The Premise: God is evil

[Ninjamom]

EH, by any chance do you know what a 'Delta Function' is?

 

[Empty Hands]

EH, by any chance do you know what a 'Delta Function' is?

Doesn't ring a bell.

 

[Boomer]

I challenged this view in an earlier post, and no one has really responded to it - while still making the above point. As I said before, there are many means of suffering and death in this world that allow no possibility of growth or learning for the individual affected. Also, the use of such an individual's suffering for others' benefit and growth is immoral and inconsistent with God's guidelines for us. Given those two points, I think the concept of suffering in this world for our growth and benefit is a fatally flawed one, and calls into question the concept of a loving, omnipotent God. Am I wrong?

Similarly, there are many means of suffering and death that do not have anything to do with free will and free choice. If a five year old dies of encephalitis, it is not because either she or the virus exercised their free will.

Ok...sorry I missed your earlier post....I caught on late in the game here, my apologies.
Can you give me examples of your 2 points? I'm not sure I follow. There's ALWAYS something to be gleaned from suffering and tribulation, far as I can tell. Also, the "use of such an individual's suffering for others' benefit and growth is immoral and inconsistent with God's guidelines for us" is a flawed argument. No one advocates using the suffering for betterment....ie: causes pain for their own reward. But it is perfectly within God's guidelines for us to learn from sufferings of others....the whole Passion of Christ is about suffering, and pretty much 9/10 of the rest of the bible.

Hick also provides an answer for your last statement also:

"The very mystery of natural evil, the very fact that disasters afflict human beings in contingent, undirected and haphazard ways, is itself a necessary feature of a world that calls forth mutual aid and builds up mutual caring and love."

 

[Empty Hands]

Can you give me examples of your 2 points? I'm not sure I follow.

First, the idea that suffering causes growth. As a counterexample, I posited in my early post a very young child dying, or a random split second car crash. For the individual involved, no growth is possible - they are quickly dead. If the split second death of someone in a car crash is supposed to help someone else grow, then this is immoral - most philosophers hold it as a general moral principle (although not where God is concerned) that it is immoral to cause suffering for your own or someone else's benefit. For free will, I already gave the example of a young child dying from encephalitis.

There's ALWAYS something to be gleaned from suffering and tribulation, far as I can tell.

I strongly challenge this rather ghoulish concept. Would you have the guts to tell someone who has been in constant, severe, uncontrollable pain for months on end, say from bone cancer, that it is making them a better person? In any case, I know just as many people that adversity has made angry and bitter than compassionate and understanding. This also seems to contradict what you say right after this.

No one advocates using the suffering for betterment....ie: causes pain for their own reward. But it is perfectly within God's guidelines for us to learn from sufferings of others

Actually, several people on this very thread have advocated just that. In any case, you are not making your position seem at all more moral by saying that only by watching others suffer may we benefit. As I explained above, in most areas of human morality we consider this gravely immoral. That God would be causing such suffering as walking object lessons makes him/her/it immoral as well.

....the whole Passion of Christ is about suffering, and pretty much 9/10 of the rest of the bible.

Yeah, that's pretty much where a lot of us got this crazy idea that God might not be such a nice guy. Besides the centrality of suffering as a mechanism of redemption, we have all those innocents put to the sword, drowned, murdered or burned all on the Big Guy's direct command - if the Bible is to be believed.

Of course, the reality of it is that the people who wrote the Hebrew and Christian bibles had very different conceptions of morality, divinity, and the role of God in the universe. The concept of an all-loving God would have been nonsensical to the early Hebrews, which is what creates all this trouble when believers try to reconcile the wrathful God of the Hebrew bible with the loving God of the Christian bible. As an atheist without any dog in this fight, it's pretty easy to see what the writings are and not get all wrapped up in trying to reconcile them with torturous rationalizations.

"The very mystery of natural evil, the very fact that disasters afflict human beings in contingent, undirected and haphazard ways, is itself a necessary feature of a world that calls forth mutual aid and builds up mutual caring and love."

I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise. A long history of increasing levels of violence and suffering hasn't made us more caring. Similarly, I don't see how suffering is required for parents to love their children, say. Nor can I see how the suffering must be random for all this caring to come about.

