h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Heathen Sceptic, this woman's remark about my mother was especially infuriating because (a) she had never known my mother (b) polymyositis is so hard to diagnose, that my mother had it for 15 years and was told it was "housewife's neurosis" and all in her mind for most of that time!
<>
I have a Catholic prayerbook I sent away for, and that has a prayer about exactly that!
<< The logical extension, which some Christians adopt simply because they are baffled by the subtleties used to disguise this conclusion, is that pain and suffering is sent by God, though not necessarily as a punishment>>
The problem of pain is a very hard one - I see it as being that pain is *allowed* by God, but not willed or carried out by God.

azahar, just a comment about priests and child abuse, which I got from a website called Virtual Jerusalem - imagine my surprise to come across it there!
<>
I put this here without firther comment...

Math

>> Della declaring she is a servant of Anton Lavey or Jez finding a piece of the true cross?<<

Hi there, Math - I've been away much of the time too.

Don't know about Adellaide, but the true cross has been found - a few thousand times, if you count up the relics that used to be spread across the world How big /was/ it, I wonder?

Mind you, I did once go to an entire series of Billy Graham talks in Cambridge to honour the wishes of one of my friends Does that count?

Jez

TRPhil

>>Why does everyone seem to think that the scientific theories about the big bang mean that all religious writing on the subject is wrong or vice versa.<<

We don't. We leave that to the more fervent monotheists.

Jez - AS heathen and non-wiccan witch

Andrew,

"God initially gave us to do virtue has been lost. Our faculties work in a disordered way. This disorder brought suffering into the world - i.e. it is not really God who 'requires' us to suffer but rather we have brought it down upon ourselves."

We have brought it upon ourselves? What kind of crime did a fetus commit that it would be born with one of a range of disabling or disfiguring illnesses?

---

Also you do me an injustice, although I accept you may have been responding to az's quote rather than my original posting:

"<<<>

I think the pro-condom campaigns are unlikely to help against the spread of HIV, because with every condom used there is a small risk of spread. And condom availability can actually promote promiscuity. If people abstained that would help rather more."

Because I did point out that abstinence is preferable and that there is a tiny risk of transmission even with the use of a condom. All current research, however, indicates that condom use does help to reduce the spread of HIV.

F

Hi Fathom

Sorry about the above: I didn't see the whole of your original point, and I would have borne it in mind when responding. I think programs to promote abstinence and fidelity are the only effective long-term remedy to combat Aids.

On the other point, original sin is the primordial sin of the parents of the human race, not anything committed by an unborn child.

As regards the effects of original sin, I was not thinking of illnesses, but rather that our faculties and powers don't work in perfect harmony as they did before the fall (or, as Genesis puts it, in the Garden of Eden). This is a Christian belief. Whether you can work out from *philosophy* that there is something wrong with the cosmos is another matter, and an old question. Thomas Aquinas limited himself to saying that it was a 'probable' conclusion.

It seems to me that the problem of suffering has two aspects.

There's the "theological" problem of suffering, which really only seems to be a difficulty for those who believe that the universe was created by a benevolent and omnipotent God. While there are those who feel they have reconciled this problem (I'm decidedly dubious myself), but it hardly seems possible to *derive* a benevolent God from the existence of suffering.

Then there is (for want of a better word) the *humanist* problem of suffering, which is a problem for people of all religions, and of none, but which has a prominent place in traditions like Buddhism, where the "spiritual", rather than theological aspect has pride of place.

Noggin

Pain is a biological necessity!

Alji

According to The Official Catholic Directory, there were approximately
45,000 priests in 2002; 4% would be 1800!

"A.W. Richard Sipe, a former priest who has spent more than 30 years studying sexuality issues in the church, thinks that about 750 priests nationwide (America) have died of AIDS-related illnesses. That would translate into an AIDS-related death rate eight times that of the general population.
As long ago as the early 1980s, the Rev. John Keenan discovered that Catholic priests were contracting AIDS at an alarming rate. He believes most priests with AIDS contracted the disease through same-sex relations. He said he treated one priest who had infected eight other priests."


Alji

Hi Noggin. Your message is the occasion of my reply although it isn't particularly addressed to you. Yes, the problem of suffering has two aspects: moral and natural evil/suffering

Moral evil has to exist as a possibility otherwise freewill would be meaningless. Humans have to be capable of choosing to do harm. Otherwise they would be automota or overprotected childlike beings rather than moral agents - the end which the God of Theism has in mind for us. That's the good old 'Freewill Defence' and, for me, it leads to a justification of natural or physical evil/suffering.

If humans can choose to do harm, or indeed alleviate it, there have to be physical possibilities of its occurrence. Otherwise they would be physically (rather than psychologically) prevented from inflicting it and human moral evil would boil down to a set of counterfactual conditionals (eg; If the agent were to be able to do harm, then he would/wouldn't in the given circumstances).

