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

Overview of entire series:

Part 1: Overview of the supernatural vs. naturalistic explanations for the existence of suffering.

Part 2 discusses explanation #1--that suffering is punishment (from the Western angle that suffering is due to personal sin and/or "original sin").

Part 3 concludes the discussion of explanation #1--that suffering is punishment (from the Eastern angle that suffering is due to due to karma: sins in this life or a previous life).

Part 4 discusses explanation #2--that suffering benefits us--and explanation #3: that suffering must exist for the greater good of Free Will.

Part 5 discusses explanation #4--that the reason for suffering is beyond our finite understanding--and explanation #5: that the perceived world is just an illusion, hence suffering, too, is just an illusion.

Part 6 discusses explanation #6--that the Divine is not All-Powerful. This video focuses on the presentation of this argument as found in Harold S. Kushner's famous book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People."

Part 7 concludes the discussion of explanation #6 (that the Divine is not All-Powerful), and highlights the weaknesses and incoherencies in the philosophy found in "When Bad Things Happen to Good People."

Part 8 discusses explanation #7--that the Divine is not All-Good (includes the views of skeptics, such as Richard Dawkins, who see no trouble reconciling the existence suffering with the fictional character known as the "jealous God" of the Old Testament).

Part 9 concludes the discussion of explanation #7--that the Divine is not All-Good (includes perspective of dualistic and polytheistic religions).

Part 10 discusses explanation #8--that the natural world is indifferent to creature suffering (that it may be part of "nature" for individuals to minimize their own suffering, but there is no overarching supernatural force to either dole out pain or send protection from pain).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This series is a video adaptation of Endnote 32 from "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" (a dialogue between a Christian proselytizer and a Socratic skeptic).

For free PDF sample chapters from "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer," see http://www.booklocker.com. (This link will bring you right to the page where you can find the PDF file--just scroll down to #5: http://search.booklocker.com/search-bl.cgi?q=dialogue+with+a+christian+prosel... )

For customer reviews, see http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1601450893/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_enc...

The text of this video can be found on the blog site "Clashing Culture" - http://clashingculture.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/the-problem-of-suffering-the-...

My four YouTube channels:

- http://youtube.com/user/ToddGates - my musician channel

- http://youtube.com/user/ToddAllenGates - where I discuss the ideas in my book "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" (a dialogue between a Christian proselytizer and a Socratic skeptic)

- http://youtube.com/user/ToddAllenGates2 - where I discuss the ideas in my book "Hunting, Gathering, & Videogames" (such as "Why do we have to work?" and "Why do we have to use money?" and "How should we define 'success'?")

- http://youtube.com/user/BlasphemyPiano - where I play the background piano accompaniment for songs in Nick Gisburne's book of lyrics "Blasphemy! Anthems for Atheists."

Category:

Education

Tags:

• theodicy
• Epicurean
• dilemma
• problem
• evil
• suffering
• God
• Omnipotent
• Omniscient
• Benign
• good
• indifferent
• nature
• atheism
• proselytizer
• atheist
• Creator
• supernatural
• Free
• Will
• Blind
• natural
• selection
• evolution
• disaster
• truth
• Adam
• Eve
• Zeus
• Prometheus
• karma
• fruit
• tree
• knowledge
• Job
• Rabbi
• Harold
• earthquake
• Kushner
• ToddAllenGates
• ToddAllenGates2
• ToddGates
• Todd
• Allen
• Gates
• Clashing
• Culture

[nefandix]

By other way, suffering (stress) in biology is necessary to maintain de immune streght, resistance, adaptability, etc. Lack or excess of stress provokes a faster death.

[ToddAllenGates]

@nefandix

> By other way, suffering (stress) in biology is necessary to maintain de immune streght, resistance, adaptability, etc.

I think both theists and atheists would agree with this, albeit for different reasons.

THEISTS: God makes us suffer b/c that's part of His Optimal Design.

NON-THEISTS: pain has a survival advantage, in that those who can feel no pain are unlikely to survive long enough to pass on their genes.

[DefaultPosition]

I try not to miss any of your vids. Always enjoy listening to what you have to say.

[TheThinkingMinority]

I can't wait to see the rest.

[nefandix]

I would put an extra explanation: suffering by our own desires or psychological suffering. It could be by the other hand, a type of suffering in the 1/3 category.

[ToddAllenGates]

>I find the implications of the Deist perspective worse than no God at all

Yes, it seems a Creator that took the time to make us would want some hands-on interaction! A Deist god is like a dead-beat dad—or some reptile that lays its eggs and then wanders off, never bothering to even check if the offspring hatch.

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 4:

So—which worldview best explains a wide set of observations and can make predictions that agree with observations? Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, Zoroastrianism (etc.)? Deism? Atheism? Well, the sparks still fly here!

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 4:

So when it comes to explaining and predicting accurate observations of the relationship between health and food, I believe the evidence will lead toward the fiber and vitamins of vegetables, rather than the fat & sugar of cake.

(Just like when it comes to determining the "true" cause of the sun's apparent movement, a *wide* set of observations points to the conclusion that it's the earth's rotation on its axis, not an orbiting sun.)

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 4:

Yet I think we both agree that the appropriate answer to "which should I believe?" is simply "I'll believe the one that's true."

This of course leads to the tricky issue of how to determine whether something is true or not . . . and the best guideline for determining a candidate for truth, as far as I know, is that things that are "true" should (1) be able to explain a wide set of observations, and (2) make predications that agree with observations.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 4:

> However, i still contend that a person has to decide whether or not to believe what the people tell them about the cake and the vegetables

True. But what should guide that decision? Because if the question of "which is healthier?" were just about personal preference (i.e., "what makes me the happiest") I would choose the cake!

And when it comes to a question such as "Is there an afterlife?"—I would definitely *prefer* the answer to be YES!

[billredeemed]

per 2 of 3 above, i will watch your video first. As for 3 of 3 above, i personally, find the implications of the Deist perspective worse than no God at all, sorry.

[billredeemed]

First let me say i am sorry that i missed parts 2 and 3 of your earlier comments, i will use the excuse that i was in a hurry when i responded, but it was probably that and pure carelessness. So per your last comment i say good because i have also learned there is not future in arguing semantics, (lets remove the word preference). However, i still contend that a person has to decide whether or not to believe what the people tell them about the cake and the vegetables.