testinganidea

  • ***
  • 1666 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2014, 05:36:12 am »
Berttuzzi,

You you stating that in some possible worlds God allows gratuitous suffering but not in the actual one?  

1

redtilt1

  • ***
  • 1719 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2014, 05:47:59 am »
Quote
So are you saying the holocaust might have been necessary?

Are you saying it apparently wasn't? How could you know?

 All the evidence we have is that it was unnecessary, why is that not enough?

2

Wlof

  • **
  • 967 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2014, 06:31:39 am »
I dont understand something. In order for Nazis to clean their country from Jewish genes, it was necessary for Jews to suffer in someway. That was unnecessary for Jews and opposite minded people.
So, is that suffering necessary or unnecessary?
I mean, what make some suffering unnecessary?



3

Rick Dawkins

  • **
  • 817 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #33 on: June 26, 2014, 07:09:36 am »
If i grant that suffering exists so therefore God doesn't exist, could it be fair to say that then they (atheists)would accept as logical.

If suffering doesn't exist, God  can or does/ possiblly  exist.

4

Thresh

  • ***
  • 1262 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The New Skeptics Guide Religious Terminology
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2014, 07:19:30 am »
Quote
All the evidence we have is that it was unnecessary, why is that not enough?

We in fact don't have any evidence (excluding the Bible) either way that it was or wasn't unnecessary. What evidence is there to say that God didn't find it necessary to include any of the evils in the world?

Let's take for example the Jews and the holocaust. Perhaps it is only with examples such as this that, in the next thousand years, humanity will shed its penchant for genocide from the collective disgust of these incidents such as the holocaust.

Perhaps the holocaust helped to control the population of the earth so that we don't overpopulate and starve everyone on the planet, before we can leave this rock.

Jews currently tend to be 'notorius' for amount of 'power per Jew' (PPJ, lol) compared to most other nationalities. An example of this: Nobel prizes. Jews make up the highest percentage (20%) of Nobel laureates.

Israeli Geneticist Baruch A. Shalev writes, "How can such a few number of Jews produce so many Nobel prize winners?"

"Another additonal explanation of the disproportionate number of Jewish Nobel Laureates is related to persecution of Jews over the years, culminating during World War II. The Holocaust, alone, claimed nearly half of the Jewish nation. Given the evidence of the brain migration, it can be argued that Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest may have been at work. In other word, pogroms and the Holocaust forced a genetic selection for the better fit, which was much more drastic than for any other faith."

- 100 Years of Nobel Prizes

Perhaps the holocaust resulted in Jews being stronger than ever in terms of their scientific work, and thus allowed for future generations to be saved through medicine, better farming, or greater scientific advances that involve the lessening of pain and suffering for others.

Do you have any evidence that these (or something else unperceived) are in fact not the cases, or that they are? The point is you just cannot know, given the future's infinite possibilities, the insurmountable multitude of factors to consider of ages past, and our finite human knowledge, understanding, and personal/cultural biases.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2014, 07:28:10 am by Thresh »

5

redtilt1

  • ***
  • 1719 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2014, 06:05:19 am »
On the basis of your argument you can never know if any suffering in necessary or unnecessary.
If someone inflicts pain on another person but can show it was necessary for their benefit then we don’t think of it as evil. Think of a doctor giving a casualty patient an injection. However if someone inflicted pain on another and could not provide a good reason to do so then we should arrest that person don’t you think? Or would you let them go because maybe they have a good reason and maybe it was necessary even though you don’t know what the reason is?

