God and smallpox

[The Pixie]

Interestingly, setting God aside for just a minute, wouldn't it be an evolutionary fact that smallpox and similar challenges have had a great impact on the specific development of human consciousness in the way it is? i.e. with pretty good problem-solving potentialities and such?

I have never heard that claimed before. What makes you think it is so?

[Metacrock]

Interestingly, setting God aside for just a minute, wouldn't it be an evolutionary fact that smallpox and similar challenges have had a great impact on the specific development of human consciousness in the way it is? i.e. with pretty good problem-solving potentialities and such?

I have never heard that claimed before. What makes you think it is so?

me too neither

[met]

Geez, commonsense!

Problem-solving skills develop from having problems. Would science and philosophy ever develop in a hedonistic paradise?

[Magritte]

Native Americans owe Europeans a tremendous amount of gratitude, then. And that's just for the smallpox, never mind the other problems.

[met]

Nice rhetoric, but totally illogical..... I'm just pointing out that the experience of evil and suffering actually does change things, adding to knowledge, etc.... experiential things are not vacuous.

My whole point is analogical. Stuff about the physical world, knowledge, is acquirable in the abstract, thereby changing human consciousness, changing what it means to be human, beyond the original discoverer. So, it seems we could come pre-equipped with more of that, there's no necessity for us having to acquire it so painfully, right?

However, it may not be the same for morality, for issues of choosing our own purposes or intentions? Or does each person who comes into existence have to re-internalize those values for themselves -- at least if they are meant to be anything more than mere hearsay, rumor and innuendo, that's easily tossed aside n a pinch?

Meta's point runs along the lines of the latter, I think....

[Jim B.]

You're assuming that our choices result from the same kind of considerations and carry the same consequences as God's. God structures physical reality so the considerations and consequences of his choices are infinitely more complex and also of a different kind altogether than are the choices we humans make.

Interesting.

So show how you can explain smalpox if we drop those assumptions.

Things like smallpox inevitably arise in a world that runs on its own due to contingent processes and a set of constants. God apparently does not want a world that's a direct extension of his will in all its micro-details. The only way to eliminate the possibility of suffering is to create a world with no contingency, consciousness or freedom.

If you have an argument that the world was a better place because God allows any number of natural evils to flourish, then present it. It will counter my argument about smallpox just as effectively as an argument about general evils.

They're the necessary costs of greater goods, as I've already said. Think of the suffering and deprivation due to getting your leg amputated just below the knee because of gangrene. The doctor could spare you these evils and have you painlessly die of gangrene under anaesthesia. We can't know for sure what the constraints of God's choices are, but is it conceivable that they're something like this?

So you are saying that allowing smallpox to flourish was one of the "necessary costs of creating a world in which freedom and autonomy freely arise"?

Yes, that's what I'm proposing.

Two thousand years ago, God supposedly resurrected Jesus. Suppose he had eradicated smallpox at the same time, do you think that would have reduced our freedom or autonomy at all?

Do you think our freedom or autonomy were reduced at all when mankind eradicated smallpox?

Evidently God places a higher premium on enacting solidarity with humanity than he does on eliminating the possibility of suffering. I don't think he would have reduced our freedom or autonomy if he'd also eradicated smallpox, but it's not about the individual evils as much as it's about the conditions that make the individual evils possible.

The world's a package deal. Its interdependence and consistency are crucial for it being a coherent whole. Doesn't mean God can't intervene such as the incarnation and resurrection, but that ceteris parabus his respect for this coherence and autonomy is near-paramount and trumps the possibility of individual evils. God could violate this principle in the case of smallpox, but the overridingness of that case would have to be strong enough to overcome the principle. Most cases don't meet that threshold. There are obviously things more important than the elimination of suffering; this is apparent in everyday life.

What amount of evil is compatible with there being a God? Where would you draw the line? How could any suffering at all be compatible? Please explain your principle and exactly how it would be applied.

And God is powerless to stop them?

Or God chooses not to stop them?

I am thinking here about God eradicating smallpox two thousand years ago. Please clarify why you think he was unable or unwilling to do so.

God has the power to stop it and to stop all suffering. The doctor has the power to save you from losing your leg. Neither God nor the doctor has the power to escape the logical constraints of their choices.

Really? You think there may be diseases like smallpox in heaven? That flies in the face of how Christians usually view heaven.

Well, no one really knows for sure. My guess is that consciousness entails the possibility of deprivation and suffering, but not necessarily as it is in this life.

So again, just to clarify, your position is that if God had chosen to eradicate smallpox when he resurrected Jesus that would have stopped mankind having consciousness? And yet, mankind doing just that seems not to have had the same consequence.

No, it's about the paramountcy of a principle of God's choices. You're missing the forest for the trees.

[Magritte]

Nice rhetoric, but totally illogical.....

My point is more along the lines that following your reasoning leads us to a place where we confuse harm and benefit. This has terrible implications for Christian theism. Which was already in trouble. This just casts another shadow.

The Book of Genesis places humans in precisely the hedonistic paradise that you claim won't lead to the goods of science and philosophy. In fact God actively seeks to hold knowledge away from man (he makes further moves in this direction in the Tower of Babel episode). But man's (and serpent's) actions in defiance lead to expulsion from paradise, and death entering the world. The kind of harm and struggle that you think led to science and philosophy. And if those are valuable goals, then man and the serpent ought to have been praised, not cursed.

But they were cursed with original sin. This required God to sacrifice his own son as atonement. So... atone for what? For curiosity that led to the worthwhile benefits of science and philosophy? Which God actively sought to withhold? Hmmmm.

