Hi all. Well my non attendeance from the meeting has not gone unnoticed especially by my family. I recieved a rather short email from my father regarding death and suffering in the Bible and the labling of blame.
I replied with the below response. Sorry if it ramling in places but it always takes longer to answer than to question. Im not too happy with my illustration of the car at the end of my reply as it could of been scisinct in places.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Dad. Thank you for your email about death and suffering. I’ve taken the time to look in depth at the issues raised and what follows are my thoughts and opinions on the matter.
Firstly I feel the need to acquiesce on a number of presuppositions for the sake of this discussion. Firstly that God/Gods exist, secondly that this being is theistic and not deistic in nature and thirdly this theistic being is the Judeo/Christian God of the Bible, Jehovah.
I also want you to know that any points made are not an ad hominem attack on you or any others who may read this reply, only my opinions on the argument presented. I am always open to criticism of my own arguments and any flaws in my own reasoning’s.
Two issues seemed to be conflated in the initial email, that of Jehovah causing death and the labelling of blame in cases of suffering.
Firstly there are clear references to death being meted out on individuals, groups and nations and all things he has created. Some of them were alluded to in your email. Jehovah has used very different and ingenious methods in killing people. From assisted genocides and massacres (Deut 2:23-24, Josh 6:21) Burned to death (Lev 10:1-3) Lions (2 Kings 20:35-36) Serpents (Num 21:6) Plagues (Num 14: 35-36) Drowning (Gen 7:23) and my favourite act of brutality the hacking to pieces of Agag (1 Sam 15:32-33). Though this act was perpetrated by the prophet it was carried out ‘before Jehovah’. At a very rough count Jehovah has had a hand in the deaths of about 25 million humans. However such a figure pales into insignificance when you realise that does not include the 99.8% of all previous life that has become extinct over 4.7 billion years of earth life.
Following from your examples mentioned you make reference to that fact that this is ‘more a matter of language’ which seems on the surface to be a case of ‘special pleading’. My counter to your argument that the verses stated are a ‘matter of language’ is that if one takes a particular ‘literalist’ and ‘inerrantist’ view of scripture, which Jehovah’s Witnesses do, then these events are a true historical account of Gods dealings with mankind. Thus these things did happen and Jehovah is responsible for the death of men, women, children, babies and animal. (though he did leave the trees in some cases)
However, if it is ‘more a matter of language’ and a literary device to get particular messages across, then the whole premise of a literal inspire account is weakened. What is the justification for using these criteria for passages in scripture that by today’s standards we find unpalatable and not others passages? What about Adamic sin? Is this true statement or more a ‘matter of language’?
The second issue raised it that of apportioning blame for suffering. Firstly I feel that I must, to use a poker term, put my cards on the table. As a non believer in supernatural claims and for the sake of intellectual honesty I cannot blame that which I see no evidence for existing in the first place. Put another way if ones does not blame a deity for hardship can one praise the same deity for succour?
I agree with the biblical statement at Ecclesiastes 9:11... ‘Time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all’ (I rather enjoy the cruder form of this statement as the car bumper sticker puts it ‘S##t Happens!’). I have found the explanation of Occam’s razor helps when confronted by trials and also the beauty and majesty life brings. (A principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect). All our actions have repercussions to ourselves, other humans, fellow species and the world around us. It is a grieve responsibility to act in a way that is both ethical and moral and it is hard when one does not have recourse to the divine for such actions. Whether that be Jehovah, Allah, Zeus or the other thousands of Gods and Goddesses that are no longer worshipped.
I am specifically dealing with the so called Adamic sin. I do not deal with suffering caused by natural disasters or the suffering in the animal kingdom in this reply. Firstly I would be interested in your own interpretation of sin? Is it along the lines of Calvinistic ‘total depravity’?
An interesting question posed by you is whether God is to be blamed for suffering? I would say that Jehovah is both directly and indirectly responsible for suffering. To colour in the pencil outline of that comment I am going to illustrated it this way.
Imagine a gifted designer who builds a new state of the art automobile. This car is by cold fusion powered, has all the latest technology incorporated in it, is made out of a biological polymer type material that can repair itself if damaged. The main computer is a new line of self aware A.I which controls all electrical functions. To all intents and purposes that car is self sustaining and will last forever.
If the prototype model goes well this model will be rolled out globally. The first test driver to drive the car is a fresh faced 17 years old who has only just passed his driving test. A driving test which is designed developed and initiated by the car designer. Within a short period of time though the high power performance of the car, coupled with the drivers inexperience in driving in different conditions, having a passenger (back seat driver maybe?) crashes the car injurying himself and his passenger. Incensed at what has happened and thinking that his subordinate designers and staff members will think him not so gifted after all, decides that because this young inexperienced driver thought he could drive it differently, will now install a key flaw in the design of this car, maybe a computer virus into the A.I of the main computer. The car will slowly break down and cease to function. Now no one will be able to drive it properly!
If, because of this flaw, people kill themselves and others in road accidents it is not the designers fault and should not be blamed on him (even though he designed, manufactured and installed the virus flaw). It should be the first driver of that prototype car. The designer then sends out a memo to all staff members and owners of the car. In the memo the designer states that the ONLY way to bring this car back to its original specification is for his own son to take a copy of the prototype car out, drive in a straight line until he hits a solid object and commits suicide. It seems the designer has never heard of a product recall. All the while the designer demands all his staff members, car owners praise him on pain of never getting a car or having your personal car forcibly taken off them. Yes the designer might have the patents to the different design aspects and he has the legal right to make modifications to the car design. He might have the legal right to give cars and take them away. He can even hire and fire staff members it he pleases ( he does run his own business) The designer watches with complete indifference as new owners gets now defective cars and others who purchase their car with serious defect that will really hinder the driver from driving safely like a missing wheel or faulty headlights.
At any time the designer has the knowledge, facilities and the funds to correct the flaw that he designed, yet he does not. While men, women and children suffer because of the flaw in the design in the car making some struggle to drive safely other kill or get killed in the process. Yet he seems incapable or unwilling to correct anything.
Is the designer responsible for the initial flaw in the design? Yes, he would have had to create the flaw.
Is the designer thus responsible for the flaw then infecting the structure of the vehicle making it dangerous to drive?
Should the designer of recalled the defective product, possible saving countless lives?
Are all the other drivers of the model truly responsible for the naive actions of the first prototype drive and his passenger?
If the designers son died in the crash thus satisfying the designer instruction for the flaw to be removed, why do the cars still breakdown and cease to function?
Finally you mention a personal complaint about the fact of ‘so called answers’ from ‘so called experts’. Is this not a bit of a straw man argument?
I infer from your response that you feel that knowledge, and the expansion, revision, clarification of our individual knowledge is somehow wrong? I am not sure of the statement and would mind if you could clarify. Also what examples of changes did you have in mind? Are there specific examples you can reference?
So, Dad that is my reply. Slightly long winded in places I know but there are some questions and points to meditate on for both of us. Can’t wait for Manchester at the weekend and a chance to talk further over a pint or two!!!
All my love
Jonathan