One way to probe if someone is doing something that happens  to be evil but is infarct good is did they do the least amount of harm? For example if a doctor deliberately doesn’t use any anaesthetic when they could have and had no reason not to we would find that as evidence that the suffering they caused their patients was unnecessary.
That’s exactly what we see in the holocaust there is no thought to the well being of the victims and so no reason to think that the suffering was necessary.
Even if all the positive consequences you highlight are true that wouldn’t change the fact that presumably all of those consequences could have happened with less suffering. Did the Jews in the concentration really have to be worked as slaves and watch their loved ones die gradually rather than being killed painlessness? The gas was not an instant killer but Lorries had to be placed by the gas chambers to mask the sound of the screams:
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/auschwitzgaschambers.html

I think the fact that you are prepared to defend the holocaust as not evil should make you reflect on your position. Quite frankly I find it quite disturbing that you could do so.

6

Wlof

  • **
  • 967 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #36 on: June 27, 2014, 07:37:38 am »
redtilt1

What if in order for Nazi to be happy, Jews had to suffer?
What if the doctor wanted to see what reaction will be of a patient if dont use anaesthetic?

7

Thresh

  • ***
  • 1262 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The New Skeptics Guide Religious Terminology
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #37 on: June 27, 2014, 08:01:48 am »
Quote
I think the fact that you are prepared to defend the holocaust as not evil should make you reflect on your position. Quite frankly I find it quite disturbing that you could do so.

Did I say the holocaust wasn't evil? No, I was responding to the charge of the holocaust being an example of a gratuitous evil. I find it quite disturbing that you can assume that you don't need omniscience to make the impossible assumption that it is apparent that evil in the world is gratuitous. But then again, mentioning what we find disturbing shouldn't pass for an argument, yet it regularly does pass for a persuasion trick that feeds on people's emotion.

Quote
If someone inflicts pain on another person but can show it was necessary for their benefit then we don’t think of it as evil.

No, it is evil. It would be what we call a 'necessary evil'. Your example is more along the lines of a necessary hardship or suffering to effect a greater benefit. Like boot camp is a necessary hardship for those who wish to be highly trained in the military.

Quote
However if someone inflicted pain on another and could not provide a good reason to do so then we should arrest that person don’t you think? Or would you let them go because maybe they have a good reason and maybe it was necessary even though you don’t know what the reason is?

We should do what we think is right, given the info. It is unfortunate we don't have the resources of a God to know every angle and therefore make a perfect decision, but we shouldn't just guess that they might be innocent just because its possible. In the situation of a criminal, there are the criminal's history that we consider, pertinent human motives that we are very aware of (being humans ourselves), and a small number of factors in which we have the resources to reasonably handle and make a good judgement on (forensic details, eye witness reports of the events, etc.)

In the case of God, however, the factors are too numerous to even wager a guess. We simply don't have enough info to be accurate because we must consider the entire effect of the evil in question, and we can't see into the future. Finite human criminals can't see into the future either, so it would be wrong to 'play God' and simply guess that a crime will result in greater benefit without a reasonable foundation of the knowledge of what would (or even most probably would) happen.

Quote
One way to probe if someone is doing something that happens  to be evil but is infarct good is did they do the least amount of harm?

Yes.

Quote
That’s exactly what we see in the holocaust there is no thought to the well being of the victims and so no reason to think that the suffering was necessary.

Aha, how do you possibly know that?

Quote
Even if all the positive consequences you highlight are true that wouldn’t change the fact that presumably all of those consequences could have happened with less suffering.

I think the key word here is 'presumably'. It is exactly the case that that would be an presumption. In short, how do you or could you ever know or believe that it was unnecessary? Where is the evidence that it was unnecessary in the grand scheme of things? Do you claim to have more than 50% of the knowledge of events in the universe and their moral consequences? How about 10%? How about .0001%? Can you see the future?

Quote
Did the Jews in the concentration really have to be worked as slaves and watch their loved ones die gradually rather than being killed painlessness?

I don't know and neither does anyone else.

Quote
The gas was not an instant killer but Lorries had to be placed by the gas chambers to mask the sound of the screams:

I think what we are getting into here is just an emotional reaction. To that, let me say that, yes, what the Nazis did is unthinkably horrible. They shouldn't have done that at all and maybe in the future, people will tend to learn from their very visible and very scary example.