 

[Ninjamom]

EH, your many points seem to be aimed at individual examples people have given for the 'why' of suffering. Unfortunately, I think that you might be looking for a single 'one-size-fits-all' reason for suffering. Such a complex question will not have a simplistic answer. Put another way, any tidbit, soundbite someone on an Internet forum might give will never satisfy as an answer for a profound question. Or at least, you shouldn't settle for such an answer.

I think the concepts of human free will and its resulting consequences explain about 90% of human suffering (which is why it gets brought up so often in these types of discussions). You are right in saying it doesn't answer all the questions, though.

I think Hawke had the right idea of going 'back to the Source' for answers. If I could quote you chapter-and-verse from the Bible, I would, but I can't. For questions where there isn't such a cut-and-dried answer, you will have to excuse me if I wander off the beaten path. I can give you some thoughts, ideas, and my personal philosophical 'work in progress' on understanding suffering. Realizing this for what it is, please don't throw stones too hard. If the struggle is really part of the growth process, then maybe we will all benefit by asking, seeking, knocking, and trying to catch a glimpse of part of an answer.

Where to begin?

[Geekspeak Alert] OK, I brought up the idea of a 'delta function'. In Quantum Mechanics, several real, physical systems can be approximated by using a delta function - a function that is infinite in value at an infinitesimally small location. Think of a graph that looks like this: ---v---. Now, pretend the graph is made out of Silly Puddy. Pull on the bottom, so the dip represented by the letter 'v' gets deeper and deeper and deeper, at the same time the opening at the top gets narrower and narrower and narrower, until the bottom is infinitely low, but the top is equally, infinitely narrow. You may wonder how anything infinitesimally narrow can have any real meaning or value, but you have just drawn a graph of a delta potential well - a way of representing some real physical systems with discrete quantum states.[/End GeekSpeak Alert]

Suppose you have graphed the depth of human suffering for one individual. Maybe, from their perspective, their suffering is infinitely deep. At the same time, however, their suffering cannot last longer than their lifetime. Afterwards, the results and purpose of their suffering will last for all eternity. My point is that, in comparison to eternity, their suffering, no matter how deep it seems, is infinitesimally small. At the same time, though, its results, for whatever purpose (whether we know or understand that purpose or not) will have real, tangible, lasting, eternal results. I see nothing wrong or immoral in a sovereign God allowing infinitessimal suffering for the purpose of eternal glory.

If I could know that whatever suffering I am enduring will have lasting, eternal consequences that will bring glory and honor to God and serve my fellow Man, than I would gladly sign up for it, whatever that suffering might entail. In the case of this present life, I don't recall being asked. I don't know that I had a choice for much of what I've experienced. Maybe God allowed it, knowing that I wouldn't mind (or not; being sovereign He needn't get my permission). But I can have confidence in the God who is sovereign and Whose I am that this is the case for whatever suffering I am enduring. This perspective gives me hope in the midst of unspeakable circumstances. It gives me confidence for the future. It gives me peace and satisfaction in knowing that whatever struggles I endure are not in vain. It gives purpose and meaning (and therefore beauty) to every day circumstances.

And for the record, I strongly disagree with Hicks' assesment: in a universe governed by an omnipotent, loving Sovereign, nothing happens in "contingent, undirected and haphazard ways".

OK, so that's just a few thoughts on the nature of suffering in this finite time/space. I have a bunch of things I'd like to write about suffering and our 'expectations'. Please give me some time to put those thoughts together - they hit pretty close to home.

 

[exile]

[Geekspeak Alert] OK, I brought up the idea of a 'delta function'. In Quantum Mechanics, several real, physical systems can be approximated by using a delta function - a function that is infinite in value at an infinitesimally small location. Think of a graph that looks like this: ---v---. Now, pretend the graph is made out of Silly Puddy. Pull on the bottom, so the dip represented by the letter 'v' gets deeper and deeper and deeper, at the same time the opening at the top gets narrower and narrower and narrower, until the bottom is infinitely low, but the top is equally, infinitely narrow. You may wonder how anything infinitesimally narrow can have any real meaning or value, but you have just drawn a graph of a delta potential well - a way of representing some real physical systems with discrete quantum states.[/End GeekSpeak Alert]

NJM—I hope this isn't to off topic, but that is a great way to present a physical model of the Dirac function to a student! Did you think that one up?

