Swinburne Again
Richard Swinburne is interesting. I’ve said so before. So has Mark Fournier at Tachyphrenia. And now it’s time to say it some more. Because the things Swinburne says here are truly revolting, and yet they are, of course, what you get if you try to reconcile the omnipotent omnibenevolent God with the existence and abundance of suffering in the world – just what Darwin couldn’t manage to reconcile himself to. There’s an irony of sorts in the fact that it’s Swinburne’s view that is considered by many – by surprisingly many – to be the ‘devout’ and ‘holy’ and therefore (why? why therefore?) ‘good’ one, and Darwin’s that is considered the impious and wicked one. The approval of the deliberate causing and continuance of pain and suffering to billions of sentient beings is considered good, and the disapproval and rejection of that is considered wicked. That’s interesting, and it is, if you ask me, a sign of something badly corrupt at the heart of the whole swindle.
Theodicy provides good explanations of why God sometimes — for some or all of the short period of our earthly lives — allows us to suffer pain and disability.
Good? Good explanations? Good in what sense?
Although intrinsically bad states, these difficult times often serve good purposes for the sufferers and for others. My suffering provides me with the opportunity to show courage and patience. It provides you with the opportunity to show sympathy and to help alleviate my suffering. And it provides society with the opportunity to choose whether or not to invest a lot of money in trying to find a cure for this or that particular kind of suffering.
Well why stop there? It also provides pharmaceutical companies with the opportunity to develop pain medications, and nurses with the opportunity to apologize for the fact that the pain can’t be alleviated, and vicars and priests with the opportunity to pray that it will be alleviated, and God with the opportunity to refuse to alleviate it, and the funeral people with the opportunity to dispose of the corpse after the victim has committed suicide. Lots and lots of opportunities. Good. So – we should all act accordingly? We should all rush outside with our carving knives and soldering irons and distribute injuries generously around the neighborhood so that there will be further abundance of such opportunities? Suffering is a good thing because it creates these good opportunities so there should be lots more of it so we should all bend every nerve to create more of it?
No. We don’t actually think that’s the case. So why does Swinburne get to claim that it is the case, and that that’s a ‘good’ explanation? Why doesn’t everybody for miles around just tell him ‘That’s disgusting’ until he’s so embarrassed he stops saying it?
That’s a real question. I find it baffling.
Although a good God regrets our suffering, his greatest concern is surely that each of us shall show patience, sympathy and generosity and, thereby, form a holy character. Some people badly need to be ill for their own sake, and some people badly need to be ill to provide important choices for others. Only in that way can some people be encouraged to make serious choices about the sort of person they are to be. For other people, illness is not so valuable.
Oh, godalmighty. That is such crap, and such transparent crap – so carefully arranged to get the conclusion he wants (God is okay really even though it seems to be an awful shit) with that last little escape hatch – for other people, illness not so useful. Give me a break. Swinburne looks at the world: sees that some people get ill and suffer, others don’t; needs to make this harmonize with ‘a good God’; explains that suffering is good for some people and not for others; job done.
An analogy will show that what I have written is not an ad hoc hypothesis postulated to save theism from disconfirmation.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh, that’s a good one. He’s not only interesting, he’s also a comedian. A sadistic comedian, but a comedian.
Yep. Reminds me of the old ‘Broken window fallacy’ you hear refuted in the first week of economics; gives people jobs, don’t you know?
There must have been a lot of people who needed to build some character on 26th Dec 2004, and all in the same place! How thoughtful of the lord to step in just when he was needed.. I’m sure the victims will be looking down from heaven, smiling to themselves and thankful that they (and their whole families, in many cases) could have been sacrificed for such a worthwhile cause!
The genius of God! Bravo! We salute you!
I particularly enjoyed the bit about God ignoring all those prayer’s in the study because the people praying didn’t really care about the people they were praying for. Oh, so it’s up to us to care, not really God’s job at all? Thanks so much for clearing that up.
You know, even the rich man might consider the causes these people write about, just on their own merits. I had no idea that my worth in God’s eyes was based on a prayer poll; silly me, I thought human beings had some intrinsic value of their own. But the cosmos, it seems, is governed by the sort of popularity contests that determine social standing in high schools. I see…
Now I know God isn’t there. If he were, he would have smitten Swinburne in disgust…
This is by far the worst piece of Swinburne nonsense I’ve read so far.
