Steven Fry's rant on God

[Craig Weiler]

As a Unitarian Universalist, the meaning I get is that we all have to opportunity to create our own life for ourselves, but where we start will almost always have a large impact on how far from our beginnings we get.

Tragedy, pain and heartbreak are often a matter of how we see them and how we deal with them. There are people who have suffered unspeakable horror and emerged from it stronger and more enlightened, full of forgiveness and hope, while others have crumbled into bitterness and regret at the slightest misfortune. We ascribe many things to God, but who is to say really? I'm reminded of a story in which former baseball great Yogi Berra, a catcher, was using his foot to scuff away a cross that the batter had made in the dirt. He looked at the guy and said: "Why don't you just let him watch?"

 

[Saiko]

They don't need to wrestle with it though. Cancer exists because flesh is mortal and elements break down etc for all kinds of reasons. If there was no cancer would that make the world perfect ? How could there ever be a physical existence where nothing bad ever happened...that would be hell literally. I agree with the poster above, Fry is 57 and has the wisdom of a fourteen year old or less.

IMO your approach to this is more childish than theirs. You seem to operate under the delusion that the way you see things is some parameter of viability. And the way you seem this is - at best - daft. The reason you scoff at it is because you seemingly don't get why, from a it's a fundamental question.

- "Flesh is mortal" Really? That's what you've got? To the question of why an omnipotent/omniscient being who created everything in physical existence would allow travails, your response is "flesh is mortal."

- "How could there ever be a physical existence where nothing bad ever happened" Again . . really? That's what you're going to float? Again given an omnipotent/omniscient being that viewpoint is daft - at best. No, it's not just daft - it's ludicrous.

- " nothing bad ever happened...that would be hell" You have issues. It's one thing to make the error of thinking that the way this physical reality is, is the only way things could be but that viewpoint is IMO psychotic.

 

[DasMurmeltier]

Accepting that basic premise, from a design perspective (which is where the hypothetical puts us): should consideration be placed on just how much bad is needed to adequately appreciate the good? Is there a level of misery for which we get diminishing returns?

Do you believe in karma? Imagine if we only would live with the things we acknowledge as good these days. Wouldnt that be boring? And more importantly, wouldnt we declare some of those things bad that we are now declaring as good? We only know that something is actually good when we know what would be worse than that.

 

[Vault313]

. What do you find bizarre about reacting emotionally to fictional beings? My bet is that you do so all the time. Without that capacity I doubt we would be nearly as engaged by fictional stories of any type, whether in books, movies, television, or other mediums.

His level of anger is what I was a bit mystified by. We've all read books or watched a movie where there was a character you just didn't like. I would say they annoy us, but anger? No, only if your a bit unbalanced I guess, I dunno. Again, how can you be angry at something you don't believe exists? Annoyed by the idea sure, I get that. But angry? Seems very illogical.

 

[Saiko]

Do you believe in karma? Imagine if we only would live with the things we acknowledge as good these days. Wouldnt that be boring? And more importantly, wouldnt we declare some of those things bad that we are now declaring as good? We only know that something is actually good when we know what would be worse than that.

Your take here is a very common fallacy. I don't know where it originated though I'd guess it has roots in the same anguish Fry is expressing - it serves to posit a valid reason for why the "bad" exists. and enable one to rationalize that it's for their overall benefit.

 

[Vault313]

"Flesh is mortal" Really? That's what you've got? To the question of why an omnipotent/omniscient being who created everything in physical existence would allow travails, your response is "flesh is mortal."

Perhaps humanity's problem is that we consistently have a hard time taking the long view. Without a larger framework to put "suffering" into, we can find no value in suffering. It is the travails in life which either develops our character, or diminishes it. Why should such a thing as the Ebola virus exist? Perhaps because it has a place in this universe that is incredibly hard to understand unless you can see the big picture. For one who loses a loved one to cancer, disease, war or violence, I cannot understand their journey from my perspective, but perhaps from their own it makes a certain sort of sense. If we are all here to learn, grow and even teach each other, all things have their place, no matter how horrifying from our perspective.