The relevance of your example does depend on suffering being potentially infinite at a single point and zero everywhere else. I assume that you're supposing this—that suffering does not persist in any time either prior to or after the individual's lifetime?

 

[MartialArtHeart]

please don't throw stones too hard.

Let s/he who has a perfect and correct opinion cast the first stone.

being sovereign He needn't get my permission

Perhaps not, but are you saying that a "good" God has no responsibility then? Of course, I can see wonderful counterarguments to this... first we need to define "good" and "all-loving" and "sovereign"... in the true sense, not by human definition. Of course, this whole argument is based on human definition, to be sure.

 

[MartialArtHeart]

suffering does not persist in any time either prior to or after the individual's lifetime?

According to both Jewish and Christian views (I'll separate them, for sake of not being crucified... excuse me.) suffering does not exist out of this life for those who are in God's favor, for Jews, and saved, for Christians. Correct me politely if I am wrong, for being human I am prone to error.
But it is not explicitly said that we do not exist prior in other lives *again, politely correct me if I am wrong*. Perhaps it is possible that there is an infinite amount of information God left out of the Bible and/or Torah simply because it is not relevant to our lives here on earth and it would only further confuse us.

 

[Ninjamom]

More than you could ever possibly want to know about delta functions, while surfing a thread on human suffering in a Martial Arts forum:
Wikipedia Article on the Dirac Delta Function

Reminds me of the Apostle Paul's description of his sufferings:

...with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received ..... forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger ...... in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?

...and he has the unmitigated gall to summarize all his sufferings with these words:

For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison..

Slight? Momentary? I have no room to complain in this life.

 

[Ninjamom]

NJM—Did you think that one up?

Yes, it's a 'NJM Original' (as the saying goes, "even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.")

I assume that you're supposing this—that suffering does not persist in any time either prior to or after the individual's lifetime?

According to both Jewish and Christian views ......suffering does not exist out of this life for those who are in God's favor, for Jews, and saved, for Christians.

Correct on both counts, as far as I know.

Perhaps it is possible that there is an infinite amount of information God left out of the Bible and/or Torah simply because it is not relevant to our lives here on earth and it would only further confuse us.

Correct again, and probably more relevant to this current discussion than any of us would care to admit. Sometimes a good, honest "I don't know" is the best answer one can give.

.... but are you saying that a "good" God has no responsibility then?

No, and this is the hardest part to discuss in such a forum. God knew exactly the end result of the whole system when He set it up. And yes, that has lots of consequences for all the discussions you've mentioned.

 

[Empty Hands]

Unfortunately, I think that you might be looking for a single 'one-size-fits-all' reason for suffering. Such a complex question will not have a simplistic answer. Put another way, any tidbit, soundbite someone on an Internet forum might give will never satisfy as an answer for a profound question. Or at least, you shouldn't settle for such an answer.

Well, I'm not really looking for anything. I am satisfied with a naturalistic explanation rooted in my scientific education for why suffering occurs. What I am doing here is poking holes in others' "one size fits all" explanations for why an omnipotent and omni-loving God allows suffering to occur. Others put forward the proposal, I poke holes in it, and only one counterexample is required to disprove a rule.

Realizing this for what it is, please don't throw stones too hard.

My purpose isn't to attack or harm anyone. Throwing stones at ideas (not people) is part of a real process of finding truth though, to which I think you would agree. As a well-educated-in-science person though I think you can understand my frustration with the proposals put forward without evidence behind them to explain God's actions, which in itself relies upon a collection of writings that I really cannot say are more authoritative on the nature of divinity than the Epic of Gilgamesh or the legends of the Norse people. I know it requires faith, but faith has no part in science - hence my frustration.

My point is that, in comparison to eternity, their suffering, no matter how deep it seems, is infinitesimally small. At the same time, though, its results, for whatever purpose (whether we know or understand that purpose or not) will have real, tangible, lasting, eternal results. I see nothing wrong or immoral in a sovereign God allowing infinitessimal suffering for the purpose of eternal glory.

