Theodicy

[_Droopy]

There is no answer to the problem of suffering, that works for me.

Oh, yes there is, and just because you don't - or wont' - understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I cannot imagine a decent, (I won't even go with loving), God creating a,"Plan of Happiness," that allows for 40 thousand children to starve to death each day; for untold child abuse of every kind, for children suffering beyond what we can imagine.

Then you clearly do not believe in the core concept of free agency, which places you quite staunchly on Satan's side in his great controversy with Christ and those of God's children who chose to come here and undergo the trials and refinings of mortality.

Either God sits by and watches this horror and cruelty and doesn't care enough to step in and help, or God is too busy worrying about malls, NY billboards, ocean front property in Hawaii, and what color shirts men are wearing to church that "he" doesn't have time to notice the poor, sick, hurting children.

This attitude appears to me to be nearly depraved in its frog-in-the-well pride and presumption, and bespeaks a level of philosophical depth approximate to that of the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair. This is hardly an either/or question as you've put it here, and commits the fallacy of False Dichotomy, as given.

All the excuses and justifications LDS leaders (and others), come up with to explain away the horror that exists on this planet do not come close to working for me, nor do they make sense on any level, or feel in the least bit, loving or kind.

Then perchance you could adduce, in a clear, rigorous philosophical manner, your alternative?

I would rather live in a world without a divine being than live in a world where the divine being created such a plan.

Good then. You would rather live in a world void of freedom to choose and the gift of individual agency. You wish to be one of the Eloi.

The Great and Spacious Building is close to overflowing with such as this, so you will be in good company.

[_lostindc]

A few thoughts:

1. All scripture was written by men, not God. All of it is some random man's interpretation of his own experience. Just because something is canonized or accepted by a religious group doesn't mean it actually came from God. Thus personally, I don't believe that which doesn't resonate with my own experience (your mileage may vary). Just because early Mormon prophets tried to explain that which they observed in terms of God-said doesn't mean God actually said any of it.

2. I'm not sure the few years that separates children from adults is all that meaningful in the sense of eternity. I mean, this 35 years or 57 years or 82 years (lifespan depending on the century and the particular culture) are pretty much meaningless in the sense of 10 billion+ years of eternity (or whatever the popular estimate of eternity is supposed to be).

3. It's only been in the last couple of centuries that children were valued at all; for generations, children were valued only based on their economic value, not in terms of intrinsic value simply because they were younger than adults. And the age of adulthood has never been static; it changes based on culture and physical maturity.

4. Judging God's worthiness based on our 21st century standard of what our culture deems important is as ethnocentric as any other culture in any other century attempting the same thing. And we have no more claim to "rightness" than any other group that ever existed.

well done, you actually made me think this morning

[_Droopy]

I will say that this religious paradox disappears once you drop the assumption that there is a god.

Yes, that's quite true. Indeed, dropping the idea that there is a god solves a great deal of philosophical problems once one drops the concept of deep, critical thought and ceases using one's imagination to explore the "terrible questions."

An intellectually cowardly shrugging off of the great questions of existence. Indeed, if there is no God, everything is permitted in theory, so its also a very convenient position to take.

[_stemelbow]

Right. The argument is just that pointless suffering does not exist in a world where God (defined in a particular way) does. So if pointless suffering exists, that's compatible with a world without God. Pointless suffering isn't surprising in a universe that doesn't care about you.

But, if the argument is that pointless suffering doesnot exist in a world where God exists, then it is assumed that God controls the suffering. Perhaps suffering is even with God in existence.

Let's consider the LDS belief here.

Could there have been suffering before God organized spirits? Yes. Indeed, logically, there must have been. This point alone refutes the notion that there can not be a God and a world where there is suffering.

God is not the cause or controller of suffering. It occurs beyond God. God in order to relieve suffering organized spirits and set them on the path to a greater existence--a path to exist either beyond suffering or with, at least, a much more limited amount of suffering. This world organized by God has suffering, but suffering is a reality beyond God. The existence of this world is a necessity to meet the need of those whom God is trying to help and bless, but that does not necessitate that each particular suffering is a necessity for that person. It was never that God could just poof people into better existences. It just wasn't possible. It was never that God could have just pulled people out of the suffering that is eternally inherent--without a process. And suffering, to some extent a necessity for growth, is not always a necessity for growth otherwise all would have to go through the same suffering. thus, some suffering, at least, must be pointless.

The world that we live in is subject to forces outside of God. He must abide by eternal rules. Its not Him, that causes suffering, but it will be Him who relieves suffering.

[_Droopy]

The God of nature and the God of Mormonism seems at odds with each other when it comes to the problem of pain.

What is "the problem of pain" and how would a God deal with it in a way satisfying to you?

They are two very conflicting concepts of God.

I think not.

