Is the anti-theist argument from undeserved suffering circularish?

[SteveH]

It occurred to me today that the reason that the argument from suffering against belief in God didn't seem to bother believers in earlier ages was probably that they had a thorough-going belief in an eternal afterlife, in comparison with the bliss of which the sufferings of this life would fade into insignificance. This world's sufferings only seem significant if you assume that this life is all there is, which is what the anti-theists are trying to prove.  This says nothing one way or the other about whether there is an afterlife, but possibly rules out of court one atheistical argument.
(LR: spare us your usual line about there being no evidence for the existence of God - it would be even less relevant than usual, which is saying something.)

[Shaker]

It occurred to me today that the reason that the argument from suffering against belief in God didn't seem to bother believers in earlier ages was probably that they had a thorough-going belief in an eternal afterlife, in comparison with the bliss of which the sufferings of this life would fade into insignificance. This world's sufferings only seem significant if you assume that this life is all there is, which is what the anti-theists are trying to prove.  This says nothing one way or the other about whether there is an afterlife, but possibly rules out of court one atheistical argument.

Leaving aside the howlingly wrong point about anti-theists trying to prove that this life is all there is, this is nonsense on stilts. Suffering remains suffering whether there is an afterlife or not - the existence of suffering is not somehow negated by existence continuing for ever in some shadowy, amorphous, insubstantial form. To posit that the millions who were tortured and murdered in the Holocaust have that made all right by being 'rewarded' with an afterlife is a suggestion that many (most?) people would find perfectly monstrous. It's a favourite line of some of the more repulsive theologians such as Richard Swinburne.

I can't call to mind the name of who created the analogy, but someone once said that deliberately stubbing out a cigarette on your child's arm isn't made better for buying said child an ice cream afterwards. The pain caused remains the same with or without the ice cream. It isn't undone or somehow made to un-happen by the 'reward'.

In addition, the thoroughgoing believer is over a theological barrel since he or she, in contemplating that suffering, has to contend with a God who is ignorant of suffering, unable to do anything about (in other words, useless) or actively sadistic. In brief, we're back to Epicurus' unanswerable riddle.

[Dicky Underpants]

Leaving aside the howlingly wrong point about anti-theists trying to prove that this life is all there is, this is nonsense on stilts. Suffering remains suffering whether there is an afterlife or not - the existence of suffering is not somehow negated by existence continuing for ever in some shadowy, amorphous, insubstantial form. To posit that the millions who were tortured and murdered in the Holocaust have that made all right by being 'rewarded' with an afterlife is a suggestion that many (most?) people would find perfectly monstrous. It's a favourite line of some of the more repulsive theologians such as Richard Swinburne.

I think Sartre summed this up succinctly by saying that "evil is irredeemable". I agree entirely that no amount of pie in the sky when you die jollies can negate the very real horrors of this life. However, Steve has a point when he says that firm believers of former ages perhaps did not have the same extent of horror of mortal suffering simply because they believed what they did - that is to say, there was a strong psychological component which mitigated the realities of their worldly conditions. I suspect that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven might not have been able to withstand their less than pleasant worldly circumstances and compose what they did without the spiritual beliefs they held. But I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely the problem of suffering is not new? Augustine, Irenaeus and indeed the Book of Job are all concerned with it.

[Rhiannon]

I think Sartre summed this up succinctly by saying that "evil is irredeemable". I agree entirely that no amount of pie in the sky when you die jollies can negate the very real horrors of this life. However, Steve has a point when he says that firm believers of former ages perhaps did not have the same extent of horror of mortal suffering simply because they believed what they did - that is to say, there was a strong psychological component which mitigated the realities of their worldly conditions. I suspect that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven might not have been able to withstand their less than pleasant worldly circumstances and compose what they did without the spiritual beliefs they held. But I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.

And I think suffering was much more immediate in times past, in a way that we here in the West don't always take on board. Life in Medieval times was brutal and short, many women died in childbirth, infant mortality was the norm, there was plague and your village could be attacked and plundered at any time depending on the whim of those in power.

And that's not even touching on the suffering that religion itself caused - the persecution of Jews and homosexuals, the torture of heretics, the witch hunts...suffering was, well, normal.

eta and I'm well aware we are talking different ages here, just before Shaker pulls me up on it. 

[Shaker]

I think Sartre summed this up succinctly by saying that "evil is irredeemable". I agree entirely that no amount of pie in the sky when you die jollies can negate the very real horrors of this life. However, Steve has a point when he says that firm believers of former ages perhaps did not have the same extent of horror of mortal suffering simply because they believed what they did - that is to say, there was a strong psychological component which mitigated the realities of their worldly conditions. I suspect that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven might not have been able to withstand their less than pleasant worldly circumstances and compose what they did without the spiritual beliefs they held. But I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.

Lovely post - saddled with all sorts of wrong, as I hope to demonstrate, but the sort of intelligent and thoughtful, obviously thought-through response I cherish.

True about Sartre. Mozart as far as we can tell was a believer; Bach certainly a staunch one. Less clear cut in the case of Beethoven - definitely raised Catholic; in adult life ... well, take your pick; more than one commentator has called him a pantheist (Ninth Symphony etc.). I have a suspicion that there's something of an appeal to antiquity quietly hidden in here, though; who is to say that the works of (to pick a few random examples off the top of my hat) Tippett, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams and so forth - all avowed non-believers - have less of the  awe-full and "transcendent" (loaded term, with which I have problems) than those? I can only speak for myself here given that art is so subjective a thing, but I can only say that the end of RVW's Pilgrim's Progress, or "Deep River" at the end of A Child of Our Time reduce me to a snotty, blubbering ugly mess in a way that Bach never has.

