More Ehrman: God's Problem: why do we suffer?

Jan 11, 2009 02:14

Bart Ehrman's been on Unbelievable again, this time talking about the Problem of Evil: if God is good and all-powerful, why is there so much suffering in the world? His opposite number this time was Richard Swinburne, a Christian philosopher. Both of them have written books on the subject. I've read Ehrman's God's Problem but not Swinburne's Read more... )

richard swinburne, religion, science fiction, holocaust, christianity, premier christian radio, eliezer yudkowsky, theodicy, bart ehrman, blog

Leave a comment

Comments 21

andrewducker January 11 2009, 11:03:14 UTC
I generally find Eliezer to be semi-coherent. I've been reading his screeds on the subject, and he still seems to believe there's a "right" answer to moral/aesthetic decisions... Oh, and his description of happiness in "Continuous Improvement" makes me wonder if he's ever actually _been_ happy and paid attention.

Reply

pw201 January 14 2009, 00:52:05 UTC
I often find his stuff a bit long and lacking in a definite conclusion. I'd say he needed better editing, but his asides are sometimes better than whatever it was the piece was notionally about. There's also the problem that you have to keep up with his private terminology, although he links back to old articles, there's a lot to keep in your head.

Still, he's a clever guy and I usually get something out of reading his stuff, even if it isn't always what he was aiming at.

Reply

andrewducker January 14 2009, 08:10:24 UTC
Oh, there's frequently interesting stuff in there. I just find it amusing how much he ties himself in knots linguistically.

Reply


scribb1e January 11 2009, 12:34:05 UTC
I'm not convinced by Banks' utopia. Life in the Culture seems to me to be culture-free, pointless, artificial and frivolous. But it's easy to see ways the world could be a little bit better, without being a utopia of any kind. How about no malaria?

There's not much point getting angry with a fictional character, but on the off-chance we encounter God on judgement day, we ought to say that he could have done better.

On the other hand, why not make your own judgement day?

Reply

gjm11 January 13 2009, 01:46:45 UTC
On the other hand, why not make your own judgement day?

Blimey, that's good.

Reply

pw201 December 28 2009, 23:07:34 UTC
Psst (just in case you'd not already found a way to watch it).

Reply

gjm11 December 29 2009, 00:35:38 UTC
Thanks very much, but I had, which is why I was able to remark on how good it was. :-)

Reply


gjm11 January 11 2009, 14:58:29 UTC

5 points to anyone who can write an "Objection: What about Nazis?" verse expounding Swinburnism

OK, here goes. The second stanza is about another of Swinburne's extraordinary arguments, which from your summary he appears to have been wise enough not to air in this discussion: that natural evil (tsunamis, forest fires, poisonous plants, etc.) benefits us by showing ways in which people can be hurt, and thereby giving us more opportunity to refrain (deliberately) from doing so. If you find it incredible that a sane and intelligent person could propose such a thing, take a look at the chapter called "Natural evil and the possibility of knowledge" in "Providence and the problem of evil". Anyway:

PAQUETTE:

Objection!

What about Nazis?

PANGLOSS:

Nazis!

The Nazis did abuse the Jews,

But let this not yourselves confuse

Since their distress

Made others guess

The need to act with virtue!

(Does that not quite convert you?)

Without the evils of this world

I'd not have learned to hurt you
Without which, I'd have ( ... )

Reply

scribb1e January 11 2009, 16:14:20 UTC
You win 50 points!

Now we need a nice tenor to record this for YouTube...

Reply

gjm11 January 11 2009, 19:41:19 UTC
Why, thank you. Doggerel and philosophy: two great tastes that taste great together!

Reply


stevencarrwork January 13 2009, 06:47:19 UTC
Suffering lets people look after each other.

No, a starving person will steal from the dead, steal food from children, or eat corpses. All documented in the Siege of Leningrad for example.

Suffering often makes decent people into barbarians.

Reply

pw201 January 14 2009, 01:05:19 UTC
Aha, but Swinburne isn't claiming that people always behave well in the face of suffering, merely that they have the choice to do so, and that people seeing them suffer have the choice to help. Both the choice and the possible good behaviour/helping are good things, says he.

I don't think I'd disagree that these things are good things, but it would be better not to have so many of the situations in which people need help, ISTM.

Reply

stevencarrwork January 14 2009, 06:47:14 UTC
So suffering is a good thing because it gives bad people the chance to be good.

And if suffering turns good people into bad people, that is also a good thing.

Reply


stevencarrwork January 13 2009, 07:10:18 UTC
'Swinburne's theodicy is that of the public school games master, telling the boys that cross-country runs, cold showers and being made to play rugby against the masters will build character, however unpleasant these things are at the time.'

Suffering is character-forming, turning a character from a bad character to a good character.

Yes, God despises cry-babies who break down sobbing when they are told they have terminal cancer.

God admires people with character, people who keep a stiff upper lip in the face of personal tragedy.

Those kinds of people are just plain better people than those who find their suffering unbearable and sink into despair. Those people lack character.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up