I don't believe in a "pre-Mortal agreement" theodicy.
I don't believe in the answer that "we just aren't supposed to know everything". When it comes to this issue, I'm fine not knowing some things, but surely this little nugget of truth, if given to mankind would do more good than harm.

Ahh yes...the Monkey's Paw...

[_Droopy]

And... so God allows the cruelty, (free agency) of humankind when in fact, such cruelty can inflict such damage on children that due to the cruelty their free agency is taken away.

Numerous examples can be adduced showing that this isn't true at all, in any necessary sense.

[_Buffalo]

I will say that this religious paradox disappears once you drop the assumption that there is a god.

Yes, that's quite true. Indeed, dropping the idea that there is a god solves a great deal of philosophical problems once one drops the concept of deep, critical thought and ceases using one's imagination to explore the "terrible questions."

An intellectually cowardly shrugging off of the great questions of existence. Indeed, if there is no God, everything is permitted in theory, so its also a very convenient position to take.

Sorry, I don't see anything brave about embracing magical thinking and cognitive dissonance.

[_EAllusion]

Oh, yes there is, and just because you don't - or wont' - understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What is it Droopy? Major theologians publish novel takes on that answer all the time, which suggests to me that there isn't an obvious, settled-upon answer that people can point to. That includes people like Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, William Lane Craig, Marilyn McCord Adams, Richard Swinburne, and Stephen Wykstra. If only they knew they were wasting their lives working on a problem that Droopy's got nailed down.

In the meantime, I'm familiar with standard theodicy and defenses, and I believe they range from flawed to extremely flawed. I'd be happy to hear you take a crack at it. And if you manage to do it without a series of insults or walls of word salad, I'll be happy to reply. I mean, in this post you imply a sorta crude free will defense. So I guess that's where you'd go, but you haven't articulated anything yet.

[_EAllusion]

Let's consider the LDS belief here.

Could there have been suffering before God organized spirits? Yes. Indeed, logically, there must have been. This point alone refutes the notion that there can not be a God and a world where there is suffering.

Pointless suffering. The modifier is important. It's true that the LDS viewpoint allows for some pointless suffering in a way that classical theism does not. But that's not the coup you might first imagine it to be. See, the inscrutable suffering we see in this world - oceans of it - is preventable by the God LDS purport to believe in. That is to say, it is within his proposed range of power. Indeed, many LDS think God uses his miraculous power to relieve types of suffering we observe on occasion. So the problem is still front in center even if we allow for the technical possibility of some suffering beyond that God's control.

The world that we live in is subject to forces outside of God. He must abide by eternal rules. Its not Him, that causes suffering, but it will be Him who relieves suffering.

Likewise, God could, in theory, prevent inscrutable suffering we observe even if he is not the author of it. (Bear in mind, that according to LDS scripture, God is claimed to be the author of some suffering as it attributes natural disasters to him, has him ordering genocide, etc.)

You might say, as you do here, that there is some universal rules we don't quite understand that require God to allow this to happen. Okay, if that's your argument it is just an ad hoc unknown purposes defense. It is no different in character than saying God might have reasons we don't quite understand for causing/allowing suffering we observe to occur. I can reply to that defense if you'd like, but the first step is recognizing this isn't a novel solution or one specifically applicable to LDS belief.

[_stemelbow]

Pointless suffering. The modifier is important. It's true that the LDS viewpoint allows for some pointless suffering in a way that classical theism does not. But that's not the coup you might first imagine it to be. See, the inscrutable suffering we see in this world - oceans of it - is preventable by the God LDS purport to believe in. That is to say, it is within his proposed range of power. Indeed, many LDS think God uses his miraculous power to relieve types of suffering we observe on occasion. So the problem is still front in center even if we allow for the technical possibility of some suffering beyond that God's control.

Perhaps true, but I'm not so sure. If God must abide by the law of agency and allow others the same, and it supersedes his intervening to prevent certain suffering, then I'm not so sure its true that God can prevent the pointless suffering that takes place. Perhaps there is precedent in LDS belief/understand that helps to establish that point, huh?

Likewise, God could, in theory, prevent inscrutable suffering we observe even if he is not the author of it. (Bear in mind, that according to LDS scripture, God is claimed to be the author of some suffering as it attributes natural disasters to him, has him ordering genocide, etc.)

You might say, as you do here, that there is some universal rules we don't quite understand that require God to allow this to happen. Okay, if that's your argument it is just an ad hoc unknown purposes defense. It is no different in character than saying God might have reasons we don't quite understand for causing/allowing suffering we observe to occur. I can reply to that defense if you'd like, but the first step is recognizing this isn't a novel solution or one specifically applicable to LDS belief.

But one must be able to challenge you assumption--that God can prvent the suffering. If He lives by rules the prevent Him from intervening in certain cases, then I don't see how you've made your case.