A challange to your best arguments: TEAR THIS APART.

[Primula Baggins]

I wonder if the people who think that suffering proves the nonexistence of God have ever stopped to consider what life would be like in a world where suffering was impossible and nobody knew anything but constant happiness.

People would have to be perfectly virtuous as well, so that no two people ever badly wanted the same thing or the same person, and so that no one was ever made happy by anyone else's suffering.

Would we have any idea of beauty? Would we value happiness we didn't have to work to build? Would love—"automatically" faithful and endless, with no possibility of misunderstanding and no chance of a sorrowful end—would it even matter to us?

Could there still be death, and if not, would life itself mean anything?

[Impenitent]

...

what life would be like in a world where suffering was impossible and nobody knew anything but constant happiness.

I was under the impression that this is one definition of heaven (that, plus the presence of God)...a place where no one is made happy by the suffering of another.

Rabbi Kushner has put forward an interesting hypothesis for the existence of suffering in a God-created world. In "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People", he suggests that free will is the basis of it all. God created humanity with the capacity for free will. In order to allow us to exercise this free will, God refrained from all further interference in the world - in other words, allowed nature to take its course and for humanity to decide what to do about it. To step in - to remove evil, to change the course of rivers, to prevent suffering - would remove from us our essential humanity, the capacity to decide for ourselves.

At least, that's Kushner's argument.

[Primula Baggins]

I think it's an excellent one. I've heard it before, but couldn't remember Kushner's name.

I do get frustrated with the idea that the business of the universe should be to make us all individually happy, or else there is no God. (Or, worse yet, that it should be to to make the virtuous happy, and any unhappy event is a sign that we're doing something wrong, that God is punishing us.)

[Frelga]

That is similar to the theory that in order to allow humans to express generosity, compassion and self-sacrifice, it is necessary to allow privation and suffering to exist.

In any case, saying that God is not good in a way that we describe a mortal person as good is not the same as saying that God does not exist.

There are so many things wrong with the logic in that blurb, it's not even amusing.

[Maria]

Maybe the whole "God is Good" idea is a fallacy. Perhaps "good" to a god has nothing to do with what being a good human does.

Perhaps being a good Creator of the Universe is more like being a good author, and involves creating lots of opportunity for drama and plot twists just to keep life interesting for the creatures inhabiting it.

[Kushana]

An atheist professor

I did not realize declaring ones private convictions was a requirement, these days.

(Unless this is a school founded and run by Atheists, which may - as a private institution - use that criteria in hiring faculty.)

of philosophy

I cannot see how the professor's private views would become his work in the classroom in this field. Philosophy has some kinships with Theology, but it is a separate profession and field of study.

(If this were a real anecdote the professor's field would be capitalized and some qualifier about the type or era of philosophy would be mentioned. To quote the first current job listing I can put my hand to: "Applied Ethics, including business ethics and environmental philosophy".)

on the problem Science has with God, The Almighty.

No one with a significant background in science would call it a "problem"; only a theist polemic would use such a loaded term. (I think "The Almighty" is a title of God favored in Protestant Christianity, but any theology that happens after 400 A.D. is a bit foggy for me.)

I tremble to think any professor with such limited preparation in science has come to lead a class on it: we all have our days of 'improvising', but it is best not to chose a professor-focused strategy (like the lecture or Socratic questions) on such days.

new Christian students to stand

That is a touch old-fashioned. These days we try to avoid humiliating our charges.

How does he know the student's private convictions? This should not enter into the classroom, either, not without good reason -- and it should not become the focus of the work in the classroom (unless the student has previously offered to serve as a representative of an especially uncommon minority -- which does not include Christians in America, Canada, England, or Australia.)

PROF: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?

Again, more patronizing than we like to be, these days. A real professor would ask the question in a neutral manner: "Are you Christian?" (Usually of students from places where Christianity is uncommon: Japan, for example.) Not a necessary question in a philosophy class.

The rhetoric of this anecdote tries to bias the hearer against the professor, atheism, and science (the real Einstein would be pained) and towards the student and Christianity (specifically Protestant Christianity, I think; so the great and ancient branches of the Church (who have also done a great deal of thinking about science and God) can sit this one out if the theology of this anecdote is not directed towards them.)

Homework

The full text of any of St. Augustine's work on Genesis

St. Ephram

Read the entire original texts, not what someone tells you they say. Also, this does not touch on the extensive and detailed discussions of the early chapters in Genesis within Judaism.

-Kushana

[Frelga]

A pleasure to read you as always, Kushana!

It just now occurred to me - this is the first time I heard that Einstein was Christian!

[Primula Baggins]

Kushana, it's great to see you here! I will read your post and respond properly, but I'm going to put some of those long links behind cuts—I hope you don't mind. They stretch the page out.

[Kushana]

Dear Frelga,

Exactly.

Dear Primula Baggins,

Thank you, I am a dunce about all things e-.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours,
Kushana

[Primula Baggins]

Now that it comes to it, all I can do is thank you for your insightful answer and links.