Since these physical means of inflicting harm, like everything else predictable and meaningful, have to instantiate a general law (of nature) - they have to occur in appropriate circumstances even when nobody is at fault. These laws also, as Alji points out, enable us to be aware when we are being damaged. It would be very odd it all these features were common only to the 'lower' animals and abruptly ceased when H Sap Sap evolved. In fact it probably couldn't be subsumed under any plausible law of nature and would be evidence of divine intervention - a 'no no' when moral choices have to be freely made.

I'm sure I've said all of this before on this thread, but the case needs to be set out for those who haven't previously endured my ramblings.

toxx

I'm giving up on the backlog here for now--this thread is going too fast for me and I just don't have enough time on the cumputer to follow it all--too much to do before school starts (summer reading, organizing a pool party for my quizbowl team, getting school supplies, going downtown to see an exibit at the National Geographic museum...)

Hi Andy.



This kind of thinking seems to me to be humbug! It's unfortunate that religion has to be based on these ancient writings and myths; but every IQ and cultural level has to be catered for. [That is a bald fact, not a reflection on anyone here!].

Why should the sins of the parents be visited upon later, innocent generations? Not something compatible with a just and loving Deity, surely.



If this is a Thomist view (I don't recall) then he was just wrong! We have to conclude from Theism that 'Everything is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds'. Translation of Leibniz I believe - not a thinker to be ignored.

toxx

Thank you for these particular ramblings, Toxxin - I may have seen similar before from you, but this is a good summary!

Cheers, Adelaide. I seem to get my share of practice here in attempting to put a sort of Theist orthodoxy across. I suspect that you are mostly with me in my rather minimalist attempts to bring reason to bear on these questions.

People can ramble on til the cows come home concerning what this or that historical figure said. It is as nothing unless we make up our own minds whether it makes sense to suppose that s/he was right. Given a foundation so constructed, basic Deism I suspect, we can build on it what might amount to Theism, mysticism or whatever. However, we must not believe anything that is contrary to the foundational beliefs. Either that, or the foundations will need to be reconstructed.

I accept that I might just be attempting to "Eff the ineffable". If that is the case, then all bets are off. However, I think that we have to use the intellectual kit that we have. If it turns out to be a screwdriver and the universe to be held together with nails - that's tough luck. Still, there's no need to assume it in advance.

toxx

Sometimes I find it quite hard and challenging to understand you, and Noggin - and when you put equations in to it, well! What can I say? Maths sneaks in everywhere.
But I see what you mean about building a foundation - and it is a good thing.

<>
Thanks Noggin - I found your clarification most helpful.

Hi Toxx

I agree with what you write as regards the foundational beliefs, and also with the importance of not adding other beliefs that are inconsistent with them. In this foundational area I don't see much difference between us.

However, I have doubts as to whether we live in the best of all possible worlds. In fact, I would say that either God *didn't* create the best of all possible worlds, or it has somehow deteriorated (and perhaps both).

I think God would have created the BOAPW, but not necessarily in the sense that Leibniz stated that he was compelled to, making use of all possibilities. The *act* of creation does have to be perfect, but not creation per se; otherwise God's freedom re creation is obliterated. So the universe need only be perfect in the sense that it corresponds exactly to what God intended. (One could add that it should therefore reflect God in some way.)

Now if God did in fact create the BOAPW (because it is quite possible for him to have done so, although not necessary), I think one could conclude that it must have deteriorated since. But because we do not know this for certain, perhaps it is only a probable conclusion. I aim here merely to show that original sin and the corruption therefrom, is not inconsistent with what we observe, assuming the foundational beliefs are correct.

<>

Having seen you explain earlier that God does not fit any standard psychological model, I am sure you can guess what a possible response might be...

But I wouldn't try to fob you off with that. I am happy to discuss this more but it will have to wait for now. On providence in general, I think the Book of Job is very helpful, especially the last few chapters from out of the heart of the whirlwind.

I cannot now find the source for the Thomist view I cited, but I associate it with his 'Summa Contra Gentiles'. I will keep looking... Of course this is only a philosophical view on the provability of original sin, not what Aquinas believed.

(Should Old Aquinas be forgot?)

BOAPW?

Reminds me of the remark that an optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds and a pessimist is afraid that that's right.



F

OK gang how's tricks?

Pain is a natural response to a variety of stimuli. It performs a function we need to survive. It isn't sent upon us by some vengeful deity, it is part of the gift of life.

Suffering likewise.

Disabilities are not preordained, they are random. An accident of genes or environment. No god gives them to us nor will any god take them away.

How we respond to and cope with pain, suffering and disability though can be influenced by what we learn from our gods. The wisdom they share with us can be of great comfort and relief.

Hope, love and purpose,
Matholwch /|\.

Math. Cool to have a chance to chat again.



My Deism+ can go with that. Where, for those of your persuasion, do genes, environment or indeed accidents originate from?

toxx