I understand this concept well, mathematically. However, it has a number of troubling philosophical implications you may not have thought of. Viewed this way, all human actions are negligible in effect. All sins, all murders, all rapes, all kindnesses, all everything. Why then, if suffering is discounted by God as infinitesimal, are the sins and virtues counted so highly? Our negligible suffering isn't enough to impeach God, but our negligible sins or our negligible virtues are more than enough for God to impeach us for all eternity - either eternal pleasure or eternal suffering (which is NOT negligible!). Such a system seems highly unjust.

But I can have confidence in the God who is sovereign and Whose I am that this is the case for whatever suffering I am enduring.

Again, as a scientist, based on what? A collection of bronze age writings of dubious authority containing much the same type of legends of the divine of dozens of other ancient cultures? My feelings? It just isn't enough, not for me.

Please give me some time to put those thoughts together - they hit pretty close to home.

I look forward to them. Again, I should reiterate since I may seem a little harsh - I'm not attacking you, or anyone else here. I once was a Christian too, and I do understand.

 

[Ninjamom]

I understand this concept well, mathematically. However, it has a number of troubling philosophical implications you may not have thought of. Viewed this way, all human actions are negligible in effect. All sins, all murders, all rapes, all kindnesses, all everything. Why then, if suffering is discounted by God as infinitesimal, are the sins and virtues counted so highly? Our negligible suffering isn't enough to impeach God, but our negligible sins or our negligible virtues are more than enough for God to impeach us for all eternity - either eternal pleasure or eternal suffering (which is NOT negligible!). Such a system seems highly unjust.

Refer back to Job - Elihu makes a very big point of the fact that our virtue and our sin do not affect God or harm Him or 'ruin His day'. They do however, affect other people like us, hence God's concern about our actions (after all, He loves them, too). If we will exist eternally, however, our sin and our acts of virtue might be infinitessimal, but our character (who we are; our existence) will be eternal. What kind of character will that be, and will it be virtuous or sinful? There is a big difference, for example, between saying that I stole something once (a single, 'infinitessimal' action compared to eternity), vs. saying that I am a thief (a character trait, that will be eternal, if I exist eternally). Assuming that our ability to choose/change is bounded by time in this life, the question becomes, "Will my character be eternally self-centered, self-willed, and self-consumed, or will it be willingly submitted to the authority of Another?.

Please do not take the simplistic (almost cartoonish) view of eternity as simply a reward or punishment for our actions in this life. Such a view eliminates any consideration of redemption, the possibility of change, allowances for repentance, or shades of value for actions, vs. motives, vs. intentions. I think if we can all agree on any one thing, it would be that the whole issue is a lot more complicated than that.

Again, as a scientist, based on what? A collection of bronze age writings of dubious authority containing much the same type of legends of the divine of dozens of other ancient cultures? My feelings? It just isn't enough, not for me.

Thank you for your candor and honesty. As a scientist, I don't think you will find scientific evidence to your satisfaction - the nature of being Sovereign includes the fact that one isn't obligated to respond repeatedly and predictably to controlled experimental conditions. I think the evidence that I have found is more in keeping with what you might encounter in a courtroom - I can tell you what I have seen, heard, and experienced. So can others. Since you have been active in Christianity before, I am sure you know others who could offer the same type of 'evidence'. Perhaps that will be enough to offer the hope needed to experience/see/hear for yourself.

I look forward to them. Again, I should reiterate since I may seem a little harsh - I'm not attacking you, or anyone else here. I once was a Christian too, and I do understand.

And that kind of response makes it easy to continue this conversation, even when we are stepping out into difficult topics, or subjects about which I admit I don't know the answer, either. Thank you for the freedom to disagree, and even at times, the freedom to be wrong.

 

[MartialArtHeart]

I understand this concept well, mathematically. However, it has a number of troubling philosophical implications you may not have thought of. Viewed this way, all human actions are negligible in effect. All sins, all murders, all rapes, all kindnesses, all everything. Why then, if suffering is discounted by God as infinitesimal, are the sins and virtues counted so highly? Our negligible suffering isn't enough to impeach God, but our negligible sins or our negligible virtues are more than enough for God to impeach us for all eternity - either eternal pleasure or eternal suffering (which is NOT negligible!). Such a system seems highly unjust.

