A much more logically-consistent god.
I'm having a hard time getting too worked about this week's thought experiment. It's a very old and famous problem, but it's really only a difficulty for the beliefs of Abrahamic, monotheistic, religious worshipers, and I'm definitely not in that crowd. However, let's see what kind of trouble they are in and try not to get too smug about it.
--------------------------------------------------
And the Lord spake unto the philosopher, "I am the Lord thy God, all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing."
"Surely not," replied the philosopher. "I look at this world and see horrible disease, hunger, starvation, mental illness. Yet you don't stop it. Is it that you can't? In which case you are not all-powerful. Is it because you don't know about it? In which case you are not all-knowing. Or perhaps you don't want to? In which case you are not all-loving.
"Such impudence!" replied the Lord. "It is better for you if I don't stop all this evil. You need to grow morally and spiritually. For that you need the freedom to do evil as well as good, and to confront the chance occurrence of suffering. How could I possibly have made the world better without taking away your freedom to grow?"
"Easy," replied the philosopher. "First, you could have designed us so that we feel less pain. Second, you could have made sure we had more empathy, to prevent us doing evil to others. Third, you could have made us better learners, so we didn't have to suffer so much to grow. Fourth, you could have made nature less cruel. Do you want me to go on?"
Source: The problem of evil recurs in different forms throughout the history of theology.
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 283.
---------------------------------------------------
It couldn't be any clearer, right? Gods are all just made up ideas, but the particular one invented and followed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—the one that is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving—is a logical impossibility given the facts of the world. Heck, we don't even have to actually gather evidence from the world since they invented Satan for their stories, which would rule out omnipotence by any test of the definition. The most common answer I've come across for all of this is that "God's ways are mysterious and He knows better than us what is good and what is evil." Well if that's the case, then why are you trying to define good and evil at all? Get off your soapbox and leave the discovery of morality to those of us with some sense. Religions are filled with so many contradictions, it's no wonder their adherents can't sort anything out.
If I'm wrong, I can only pray that I'd have the eloquence to repeat Stephen Fry's 2-minute answer to the following question posed to him on Irish TV:
In spite of your protestations, suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and you are confronted by God. What will Stephen Fry say to Him, or Her, or It?
--------------------------------------------------
And the Lord spake unto the philosopher, "I am the Lord thy God, all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing."
"Surely not," replied the philosopher. "I look at this world and see horrible disease, hunger, starvation, mental illness. Yet you don't stop it. Is it that you can't? In which case you are not all-powerful. Is it because you don't know about it? In which case you are not all-knowing. Or perhaps you don't want to? In which case you are not all-loving.
"Such impudence!" replied the Lord. "It is better for you if I don't stop all this evil. You need to grow morally and spiritually. For that you need the freedom to do evil as well as good, and to confront the chance occurrence of suffering. How could I possibly have made the world better without taking away your freedom to grow?"
"Easy," replied the philosopher. "First, you could have designed us so that we feel less pain. Second, you could have made sure we had more empathy, to prevent us doing evil to others. Third, you could have made us better learners, so we didn't have to suffer so much to grow. Fourth, you could have made nature less cruel. Do you want me to go on?"
Source: The problem of evil recurs in different forms throughout the history of theology.
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 283.
---------------------------------------------------
It couldn't be any clearer, right? Gods are all just made up ideas, but the particular one invented and followed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—the one that is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving—is a logical impossibility given the facts of the world. Heck, we don't even have to actually gather evidence from the world since they invented Satan for their stories, which would rule out omnipotence by any test of the definition. The most common answer I've come across for all of this is that "God's ways are mysterious and He knows better than us what is good and what is evil." Well if that's the case, then why are you trying to define good and evil at all? Get off your soapbox and leave the discovery of morality to those of us with some sense. Religions are filled with so many contradictions, it's no wonder their adherents can't sort anything out.
If I'm wrong, I can only pray that I'd have the eloquence to repeat Stephen Fry's 2-minute answer to the following question posed to him on Irish TV:
In spite of your protestations, suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and you are confronted by God. What will Stephen Fry say to Him, or Her, or It?
So powerful! And it's great to hear that the charge of blasphemy, which was brought against Fry for this response, was recently dropped by the Irish police. The Humanist UK organization does a lot to fight such dangerous blasphemy laws around the world, which are clearly based on nonsense. If you agree, why not follow them on facebook and consider a membership? (Only £3 per month!) If not, let's talk about it in the comment section below. I may not be all-loving, but I'll do my charitable best.
