of Epicurus' Paradox: if God is not good, then why call him "God"?

[hugesinker]

'If God is not good, then why call him "God"?'

Because if you don't it will make him upset, and you don't want to see a non-good God upset?

[lauragabriel]

Yes, exactly. Plantinga et al posit the existence of demons in order to reconcile evil with the existence of God.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> Yes, exactly. Plantinga et al posit the existence of demons in order to reconcile evil with the existence of God.

One problem solved, but several new ones created!

- How did the All-Powerful God slip so badly as to have demons in His Creation?

- Given that "demon free will" often robs people of their own Free Will, why is it that demon free will gets priority over the likes of helpless babies?

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

- Are "bad mutations" created by demons but "good mutations" created by God? What about a mutation such as flies born without wings--a mutation that's "bad" for them in NYC but "good" on a windy island? Are demons in charge where there's an adverse effect, but God commands the same mutation where it's beneficial?

Yes, apologists such as Plantinga can continue to invent bizarre scenarios to answer *all* questions, but their arguments become more & more convoluted the more they're probed.

[lauragabriel]

These are tough challenges, and I am not absolutely sure how theodicisists would respond. But, I supose that their answer might be: in as much as God is omniscient, He knows that by not giving winds to a fly, this will be benefitial in an island. So, He gives wings to those flies He knows will remain in the islan.

[lauragabriel]

I'm not a theist, I am just playing Devil's Advocate in order to refine your arguments (and mine!).

[ToddAllenGates]

> I'm not a theist,

Good to hear!

> I am just playing Devil's Advocate in order to refine your arguments

I think it's working---and I appreciate it!

[lauragabriel]

Again, theodicists will claim that, this inefficiency is due to demons' free will and bad use of their intelligence. In the same manner that there are skilled and unskilled robbers, there are skilled and unskilled demons. True, no evidence points towards the existence of demons, but theodicists only try to provide a scenario that is logically possible, and based upon this scenario, the existence of a good and omnipotent God remains logically possible, even in the face of suffering.

[ToddAllenGates]

> the existence of a good and omnipotent God remains logically possible, even in the face of suffering.

"Possible," yes, but highly improbable, given the far-fetched and contradictory nature of their arguments (e.g. "demons are powerful to cause volcanoes to erupt for the purpose of hurting humans, but sometimes they miss"---or in other words, their destructive power is much greater than the military, but their aim is much worse).

[lauragabriel]

I do not think improbable that powerful, dumb evil people exist. But then again, I agree with you that there is no evidence whatsoever for demons.

[lauragabriel]

I think a clarification is urgent here: the primal concern of theodicies is not to provide explanation for natural phenomena. Their intention is to describe why would a Good and omnipotent God allow bad things to happen. Plantinga will not deny that eartquakes are produced by the plates and so on. His only concern is to try to explain why God does not do anything about these plates, and his response is that, behind these plates, demons' free will is at work.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 3:

> I think a clarification is urgent here: the primal concern of theodicies is not to provide explanation for natural phenomena.

I agree---and my guess is that it's a subject most would prefer to ignore!

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

> Plantinga will not deny that eartquakes are produced by the plates and so on. His only concern is to try to explain why God does not do anything about these plates, and his response is that, behind these plates, demons' free will is at work.

I find this argument about as convincing as saying that such events are caused by invisible space aliens. Again, the Hitchens quote is relevant: what is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

*Especially* when science can give such a rational explanation for earthquakes that explains ALL observations: from the minor tremor that nobody notices to the major quake that kills thousands to all the major quakes that occurred millions of years before humans even existed on this planet. (The last example being yet another instance in which the "evil but sub-par demons did it!" becomes well, simply idiotic!)

[lauragabriel]

Theodicists who appeal to demons will usually not go against against scientific explanations; they will just claim that, in as much God is good and omnipotent, He had a reason not to stop earthquakes: they are the work of demon's free will through the laws of nature.

[lauragabriel]

Yes, but again, theodicists (such as Plantinga) are not concerned about proving the existence of God or demons and about evidence. Their concern is how God's existence can be defended against the existence of evil

[ToddAllenGates]

> theodicists (such as Plantinga) are not concerned about ... evidence [but only] how God's existence can be defended against the existence of evil

Well, as long as one's ideas are not complicated by the need to provide evidence, coming with explanatory reasons are easy! One might as well use the "Monsters Inc." (Disney movie, 2001) explanation: that screams are converted into energy in some unseen world (thus human screams are part of the Greater Good of providing clean renewable energy).

[lauragabriel]

Good objection (I never thought of it). I suppose that a theist's response might be that, in as much as demons have free will, some are smart and some are not so smart. Earthquakes that hit unpopulated places are analogous to poorly-performed robberies. Robbers use free will to do evil, but some use it more efficiently than others.

[ToddAllenGates]

> Good objection (I never thought of it). I suppose that a theist's response might be that, in as much as demons have free will, some are smart and some are not so smart.

I wonder how such a theist would explain the ten-mile-wide asteroid that hit the Earth 65 million years ago! A dumb demon whose timing was off by millions of years? A wise demon that hated dinosaurs??!