According to what the Bible said, suffering is NOT negligible... it is rewarded.

Again, as a scientist, based on what? A collection of bronze age writings of dubious authority containing much the same type of legends of the divine of dozens of other ancient cultures? My feelings? It just isn't enough, not for me.

Nor was it ever enough for me! The archaic writings seemed the stuff of fairy tales... men stuck in whales, a boat that held all types of animals for a long period of time, a man who performed miracles... and so many other things... talking snakes... a God who punished all snakes because of that one snake... it seems highly unjust, too. And there is one passage that I find absolute nonsense! I am a female, and I have no fear of snakes; in fact, I love them. Ludicrous passage.
But I believe in God... how is that? It takes proof for me... to create a healthy doubt. You see, though a series of circumstances, I came to believe... however, I cannot prove anything. But the fact is, atheists cannot prove beyond a doubt that God doesn't exist any more than theists can prove that he does. I believe someone mentioned earlier... the burden of negative proof?

Perhaps one day... we will all know... I just hope it won't be too late.


Also, allow me to add that the nature of "suffering" has not been defined by us yet. If we can consider "suffering" to be the lack of knowledge that God exists due to circumstances beyond a person's control, and the person's subsequent trip to hell, how much more unjust does God become in our eyes?

Not just suffering here on earth, but ETERNAL SUFFERING.

 

[Empty Hands]

If we will exist eternally, however, our sin and our acts of virtue might be infinitessimal, but our character (who we are; our existence) will be eternal.

That is an interesting way of looking at it. However, it doesn't address God condemning individuals for something unrelated to their character - like believing in Allah instead of Jesus.

As a scientist, I don't think you will find scientific evidence to your satisfaction - the nature of being Sovereign includes the fact that one isn't obligated to respond repeatedly and predictably to controlled experimental conditions.

Yeah, pretty much. Without it though I don't see any reason to believe - I wasn't really raised in a religion, and I don't have this burning internal conviction that most people seem to have. Even when I called myself a Christian I didn't really have it. Without evidence, I really have no reason to believe. Of course, my point is, without that evidence how does anyone else know that their internal convictions are justified?

And that kind of response makes it easy to continue this conversation, even when we are stepping out into difficult topics, or subjects about which I admit I don't know the answer, either. Thank you for the freedom to disagree, and even at times, the freedom to be wrong.

:asian:

 

[Empty Hands]

According to what the Bible said, suffering is NOT negligible... it is rewarded.

I was responding to NM's concept of suffering as a delta function.

But the fact is, atheists cannot prove beyond a doubt that God doesn't exist any more than theists can prove that he does. I believe someone mentioned earlier... the burden of negative proof?

There is no negative burden of proof. Whomever makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. After all, negative claims cannot be exhaustively proven and thus always remain contingent. However, this doesn't provide any sort of evidence of the corresponding positive claim. I hate to break out these old chestnuts, but "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and "I tell you there is an invisible pink unicorn dancing on your shoulder. You cannot detect it using any scientific means. Should you believe in it?"

 

[Ninjamom]

That is an interesting way of looking at it. However, it doesn't address God condemning individuals for something unrelated to their character - like believing in Allah instead of Jesus.

I'm not sure that God condemns anyone for believeing in Allah. I am currently studying a branch of theology called 'Biblical Inclusivism' that addresses exactly this issue. I can't say I totally agree (or totally disagree - the jury's still out). Regardless, I think that, in most views, God holds people to account for the level of knowledge they have. That may not be an entirely satisfactory answer, but I think it will allow us (for the purpose of this paticular discussion) to limit consideration to those who have heard of Jesus and have reasonable means before them to investigate His claims.

 

[Ninjamom]

OK, I promised I'd write about how our view of suffering is often tied in with our expectations of the way life 'should' be. I also promised that the post would hit pretty close to home.

