I am a person who was agnostic, but I have recently found a religion that I find fulfilling, and I am enjoying the spiritual experiences that I derive from it. Some people that I talk to (classmates) seem to get angry at me when they find out that I am religious, and bring this up. I imagine that this is a place where I can talk to some intelligent, rational people about this question. I read some other discussions and it seems this way.
Why do some atheists see the existence of adversity and suffering as proof that there is no god? I can find nothing in my religion’s teachings that says everything will be perfect. In fact, they seem to suggest that adversity is a part of life and that we are on Earth to be tested.
It is not my intention to offend someone, or to blast someone’s beliefs, but I have always wondered this. Please know that i am not a crazy, fundamentalist, “Adam and Eve is EXACTLY what happened and there is no symbolism” type of guy. I am a scientifically minded guy, and I am open to what will be said.
Posted: January 1st 2010
brian thomson www
AS already noted: we don’t need to look for “proof that there is no god”. The folly of trying to “prove a negative” has been well-covered, here and elsewhere, so you can drop the idea that atheists are looking for “proof that there is no god”. The absence of evidence that there are any gods means that, in practice, we have to live without the religions that follow from that concept.
If the suggestion is “we are put here to be tested”, that inevitably leads to more questions, primarily “who’s doing that”? It can’t just be “something”, so you need to invent more details for the god that is running the trial, and that leads to Religion. I get the impression that people really do need to feel that sense of “purpose”, the certainty that we were “put here”, even if there is no hard evidence for it, and even if that purpose is a negative one!
I’m currently engaged in a drug trial, for which I had to give my informed consent, and sign lots of forms; yet I retain the right to walk away at any time. If your life is a trial, did you consent to it? Do you have the right to walk away from the trial? You might lose access to the “drug”, but is the “drug” any good? If we knew the “drug” was effective, there would be no need for a trial, would there?
In this analogy, the “drug” is religion, the “opiate of the masses”; Marx was referring to “opium” as a painkiller, its primary purpose in his day. Just as opium (e.g. morphine) relieves pain, religion can provide relief of suffering; but what if the suffering can be prevented in the first place? A painkiller treats the symptoms, but it does not treat the cause of pain. (I can’t help think of Mother Theresa and her cult of suffering : suffering gave her her purpose, even if it was often preventable.)
When I look at the suffering in the world today, I don’t see the hand of a god, either in causing it or preventing it. I see natural catastrophes and unnatural ones, the latter starring a disproportionate number of people who think their religion gives them the right to inflict suffering on others, even if the religion doesn’t tell them to.
Posted: January 4th 2010
Dave Hitt www
I don’t see suffering as proof that god doesn’t exist. I don’t believe in god because there is no evidence for his existence.
If there was a god than the existence of evil and natural disasters proves that he can’t possibly be all powerful and omniscient and loving. You could pick two of those qualities (although all powerful and loving would be tough to justify unless he’s just too slow to prevent disasters), but Christians and most other theists insist he’s all of those things. That’s a logical impossibility given the world we live in.
Posted: January 3rd 2010
Eric_PK
This is usually known as “the problem of evil”, and is an argument against the christian god (and other “loving” gods).
The christian god is asserted to be all loving and all powerful. But people get killed by “acts of god” all the time. Clearly god either isn’t all-loving, or doesn’t exist.
Now, it’s perfectly possible for gods to exist and be utter bastards. The OT god is a pretty good example of this.
Since you’re scientifically minded, I have a question for you.
What does enjoying a religion and having fulfilling experiences in it have to do with whether it is true or not.
Posted: January 3rd 2010
logicel
I have no god belief because of lack of evidence. I just don’t bother with gods or with the supernatural. If evidence is presented for the existence of any god, I would accept its existence without worshiping it. The act of worship is completely alien to me. At the first chance, I would ask it what made it, in others words, who is its god.
However, the coupling of a loving, all knowing god with the tremendous suffering which has occurred since time immemorial presents some serious ethical problems. It does not matter if the teachings encourage you to grin and bear it because god works in mysterious ways.
The glib way in which the problem of evil is disposed of by the religious can really anger some atheists as in Francis Collins, a scientist and an evangelical Christian, using the rape of his daughter as a basis to affirm his faith (this insanity sends chills down my spine). What a self-centered, mean-spirited, downright frightening thing to say!
I suspect the anger may be triggered regarding theodicy because many atheists are very parsimonious regarding ethics, using the basis of harm as the bedrock of ethics and morality, while many religious regard tradition, authority, and purity as the foundational basis of morality.
Click “here”:http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/?s=theodicy&searchsubmit=Find+%C2%BB for a list of links at Jerry Coyne’s website. He is an evolutionary biologist and an atheist, who has written some very good posts on the problem of theodicy.
Posted: January 2nd 2010