What this says ... I don't know. I could draw grand conclusions, but they would be subjective and unsupportable so I shall refrain.

[Rhiannon]

It occurred to me today that the reason that the argument from suffering against belief in God didn't seem to bother believers in earlier ages was probably that they had a thorough-going belief in an eternal afterlife, in comparison with the bliss of which the sufferings of this life would fade into insignificance. This world's sufferings only seem significant if you assume that this life is all there is, which is what the anti-theists are trying to prove.  This says nothing one way or the other about whether there is an afterlife, but possibly rules out of court one atheistical argument.
(LR: spare us your usual line about there being no evidence for the existence of God - it would be even less relevant than usual, which is saying something.)

I am unaware on non believers trying to prove the non existence of an afterlife. I am aware of non believers challenging those who try to present proof that there is one (eg challenging psychics). But really the onus is on believers to present the proof that the afterlife exists.

I think that without a belief in an afterlife where some kind of wholeness is achievable, belief in a loving and merciful god is highly problematic.

[Shaker]

Surely the problem of suffering is not new? Augustine, Irenaeus and indeed the Book of Job are all concerned with it.

Of course not - the ghastly Lewis wrote (unfortunately) an entire book called The Problem of Pain about it.

Thing is, though, that pain is a problem for supernaturalists, not naturalists. Insofar as I have one, my "worldview" includes and explains pain; that of the classical theist (where God is not merely good but supremely good beyond all goodness(es) - does not, and therefore the theist is permanently trying to square the circle and crowbar perfect goodness and the desire not to have suffering into a world of suffering. Hence Epicurus.

[Nearly Sane]

I am still a bit confused by the OP title? SteveH , in what way do you think the argument, whoever makes it, is 'circularish'?

[Nearly Sane]

I am unaware on non believers trying to prove the non existence of an afterlife. I am aware of non believers challenging those who try to present proof that there is one (eg challenging psychics). But really the onus is on believers to present the proof that the afterlife exists.

I think that without a belief in an afterlife where some kind of wholeness is achievable, belief in a loving and merciful god is highly problematic.

Add to that the habit of some religions to your eternal torture for some in the afterlife, and the whole idea of wholeness seems specious. In addition if a deity is capable of creating this kind of wholeness, then it could do so an initio instead of creating a multitude of illnesses for it to use to satisfy its psychopathy.

[Rhiannon]

Add to that the habit of some religions to your eternal torture for some in the afterlife, and the whole idea of wholeness seems specious. In addition if a deity is capable of creating this kind of wholeness, then it could do so an initio instead of creating a multitude of illnesses for it to use to satisfy its psychopathy.

Well, quite. And that kind of belief (eternal torment as well as eternal salvation) means that God created humanity to torture with suffering, except for those who will satisfy his ego by worshipping him.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, quite. And that kind of belief (eternal torment as well as eternal salvation) means that God created humanity to torture with suffering, except for those who will satisfy his ego by worshipping him.

All of which is not, despite the OP, an argument against the existence of some deity, just an argument about what type of deity can exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think Sartre summed this up succinctly by saying that "evil is irredeemable". I agree entirely that no amount of pie in the sky when you die jollies can negate the very real horrors of this life.

Maybe an experience of God's love, glory of majesty will alter this opinion

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And that's not even touching on the suffering that religion itself caused - the persecution of Jews and homosexuals, the torture of heretics, the witch hunts...suffering was, well, normal.

Stalin, Pol Pot ?

[Shaker]

Maybe an experience of God's love, glory of majesty will alter this opinion

It might, if there was an experience to be had.

As far as I can recollect, you haven't shown your working in this regard.

[Shaker]

I am still a bit confused by the OP title? SteveH , in what way do you think the argument, whoever makes it, is 'circularish'?

I wondered that too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It might, if there was an experience to be had.

As far as I can recollect,

Microseconds?

[Shaker]

Cauliflower?

I can throw around random and unrelated words in English too, but I don't see a lot of point to it.

[Nearly Sane]

Stalin, Pol Pot ?

So you think your god is the equivalent of Stalin and Pol Pot.

[Shaker]

So you think your god is the equivalent of Stalin and Pol Pot.

Some do. Explicitly (rare) or implicitly (surprisingly common).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you think your god is the equivalent of Stalin and Pol Pot.

God sets the rules and laws of nature which nature must obey other ''undeserved suffering'' comes at the hands of humans....and big time in the hands of the atheists Pol Pot and Stalin.

[Nearly Sane]

Microseconds?

Frumious bandersnatch

[Nearly Sane]

God sets the rules and laws of nature which nature must obey other ''undeserved suffering'' comes at the hands of humans....and big time in the hands of the atheists Pol Pot and Stalin.

Except your god choose the 'rules' on childhood leukaemia. You worship something that chooses pain and suffering. You worship a thug and bathe in its evil, orgasming as it kills.

[Shaker]

Except your god choose the 'rules' on childhood leukaemia. You worship something that chooses pain and suffering. You worship a thug and bathe in its evil, orgasming as it kills.

Easy tiger!

But not wrong, once you think it through.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except your god choose the 'rules' on childhood leukaemia. You worship something that chooses pain and suffering. You worship a thug and bathe in its evil, orgasming as it kills.

orgasming as it kills ?
 

I'm laughing at you not with you.