So, given that promise, and my understanding of the original post (which seemed to request personal views and insights more than rigorous 'proofs' or logical polemics), Here goes: the following post is entirely too long and probably more 'personal' than I should get on an open forum, but it tells where I am coming from.

-------------------------------------------------​

A parent has hopes and dreams for his children. Imagine for a moment that you are such a parent. What if something happened, through no fault of yours or your child’s, to crush those dreams? What if your child were born horribly deformed, or blind or deaf, or physically disabled, or mentally retarded? I am sure that those types of situations are included in the descriptions of ‘evil’ and ‘suffering’ that have been under discussion on this thread.

I personally am very close to a family that experienced exactly this type of suffering. Their youngest child was born with a reduced mental capacity – everyone in the family – aunts, uncles, cousins on all sides - knew it, although no one ever talked about it. Most just assumed the child was mentally retarded and dealt with it privately. The hopes for this child were readjusted to far below what they once had been, and what they were for other family members. Today that child is an adult functioning in mainstream society, but with continued issues with self-esteem and self-worth. The saddest part of this tale: the child had an IQ of 120, but in a family chock-full of degree-laden geniuses, it was only noted that this child was sub-par. The results continue, and one of my closest acquaintances admits still feeling a great deal of guilt over her attitude towards her family member, almost 50 years later.

Human intelligence is rated with the IQ scale, where 100 is considered ‘average’, and ‘normal’ might be anything between 80 and 120. But what if you found out your child or friend was rated at 79? Would you be crushed? Would you feel sorry for them? Would you think they were cheated by their disability? How about a 78, or a 76? What about a 50 or a 42?

Intelligence (and physical strength, and health, and longevity, and social skills, and education, and coordination, and musical or artistic ability, and just about every other measure of human existence) seems to follow a ‘normal distribution’. You can define an ‘average’, but the world is full of variations far and wide from that definition of ‘normal’. I suppose God could have made everyone with precise cookie-cutter uniformity, exactly the same. A moment’s thought, and I think even most of us mere mortals would toss that idea in the trashcan. The wonderful range of human existence and scope of variety add so much color and flavor to our world. If we count those at the ‘bottom’ of any of these scales as ‘suffering too much’, you could make a case for God not making them, or for us throwing them away. But where would you draw that line to define “good enough”, and what would you do with those in the distribution who were on the ‘second rung’, but are now on the bottom of the ladder?

I think you see where I’m going with this – how we treat people that are outside of our comfort zone for ‘normal’ in this distribution really says far more about us than it says about the God who made them. When our expectations are not met, it is natural to feel ‘cheated’. Perhaps in these cases under discussion, it is not the person and their situation that are ‘wrong’, but our expectations.

The hypothetical was mentioned of a five-year-old child who dies of encephalitis. It was considered tragic that a child would die at age five. It was also tragic that someone should die instantaneously in a car crash, ‘before their time’. Personally, I find any death at any age from any cause to be tragic. I know that battle is probably foolish to fight: society at large expects people to live a certain length of time; more than that time is considered a blessing, and less than that time is considered a curse. I think the correct approach may be to recognize any life, of however short duration, as a gift.

Whether the issue is someone born blind, or missing a limb, or ‘odd’ in some way, that person challenges our understanding of the value and worth of human life. If we honestly feel that they were ‘cheated’, or that a ‘just God’ shouldn’t have made such a person at all, then we are no longer viewing them and their existence as valuable or of worth (or, at most we are viewing them and their existence as of less value and less worth). This has drastic consequences in how we treat people who are handicapped or otherwise ‘different’ (which goes back to the ‘free will’ arguments, for the cause of most of human suffering).

The traditional Christian view is that every human life in any state is valuable because it is created in the image of God. This is why so many Christians end up serving at the forefront of ‘pro-life’ causes….and I am not talking about abortion here, but all causes based on the assumption that there is value and worth in any and all human life, whether it be ending slavery in Sudan, advocating for the homeless, stopping child sex trafficking in Thailand, working with the physically/mentally challenged, or working to stop gang rape in Federal prisons. Such causes seem to epitomize Jesus’ command to care for the ‘least of these’, brothers of His, and whether you agree with ‘pro-life’ advocates or not, the philosophy does have the benefit of being morally consistent.