I'll also note in passing that progress in science and philosophy tends to happen because someone - historically, it's been the well to do and their clients - has the leisure time and resources to pursue interests not immediately related to survival. Historically, these resources have often been acquired through colonialism, imperialism and servitude. So if you're going to give smallpox a thumbs up, why not those things too?

[met]

Nice rhetoric, but totally illogical.....

My point is more along the lines that following your reasoning leads us to a place where we confuse harm and benefit. This has terrible implications for Christian theism. Which was already in trouble. This just casts another shadow.

The Book of Genesis places humans in precisely the hedonistic paradise that you claim won't lead to the goods of science and philosophy. In fact God actively seeks to hold knowledge away from man (he makes further moves in this direction in the Tower of Babel episode). But man's (and serpent's) actions in defiance lead to expulsion from paradise, and death entering the world. The kind of harm and struggle that you think led to science and philosophy. And if those are valuable goals, then man and the serpent ought to have been praised, not cursed.

But they were cursed with original sin. This required God to sacrifice his own son as atonement. So... atone for what? For curiosity that led to the worthwhile benefits of science and philosophy? Which God actively sought to withhold? Hmmmm.

I'll also note in passing that progress in science and philosophy tends to happen because someone - historically, it's been the well to do and their clients - has the leisure time and resources to pursue interests not immediately related to survival. Historically, these resources have often been acquired through colonialism, imperialism and servitude. So if you're going to give smallpox a thumbs up, why not those things too?

Good compilation, following stock Euro-interps of the some HS stories, with just a bit of twistiness, but it's not actually necessary to have a euro-classical Xian "God"--or even an Xian God at all--to allow for a soteriological drama, is it? (Hell, most of those guys held onto a textually-highly-dubious belief in ex nihilo creation too, and so....got it wrong right from the start, making it pretty safe to assume what they wanted was to just made up whatever interp suited them, um, probably onto-politically...)

Can you deal with my analogical point? ie ALL humans are always "moral babes" or "moral Adam and Eves' who have to learn the hard way ..... at least when it comes to the kind of true internalization of morality that will not allow morals to just fly out the window in a (tight enough) pinch ... IOW, unlike with things of a more pragmatic nature, there is never really any 'moral progress'

BTW, I had to solve the problem of being logged out everytime I've tried to reply to this by quoting you instead of hitting 'Post Reply'..... anyone else having trouble staying logged in?

[The Pixie]

Geez, commonsense!

Problem-solving skills develop from having problems. Would science and philosophy ever develop in a hedonistic paradise?

Ah, you meant general problems. Yes, the problem of how to find food and how to avoid being food do drive evolution, and have given us our intelligence. I do not think smallpox contributed to that however.

[The Pixie]

Things like smallpox inevitably arise in a world that runs on its own due to contingent processes and a set of constants.

Agreed. The issue then is why God did not choose to step and an d eradicate it once it appeared.

God apparently does not want a world that's a direct extension of his will in all its micro-details. The only way to eliminate the possibility of suffering is to create a world with no contingency, consciousness or freedom.

I am not talking about eliminating the possibility of suffering, just about eradicating smallpox.

Do you think eradicating smallpox would create a world with no contingency, consciousness or freedom? If not, then this is irrelevant.

They're the necessary costs of greater goods, as I've already said.

But you were talking about eliminating the possibility of suffering. I do not think the argument applies specifically to the eradication of smallpox.

Think of the suffering and deprivation due to getting your leg amputated just below the knee because of gangrene. The doctor could spare you these evils and have you painlessly die of gangrene under anaesthesia. We can't know for sure what the constraints of God's choices are, but is it conceivable that they're something like this?

We can't know for sure or we do not have a clue? Please be clear. If the former, then I look forward to you presenting your hypotheses.

So you are saying that allowing smallpox to flourish was one of the "necessary costs of creating a world in which freedom and autonomy freely arise"?

Yes, that's what I'm proposing.

Okay. So why would God eradicating smallpox leading to us losing freedom and autonomy, and yet when mankind did it, it did not.

Evidently God places a higher premium on enacting solidarity with humanity than he does on eliminating the possibility of suffering. I don't think he would have reduced our freedom or autonomy if he'd also eradicated smallpox, but it's not about the individual evils as much as it's about the conditions that make the individual evils possible.

That bit I put in bold, that undermines everything else you said so far.

Can you explain what "enacting solidarity with humanity" means? Is that like the exact opposite of the Tower of Babel myth?

The world's a package deal. Its interdependence and consistency are crucial for it being a coherent whole. Doesn't mean God can't intervene such as the incarnation and resurrection, but that ceteris parabus his respect for this coherence and autonomy is near-paramount and trumps the possibility of individual evils. God could violate this principle in the case of smallpox, but the overridingness of that case would have to be strong enough to overcome the principle. Most cases don't meet that threshold. There are obviously things more important than the elimination of suffering; this is apparent in everyday life.

That bit in bold is what it really comes down. God has a choice of intervening to prevent suffering or letting the world run its course. He chooses the latter - making him to all practical purposes the same as an imaginary god.

That is not proof he does not exist, I know, but it is good evidence that if he does exist he is not really that bothered about human suffering.

What amount of evil is compatible with there being a God? Where would you draw the line? How could any suffering at all be compatible? Please explain your principle and exactly how it would be applied.

I do not know. I do not have a line drawn. But I do know that allowing smallpox to flourish is the wrong side of that line.

God has the power to stop it and to stop all suffering. The doctor has the power to save you from losing your leg. Neither God nor the doctor has the power to escape the logical constraints of their choices.

Okay. So if you can explain the logical constraints God is under that mean he cannot eradicate smallpox but mankind could, you are home dry.

No, it's about the paramountcy of a principle of God's choices. You're missing the forest for the trees.

And I think yiou are failing to look closely enough, and have not spotted that really there are no trees there