8

redtilt1

  • ***
  • 1719 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #38 on: June 27, 2014, 08:02:11 am »
Well there is no question that some people want other peole to suffer to fulfil themselves. Serial killers a re a good example. Nazis are another example. Yet are you seriously suggesting that you would not prevent a serial killer or a NAzi from carrying out their actions if you could? ro would you say there actions might be necessary for some greater good so ill do nothing?

9

Questions11

  • *****
  • 21037 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #39 on: June 27, 2014, 08:06:47 am »
Why would any suffering be truly 'necessary' (ie could not fail to exist)?

10

Wlof

  • **
  • 967 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #40 on: June 27, 2014, 08:08:40 am »
redtilt1

My questions are not about who would i prevent or not.
I asked questions to see what is unnecessary suffering at all. In order for Nazi Germany to be clean out of Jewish genes , it is necessary for Jews to suffer on some way. And Jews think that is unnecessary suffering.
Is that necessary or unnecessary suffering? What make some suffering unnecessary and why?

11

redtilt1

  • ***
  • 1719 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #41 on: June 27, 2014, 08:46:53 am »
Quote
I think the fact that you are prepared to defend the holocaust as not evil should make you reflect on your position. Quite frankly I find it quite disturbing that you could do so.

Did I say the holocaust wasn't evil? No, I was responding to the charge of the holocaust being an example of a gratuitous evil. I find it quite disturbing that you can assume that you don't need omniscience to make the impossible assumption that it is apparent that evil in the world is gratuitous. But then again, mentioning what we find disturbing shouldn't pass for an argument, yet it regularly does pass for a persuasion trick that feeds on people's emotion.

Quote
If someone inflicts pain on another person but can show it was necessary for their benefit then we don’t think of it as evil.

No, it is evil. It would be what we call a 'necessary evil'. Your example is more along the lines of a necessary hardship or suffering to effect a greater benefit. Like boot camp is a necessary hardship for those who wish to be highly trained in the military.

Quote
However if someone inflicted pain on another and could not provide a good reason to do so then we should arrest that person don’t you think? Or would you let them go because maybe they have a good reason and maybe it was necessary even though you don’t know what the reason is?

We should do what we think is right, given the info. It is unfortunate we don't have the resources of a God to know every angle and therefore make a perfect decision, but we shouldn't just guess that they might be innocent just because its possible. In the situation of a criminal, there are the criminal's history that we consider, pertinent human motives that we are very aware of (being humans ourselves), and a small number of factors in which we have the resources to reasonably handle and make a good judgement on (forensic details, eye witness reports of the events, etc.)

In the case of God, however, the factors are too numerous to even wager a guess. We simply don't have enough info to be accurate because we must consider the entire effect of the evil in question, and we can't see into the future. Finite human criminals can't see into the future either, so it would be wrong to 'play God' and simply guess that a crime will result in greater benefit without a reasonable foundation of the knowledge of what would (or even most probably would) happen.

Quote
One way to probe if someone is doing something that happens  to be evil but is infarct good is did they do the least amount of harm?

Yes.

Quote
That’s exactly what we see in the holocaust there is no thought to the well being of the victims and so no reason to think that the suffering was necessary.

Aha, how do you possibly know that?

Quote
Even if all the positive consequences you highlight are true that wouldn’t change the fact that presumably all of those consequences could have happened with less suffering.

I think the key word here is 'presumably'. It is exactly the case that that would be an presumption. In short, how do you or could you ever know or believe that it was unnecessary? Where is the evidence that it was unnecessary in the grand scheme of things? Do you claim to have more than 50% of the knowledge of events in the universe and their moral consequences? How about 10%? How about .0001%? Can you see the future?

Quote
Did the Jews in the concentration really have to be worked as slaves and watch their loved ones die gradually rather than being killed painlessness?

I don't know and neither does anyone else.