However, from a strict materialist perspective, I cannot see a reason why these things should exist. But, that quickly leads me down a path where I'm honestly not sure why anyone or anything would even want to exist. Who needs hell when you have materialism. ;)

 

[Typoz]

I'm still unsure about the idea of God and all that. I'm not religious and likely never will be. But I am open to the mystery, and wonder if that isn't the point of it all. Perhaps for me, feeling cut off and alone from the All That Is, or God or whatever, and finding my way back is a journey I chose to take. If so, I'll have to remember to kick my own ass when this is all over.

This part reminds me of a video I recently watched, of Roberta Grimes describing an experience she had when she was eight years old. That's in the first few minutes of the video.


Edit: I might add that the remainder of the video isn't the reason why I posted this, it can be considered off-topic.

 

[Arouet]

Do you believe in karma? Imagine if we only would live with the things we acknowledge as good these days. Wouldnt that be boring? And more importantly, wouldnt we declare some of those things bad that we are now declaring as good? We only know that something is actually good when we know what would be worse than that.

I was accepting that basic premise for the sake of the hypothetical.

We're accepting that the designer's goal is for humans to sufficiently appreciate the things they have on the good scale, and not be overly bored As you imply, it is a relative scale: from say horror/abject misery over to absolute bliss.

My question is: how far down the bad side of the continnuum do we have to go before we're not really doing much to further reach those goals? How bad, does bad have to get to where it no longer helps us appreciate the good? At what point do we get diminishing returns?

Keep in mind that the worst of the worst goes beyond human misery. Think of all the living beings who have lived over millions of year spending their lives living in constant fear of being eaten, and having to eat others just to stay alive? Etc.

Also think about the distribution of misery? Take you most joyous experience. How comfortable does it make you feel to contemplate that in order for you to appreciate just how great it was, vast amounts of misery took place? If the designer asked you if you'd be willing to give up some of that joy in exchange for a 9 year old girl not having to be subjected to rape and physical abuse at the hands (and other body parts) of her stepfather - would you?

(Again, remember I'm not suggesting this is how things are: it's a thought experiment).

 

[Vault313]

Your take here is a very common fallacy. I don't know where it originated though I'd guess it has roots in the same anguish Fry is expressing - it serves to posit a valid reason for why the "bad" exists. and enable one to rationalize that it's for their overall benefit.

So what's your point? Suffering is needless? Ok. The problem with that is that suffering is part of Earthly reality. Unless you are saying suffering is an illusion.

 

[Arouet]

Perhaps humanity's problem is that we consistently have a hard time taking the long view. Without a larger framework to put "suffering" into, we can find no value in suffering. It is the travails in life which either develops our character, or diminishes it. Why should such a thing as the Ebola virus exist? Perhaps because it has a place in this universe that is incredibly hard to understand unless you can see the big picture. For one who loses a loved one to cancer, disease, war or violence, I cannot understand their journey from my perspective, but perhaps from their own it makes a certain sort of sense. If we are all here to learn, grow and even teach each other, all things have their place, no matter how horrifying from our perspective.

Read this post after my last one: my thought experiment could apply to equally here.

 

[Bart V]

He's married finally and the stability of a life partner should be healing for him. I doubt he'll give up atheism, but it will probably soften him up.

 

[Saiko]

Perhaps humanity's problem is that we consistently have a hard time taking the long view. Without a larger framework to put "suffering" into, we can find no value in suffering. It is the travails in life which either develops our character, or diminishes it. Why should such a thing as the Ebola virus exist? Perhaps because it has a place in this universe that is incredibly hard to understand unless you can see the big picture. For one who loses a loved one to cancer, disease, war or violence, I cannot understand their journey from my perspective, but perhaps from their own it makes a certain sort of sense. If we are all here to learn, grow and even teach each other, all things have their place, no matter how horrifying from our perspective.