This whole discussion of our expectations, what constitutes ‘normal’, the value of each human life, and whether some individuals would/wouldn’t be better off not having been born comes uncomfortably close to home. When I was pregnant with Baby #3, I was warned that my son was thyroid-deficient and would likely be born already suffering the effects of hypothyroid-induced cretinism. I had the options to abort, pursue aggressive in utero treatment that had significant risk for resulting in a miscarriage, or carry on with the pregnancy as ‘normal’. My husband and I opted for the latter. Our healthy son was born just two months after that decision, but his life since has been marked with strange behavior issues, emotional problems, irrational fears/anxieties, strange outbursts, and significant social impairments. Only now, 9 years later, do we finally have a diagnosis that my son is autistic.

Why God would answer our prayers to deliver our son from all thyroid problems (so that two teams of doctors marveled at the changes), rescue him from cretinism, and give him excellent health, but allow him to be born autistic is beyond me. When we first got the diagnosis, I went through all the classic ‘stages of grief’, mourning for those shattered hopes and crushed dreams, and wondering what would become of my son. It has been a challenge every day, and I am ashamed to admit how much this has challenged my views of what constitutes ‘normal’.

I love my son. I know he has value, and not one iota less value than my other children. I am grateful that he is alive, and so thankful that I didn’t abort, or possibly unintentionally kill him through a treatment he didn’t need. His ‘lot in life’ isn’t one I would have chosen for him, but I am so grateful that he is in our family.

Perhaps the whole idea of gratitude (as opposed to ‘entitlement’) is one reason why I can face this situation without blaming God or being angry with Him. I would like to couple that thought with something thardey said:

But here's an interesting thing . . . it usually appears that the people who are bothered the most by an innocent suffering are not the innocents who are suffering.
>
>
I was an "innocent" victim at one point in my life. Many people who saw me felt that I was unjustly treated by God, and there were probably those who could have pointed to my situation and used it as a philosophical argument against the existence of a "Loving" God. When you're in that kind of a situation, you bond with others who are unjustly suffering, and we all felt the same. (Among followers of this God who claims to love us.) So I can speak for them as well. But none of us felt that we could be justifiably angry with our Father. That is, none of us felt abused or neglected. Those looking at us from the outside felt that we were, but they couldn't understand our acceptance of the situation. I still can't explain it to someone who hasn't been there.

Yes, it is hard to explain. But I can say that in the middle of the situation, I am very much aware of God’s presence with me and with our family. God isn’t just some ‘intellectual exercise’ or abstract theological discussion. He’s really here, and I can know Him as a friend. In the midst of our family’s circumstances, He is ‘Emmanuel, God with us’, the ‘very present help in trouble’, and ‘the friend that is closer than a brother.’ I know that I am not alone in the daily struggles of dealing with my son’s disability. One stands with me who is not a stranger to our suffering – He is personally acquainted with it, and sovereign over it.

No matter how much we discuss, study, debate, or search, there will always be cases we don’t understand and things we can’t know fully. (It’s in the nature of being finite.) Seeing and understanding and knowing in part gives me hopes for just such cases. I may not know ‘why’, but I know God. Being able to trust Him makes all the difference.

-------------------------------------------------​

 

[Kacey]

Great post, Ninjamom... and sparked in me a point I had been trying to remember.

Without something for comparison, how can you determine joy? Depression? Hate? Love? All emotions are, IMHO, understood based on comparison to each other and their opposites, and I am not going to enumerate them. How truly meaningful would joy be if you had never experienced it's opposite? The same holds true for all the other emotional contrasts.

 

[Empty Hands]

OK, I promised I'd write about how our view of suffering is often tied in with our expectations of the way life 'should' be. I also promised that the post would hit pretty close to home...

Thanks for that.

 

[thardey]

That is an interesting way of looking at it. However, it doesn't address God condemning individuals for something unrelated to their character - like believing in Allah instead of Jesus.

In the Bible (Tanakh, and New Testament) there are options for forgiveness of sin and mistakes. In both instances the "character" issues involve the ability to 1.) Accept that you have made the mistake, without justifying it, or blaming another, and 2.) Accept that you cannot fix the mistake on your own, but need another's help.