Quote
The gas was not an instant killer but Lorries had to be placed by the gas chambers to mask the sound of the screams:

I think what we are getting into here is just an emotional reaction. To that, let me say that, yes, what the Nazis did is unthinkably horrible. They shouldn't have done that at all and maybe in the future, people will tend to learn from their very visible and very scary example.

If the holocaust is not a gratuitous evil then why call it evil at all? After all we don’t call the infliction of necessary suffering evil. The example you gave of a boot camp is not called evil, although it is considered suffering. So it seems to me you are not being consistent.
Why do we need omniscience to make a reasonable conclusion? No one has omniscience but we still can make judgements about the world based upon the best available evidence. If the evidence clearly points to a conclusion we are justified in that conclusion. We don't need certainty or omniscience.
There is a problem with appealing to emotion if our emotions can lead us in a wrong path. But I don’t see any reason why that would be the case for someone defending the holocaust as you appear to do. Moral decisions generate emotional responses and there’s nothing wrong with that, those emotional responses are coming from our moral instincts. If you think those instincts come from god then what’s the problem?

I would happily arrest a serial killer if I could even though I don’t know all the possible outcomes of my actions.
Also you are assuming that god does know every angle, but if we are open minded , we are trying to establish whether the claim of an loving all powerful all knowing god exists or not, we  need to make observations of the world to try and find out if that is true. Simply assuming what we want is not going to help us.

You agree that we shouldn’t assume that someone is innocent if we have information they are not, even though they might be. So why  assume god has good reason to allow suffering just because he might have?
Your whole discussion of the criminal’s innocence or guilt ignores the issue of the future consequences of your actions. By arresting a bad person you might prevent some future good from happening, but nevertheless you still arrest them. Again we have to make judgment based on limited information. Similarly if we are going to judge whether or not there is an all powerful all loving god we have to make that decision on the basis of limited information. Essentially if we don’t have enough information to judge that god is not justified in the allowing evil then the you are not in a position to make the claim that an all powerful all loving god exists. If you don’t know if the evil he allows is justified or not then you don’t know if hes good or not.

You agree that we can judge if someone is doing evil if they don’t try and minimise suffering. But none of the possible reasons you gave for explaining the holocaust give any justification or the extent of the suffering. Why the slow death and not a quicker one?
Similarly why did god need to drown all living things in the flood over forty days and nights, why not one millisecond wipe out with  no slow suffering?

Yes I make presumptions but of course we have to make presumptions if we are going to draw conclusion about the world and decide on different courses of action.  The questions is, are our presumptions reasonable? And to say that it is less evil to kill someone quickly rather than slowly is not unreasonable presumption.

You say that what the Nazis did was unthinkably horrible and they shouldn’t have done it. But your whole argument implies you are not in a position to say that. Perhaps they were just doing gods will. In fact if god is all powerful then presumably the holocaust was gods will. Yet the fact that you do say it, seems to me even you don’t take your argument seriously.

12

Thresh

  • ***
  • 1262 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The New Skeptics Guide Religious Terminology
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #42 on: June 27, 2014, 08:56:33 am »
Quote
Nazis are another example. Yet are you seriously suggesting that you would not prevent a serial killer or a NAzi from carrying out their actions if you could?

I never said that!? It's responses like these that make me quit the discussion. Didn't I just say we can't play God?

13

Thresh

  • ***
  • 1262 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The New Skeptics Guide Religious Terminology
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2014, 08:59:21 am »
Quote
Why would any suffering be truly 'necessary' (ie could not fail to exist)?

To allow for a greater good, ie vaccine shots allow for immunization against disease.

14

Thresh

  • ***
  • 1262 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The New Skeptics Guide Religious Terminology
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2014, 09:02:47 am »
Quote
If the holocaust is not a gratuitous evil then why call it evil at all?

The question is not whether the Nazis thought it was alright to allow their evil in potential for some greater good, it is a question of why God allowed the Nazi's evil to exist in the first place. Was it necessary for a greater good or not? What the Nazis did is still evil.