However, from a strict materialist perspective, I cannot see a reason why these things should exist. But, that quickly leads me down a path where I'm honestly not sure why anyone or anything would even want to exist. Who needs hell when you have materialism. ;)

I think you like so many in this thread are not seeing the "question" clearly. Added to almost all religions promote the "long view" that you mention. But that comes from seeking viewpoints to "make sense" of things being the way one perceives them. As I stated in another post - it's a way to rationalize the "bad things." As is the "here to learn, grow and even teach each other" viewpoints.

But that's not the question at hand. I'm far from a materialist but I'm also not a believer in the traditional Abrahamic version of things. But within that framework the question comes down to "what motivates an omnipotent/omniscient being to create a world such as this."

I'll add that those expressing "bad things are because blah, blah, blah" are dealing with the same question Fry is, just coming up with a different answer. No more or less wise than his.

 

[DasMurmeltier]

I was accepting that basic premise for the sake of the hypothetical.

We're accepting that the designer's goal is for humans to sufficiently appreciate the things they have on the good scale, and not be overly bored As you imply, it is a relative scale: from say horror/abject misery over to absolute bliss.

My question is: how far down the bad side of the continnuum do we have to go before we're not really doing much to further reach those goals? How bad, does bad have to get to where it no longer helps us appreciate the good? At what point do we get diminishing returns?

Keep in mind that the worst of the worst goes beyond human misery. Think of all the living beings who have lived over millions of year spending their lives living in constant fear of being eaten, and having to eat others just to stay alive? Etc.

Also think about the distribution of misery? Take you most joyous experience. How comfortable does it make you feel to contemplate that in order for you to appreciate just how great it was, vast amounts of misery took place? If the designer asked you if you'd be willing to give up some of that joy in exchange for a 9 year old girl not having to be subjected to rape and physical abuse at the hands (and other body parts) of her stepfather - would you?

(Again, remember I'm not suggesting this is how things are: it's a thought experiment).

Btw, wheres all that designer stuff coming from? I never mentioned a designer. A god isnt needed for anything like that. Its humans that clarify anything as bad or good. Its a psychological construct. I know that theres nothing that you can clarify to be negative or positive by nature.

Well there atleast seems to be some sort of threshold where people just cant see the good things anymore. People that suffer all the time only see sorrow, pain and all that stuff everywhere - they wont believe you that theres something better out there. Some people will never appreciate anything anymore again. They propably are beyond the point where the good could wage up the bad.

Well, tbh, im a bit of a dick here. I know that quite a few people suffer for my life, but i dont care that much. My feelings of guilt wont make their pain dissapear and im actually not living that way that i could say that im getting fat and happy on the cost of others. Even so, there are still people that are suffering because of me. True enough. I can live with that burden though.

Oh i totally would. Thing is, if the moment of my greatest joy would dissapear to help someone else id have a new moment like that since i helped someone. I'd propably get a even greater joy-moment from doing that.

 

[Vault313]

.I'll add that those expressing "bad things are because blah, blah, blah" are dealing with the same question Fry is, just coming up with a different answer. No more or less wise than his.

So, what, do you have an answer? Please, bless us with your infinite wisdom.

 

[Vault313]

Arouet,
All I can speak from is my own experience, my own mind. That's all any of us can really do. Truth is subjective, personal and evolving. That being said , what makes most sense to me is this: I think maybe there is more than this reality. I think of it as a ultimate virtual reality. Like a video game that we have purposefully forgotten is a video game. We choose our challenges beforehand (yes, the earth school view) but ultimately are guided along the way by our greater consciousness and can always "opt out". Even things like murder, rape, war, genocide, cancer, Ebola, etc. have their place. We choose these things. As hard as that may be for us to understand from here, from "there" it's all good. Because ultimately we are all just fine. When your avatar dies in Call of Duty, you don't put the controller down and mourn because your avatar is forever dead, nor do you believe you are dead. You continue on in another life. I think physics got it right with the first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and that is what we are, energy.