Under Moses' law, that "help" came from the sacrifice of an "innocent" animal. Under Jesus, that "help" came from the death of the Messiah (or Christ) an "innocent man". (The only one BTW, according to the Bible).

In fact, some people refuse to believe in the God of the Bible because there is the promise that, no matter what sin you've committed, if you are able to accept the two premises above, you will be forgiven. They think that is unjust.

As ninjamom said, I'm not sure that God condemns anyone for believing in Allah, either. The character issue I believe is at stake is whether or not an individual will keep trying to earn what cannot be earned, or are they willing to put aside their pride and simply "ask" for forgiveness, without bargaining, manipulating, or buying it.

Yeah, pretty much. Without it though I don't see any reason to believe - I wasn't really raised in a religion, and I don't have this burning internal conviction that most people seem to have. Even when I called myself a Christian I didn't really have it. Without evidence, I really have no reason to believe. Of course, my point is, without that evidence how does anyone else know that their internal convictions are justified?

There are many things that I believe that cannot be proven scientifically. In fact, modern science itself has limited itself so that it cannot ask "Why?" It can only ask "How?" Once the question of "why?" comes up it is no longer a scientific question.

There are other disciplines for asking and answering questions. History, Law, Language, and music are some pursuits not governed by science. Science certainly has influence on each of these areas, but it is not the final criteria. How could you prove scientifically that George Washington really crossed the Delaware? It is not reproducible! Nor is any of History.

Science has influence in the courtroom, but the whole system is not governed by hypothesis and experimentation. It is governed by similar rules as history.

The question of God allowing evil is not a scientific question to begin with. It is essentially a "why?"question. Is it scientifically possible that there is a sentient being with enough power to cause pain? Of course! Humans are one of them! Is it scientifically possible that there is a being out there that has more power than all other beings? Not only is it possible, but it is necessary that there is a being that is rated highest in these areas. Or perhaps a group of beings that share power, but scientifically there are more powerful people than I, and there are more powerful people than them. Eventually you must reach a being of which no one can claim more power. Some people refer to this being as God. Why does this being react the way it does? Not a scientific question any more.

So, in the question of burdens of proof, let's look at this another way. Without you meeting my wife personally, can I absolutely prove to you that she 1.) exists, and 2.) that she is in fact the person that I describe?

I know her, and I know a bit about her character. I know what she looks like, and what she lives like. However, if you don't believe me for whatever reason, and I choose to prove to you the two point above, the burden of proof is on me. However, you may poke some holes in my proof of her. A photograph that I send you may be doctored, my stories of her life may be considered "myth", witnesses may be lying or mistaken, etc. So that one by one, each individual "proof" gets "disproven". I will still believe in my wife.

If, however, you try to convince me that I am a fool for believing in my wife, because you have "disproven" my argument, then the very large burden of proof is on you.

So it is with my belief of God. I do believe I "know" him. Not only proofs of his existence, (for me), but also by experience of his presence. I can't prove these experiences to you, and I can demonstrate that right now.

When I was referring to an "unfair" time in my life, I was a cripple. At 17, I was unable to walk without extreme pain, and I used either a cane, crutches, or a wheelchair to get around. This was a permanent state (incurable). After five years of this condition, the doctors finally diagnosed me with psoriatic arthritis of the symmetric type. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psoriatic_arthritis
Since I had it so young, it was almost certain that I would be permanently disabled by this disease.

Then I was miraculously healed.

Can I prove it to you? No. In fact, the only records the doctors have that I was suffering in the first place was my own complaints. (That's why it took them so long to diagnose it - the CAT scans, bone scans, etc, showed to symptoms.) Can I prove it was miraculous to you? No. But the timing was more than coincidental. Can I produce witnesses? Yes, but they won't scientifically "prove" anything, especially since I was the only one who truly knew how much it hurt.

Can you prove to me that I wasn't miraculously healed? Of course not. The best philosophical arguments, the best scientific journals, then best testimony of an expert in arthritis won't convince me, because I was there - they weren't.

This is not the only "experience" I had before this time, but they won't prove anything to you. But does that justify my beliefs? Absolutely.