One ploughs or skims through this drivel and at the end of piece is given yet another slap in the face by the reminder that this man has the title of professor. At least the po-mos make a big effort to conceal the meaningless with big words, which must be the first nice thing I’ve ever said about them. Swinburne is spouting plain, clear, utterly unabashed horseshit. I may disagree with them all, but there are some people who write in favour of religion who manage to do so with at least a modicum of intelligence and thoughtfulness. I’m trying to think back to when I last heard arguments made so badly and I’m pretty sure it was from classmates before I was in long pants. Sickening to think there may be adults who look up to this man.
Occasionally I forget how utterly amoral Swinburne’s ‘might is right’ outlook is – thanks for the reminder.
“Some people badly need to be ill for their own sake, and some people badly need to be ill to provide important choices for others.”
Why is it that, across the world, those most in need of disease and suffering have dark skin? Why, Richard? Is there a proven link between skin pigmentation and one’s fortitude-to-sympathy ratio that this racially distributed suffering is dealing with?
Or maybe the idea is that it’s a good thing that there is such a sadistic monster in the clouds; it gives us the opportunity kowtow and apologise, or else to reject the whole sick idea and exercise free thought and moral decency.
Grr.
I bet millions of those little kids who are terribly exploited and abused across the world for sexual pleasure and economic profit of others are grateful for “the opportunity to show courage and patience”.
Oh my, it gets worse… The last two sentences really finished me.
“… I realize that on this occasion, unlike on other occasions, the letter writers have no deep concern for the causes for which they write. Therefore, I pay no attention to their letters.”
Throughout the entire thing, Swinburne is perfectly happy to admit that whether someone’s suffering should be alleviated or not depends heavily on whether there are OTHER people out there who really, genuinely care about the sufferer (and also on whether these people are good theists who like to spend their time praying). No wonder the suffering of those little orphans abused by pedophiles never ceases – there’s just no one out there who really cares about them. Serves them right, I suppose.
Wasn’t it Dawkins after the tsunami who said how relieved we should be that those horrors were random and unplanned instead of looking for excuses for the being that so many believe is looking after us doing exactly the opposite?
But, yes, Tom and Tea are pointing out something very important. Swinburne is saying it’s all part of a plan and whether we understand it or not, we can see its results. And looking at the results tells us that starving to death is something god thinks should happen much much more to small children in Africa than to First World millionaires. And this is what Swinburne not merely wishes to excuse, he is adamant that it is, ultimately, a good thing.
“Wasn’t it Dawkins after the tsunami who said how relieved we should be that those horrors were random and unplanned instead of looking for excuses for the being that so many believe is looking after us doing exactly the opposite?”
Yes, it was, and people jumped all over him for it – including even sensible rational people, even atheists. I mention no names, but I found it surprising and disconcerting, because really, which is crueller and more disgusting, this line of Swinburne’s, or Dawkins’s? Swinburne’s seems to me to be vastly crueller and more revolting (as well as false). Dawkins was simply trying to counter the cruelty of saying it was all intentional.
“And looking at the results tells us that starving to death is something god thinks should happen much much more to small children in Africa than to First World millionaires.”
Well, but see that’s a good thing, because it gives people like you an opportunity to mention it, and people like Bob Geldof an opportunity to have a concert in Hyde Park, and the parents of those small children to have a good think (unless they’ve already starved to death too), and Oxfam an opportunity to raise funds, and so on. Don’t you see? It’s all good.
You mean it would be much more difficult for Geldof to raise the money if it were the millionaires who were starving to death?
I liked the way he further minimizes suffering with that throw-away and utterly uncontentious “short period of our earthly lives”.
I suppose kids who die of parental neglect are especially lucky as their suffering is particularly short compared to the eternity of heavenly bliss they will doubtless experience.
Alas, I think I’m going to the wrong place where I’ll have a sustained opportunity to show courage and patience.
[…] I mentioned meeting Mark Fournier at Eschaton. (There are surprisingly many B&W readers-and-commenters in Ottawa.) Step in the time machine and go back to 2006, and Richard Swinburne… […]