We even collude with each other to accomplish these things. Some actively choose to be the perpetrators, some the victim. I almost even think being the perpetrator would be more difficult if our true nature is one of love and unity.

I could go on, but that is the gist. Nearly everyone I've shared this with doesn't like this idea of "no cosmic justice". They don't like the idea that victims choose their experience. Most people WANT to believe in good and evil. I just don't think it is that simple. It's not either/or, it's both. Evil depends on your perspective. Even on little old planet Earth, what is evil to one culture is benign to another.

I don't think the afterlife is some magical place where we sit around eating grass that tastes like watermelon all day.

Unless, that is the reality you choose...

 

[Typoz]

No more or less wise than his.

To suggest all views are neither more nor less wise does imply the ability to make that assessment. I'm not sure I'd dare to be that bold.

 

[tim]

IMO your approach to this is more childish than theirs. You seem to operate under the delusion that the way you see things is some parameter of viability. And the way you seem this is - at best - daft. The reason you scoff at it is because you seemingly don't get why, from a it's a fundamental question.

- "Flesh is mortal" Really? That's what you've got? To the question of why an omnipotent/omniscient being who created everything in physical existence would allow travails, your response is "flesh is mortal."

- "How could there ever be a physical existence where nothing bad ever happened" Again . . really? That's what you're going to float? Again given an omnipotent/omniscient being that viewpoint is daft - at best. No, it's not just daft - it's ludicrous.

- " nothing bad ever happened...that would be hell" You have issues. It's one thing to make the error of thinking that the way this physical reality is, is the only way things could be but that viewpoint is IMO psychotic.

 

[Arouet]

Btw, wheres all that designer stuff coming from? I never mentioned a designer. A god isnt needed for anything like that. Its humans that clarify anything as bad or good. Its a psychological construct. I know that theres nothing that you can clarify to be negative or positive by nature.

In my first response to you I wrote: "Accepting that basic premise, from a design perspective (which is where the hypothetical puts us)". And the context of the discussion has been with regard to the question of why a particular designer god (in this case the christian version) would permit evil. My post was meant to be from the perspective of that context.

 

[DasMurmeltier]

In my first response to you I wrote: "Accepting that basic premise, from a design perspective (which is where the hypothetical puts us)". And the context of the discussion has been with regard to the question of why a particular designer god (in this case the christian version) would permit evil. My post was meant to be from the perspective of that context.

Oh okay. Sorry then, my bad :) Its getting late over here, i propably shouldnt post anymore today.

 

[politicaljunkie]

His level of anger is what I was a bit mystified by. We've all read books or watched a movie where there was a character you just didn't like. I would say they annoy us, but anger? No, only if your a bit unbalanced I guess, I dunno. Again, how can you be angry at something you don't believe exists? Annoyed by the idea sure, I get that. But angry? Seems very illogical.

He's annoyed because of the way such ideas are abused an weaponised against people. Look at ISIS in Iraq as one example of religious fundamentalism causing a lot of trouble. Or, Pol Pot's Cambodia as an example of secular ideology being extremely perverted and weaponised as a means to subjugate people and accrue power. Also, the notion of suffering is very prescient in this case, I myself find it impossible to believe in an abrahamic type god when one considers the various atrocities mankind has committed against itself and natural disasters such as, the 2004 tsunami, the Szechuan earthquake, the hurricane in Haiti, and of course the holocaust, Stalin and Mao's purges, Rwanda, Saddam's Iraq, the North Korean famine... Where was god here? Was it his plan for those tens of millions to be gassed, shot, interred, drowned, starved, crushed under buildings etc? Because frankly if the god of the bible exists, he's a viscous tyrant.