[lauragabriel]

Yes, it applies to what is conventionally called "natural evil". Plantinga's intntion is to attack the objection that the free-will defense does not account for natural evil (earthquakes and so on)

[lauragabriel]

Great videos. However, I would have liked you to consider another explanation: privatio boni; namely, evil has no existence as such, it is only a privation of good. What is your response to that?

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 4:

> Great videos.

Thanks!

> However, I would have liked you to consider another explanation: privatio boni; namely, evil has no existence as such, it is only a privation of good. What is your response to that?

Before I can answer, first note that this series does not discuss the explanations for "evil," but only "suffering."

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 4:

I don't use the word "evil" because it's just too subjective . . . does a terrified gazelle being torn apart by a pack of hyenas count as "evil"? I would say NO, but it *does* count as suffering. And IF our world was designed by some purposeful Higher Power, I think a question we can't help asking is "Why did this Higher Power include the likes of predators and earthquakes and genocide?"

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 4:

So whether or not "evil" exists, I don't think anyone could deny the existence of "suffering" (unless the victims of slavery & genocide & burn wards [etc.] only *look* like they've experienced pain).

Also, my main point is to contrast the explanations for suffering from two main camps: (1) the theist camp, and how their explanations fail to make sense of a wide set of observations; and (2) the nontheist camp, which makes sense of *all* observations.

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 4:

So when you ask about privatio boni, I take it that you mean the *supernatural* explanation that there has to be a privation of the good so we can appreciate the good times. I see this as a subset of the "suffering benefits us" explanation---one I discuss the failings of in Part 4 of this series (if you look to the right of the screen in the Description Box, you'll see an overview of this whole series).

[lauragabriel]

Not precisely, that would be the contratst theodicy. Privatio Boni is Augustine's Platonic idea that, in the Great Chain of Being, everything that exists, it is good. Evil is non-existence. But again, I am only playing Devil's Advocate, I'll tell you later my objections to privatio boni.

[lauragabriel]

Again, an Augustinean would argue that pain does not exist (in as much as it is evil); it is only abscence of pleasure. The victims of slavery do not experience pain as such, but abscence of the pleasure of being free.

[lauragabriel]

I'm sympathetic to your responses, but I'll only play Devil's Advocate here: The example of the gazzelle would count as evil. An Augustinean answer to your question is that God did not include genocides as such, but those genocides are abscence of world peace.

[lauragabriel]

Well, as far as I am concerned, in Western philosophical tradition, "evil" and "suffering" are basically the same. At any rate, you could consider this explanation: suffering does not exist as such, it is only an abscence of pleasure.

[ToddGates]

1 of 6:

> "evil" and "suffering" are basically the same.

What about the agony---at least in *many* instances---of natural childbirth? I would certainly not call that "evil," but I know plenty of women who will *most emphatically* call it suffering. For what it's worth, even the Bible acknowledges this (Genesis 3:16: "with pain will you give birth to children").

[ToddGates]

2 of 6:

To me, discussions of what is and what is not "evil" can go round and round: and even if something is not "evil," such as childbirth pain, there's still the question of why it has to be so painful. So that's why I prefer to focus on the much more focused and straightforward question of why suffering exists.

[ToddGates]

3 of 6:

At least, it's a "question" for theists. For atheists (such as myself), there's no mystery at all: childbirth pain for humans is simply a repercussion of natural selection--humans have large brains, and the result is painful deliveries. No "Intelligent Designer" to blame for the pain, miscarriages, birth defects, etc. Throw a "god" into the equation, however, and then the question "why pain?" arises.

[ToddGates]

4 of 6:

> At any rate, you could consider this explanation: suffering does not exist as such, it is only an absence of pleasure.

> victims of slavery do not experience pain as such, but absence of the pleasure of being free

> genocides are absence of world peace

> suffering does not exist as such, it's only an absence of pleasure

This reminds me of something out of George Orwell's 1984: the government's attempt to manipulate language to take away people's ability to express themselves.

[ToddGates]

5 of 6:

Take the slave chained to a tree and being whipped until all his skin was torn off, or the little Vietnamese girl whose flesh is burning with napalm ... you could try to reassure them that they're not suffering, only feeling "an absence of the lack of agonizing pain," but I don't see how these double-negatives help make anything clearer.

[ToddGates]

6 of 6:

Let's say we adopt this confusing language ... well, the question just switches to the awkwardly worded "*if* the world is the result of an Intelligent Purposeful Designer, why did the blueprint include the possibility for the absence of the lack of agonizing pain?"

To me, failing to make use of words such as agonizing, excruciating, suffering, etc. is either just an exercise in finding euphemisms, or simply failing to acknowledge real-life observations.

[NoirShadowFall]

What's the ending song? Also very good so far :)

[ToddAllenGates]

> What's the ending song?

"My Imaginary Friend" by Reel Big Fish (I credit them on the slide starting at 3:50). Yes, I like it so much that I let it go on a bit longer than I do any of the other songs in this series.

> Also very good so far

Thanks!

[Censeo]

First! lol!