God and Suffering | 5 Minute Video

Summary

Peter Kreeft discusses the issue of suffering, arguing that the existence of unjust suffering does not disprove God. He differentiates between moral evil, caused by free will, and natural suffering, emphasizing that without God, there is no absolute standard for good and evil. Kreeft asserts that the believer in God finds comfort in the idea of ultimate justice, whereas the atheist faces a world where suffering is never justified. He concludes by questioning how one can maintain sanity in a world rife with suffering without a belief in a higher power.

Takeaways

• 😀 Suffering, especially of the innocent, evokes strong emotions such as sadness, helplessness, and rage.
• 🤔 The argument against God's existence often hinges on the presence of unjust suffering in the world.
• 📜 Kreeft outlines the classic argument: if God is all-good and all-powerful, He would not permit unnecessary suffering.
• 👥 Moral evil stems from human free will, allowing people to act against God's will without negating God's goodness.
• ⚖️ Without God, there is no absolute standard for judging good and evil, leading to subjective moral interpretations.
• 🌍 Natural suffering (e.g., diseases, disasters) poses a more challenging question about God's existence.
• 😞 Complaints about natural suffering are considered illogical if one does not believe in God.
• 🆚 Atheism offers no ultimate resolution for suffering, as it lacks a framework for justice.
• 💭 The existence of a good God allows for hope that suffering may be set right, either in this world or the next.
• 🌌 Kreeft emphasizes that without God, understanding suffering and maintaining sanity in the face of injustice becomes nearly impossible.

Q & A

What is the main argument presented against the existence of God?

The argument posits that if God is all good and all powerful, He would not allow unnecessary suffering. Since we observe unjust suffering, at least one premise about God must be false.

What are the two categories of suffering mentioned in the transcript?

The two categories are moral evils, caused by human actions, and natural suffering, which includes events like earthquakes or diseases.

How does free will relate to moral evil and the goodness of God?

Free will allows individuals to act against God's will, which explains how God can be good while permitting moral evil. The existence of evil does not negate God's goodness.

What is the significance of having a standard for judging evil?

Without God, there would be no absolute standard for good or evil, meaning judgments of evil would be purely subjective and based on personal tastes rather than an objective moral framework.

How does the speaker argue against the emotional response to natural suffering?

The speaker suggests that emotional reactions to natural suffering are illogical if one does not believe in God, as personal feelings cannot serve as valid evidence against the existence of God.

What point does the speaker make about the nature of justice for believers versus atheists?

Believers can find hope in the idea that God will ultimately set things right, either in this life or the next. In contrast, atheists face a worldview where no ultimate justice exists, leading to despair.

How does the speaker describe the challenges of accepting a purely naturalistic worldview?

The speaker argues that accepting a naturalistic worldview makes it difficult for sensitive individuals to cope with the randomness of suffering, such as natural disasters and human cruelty.

What is the relationship between personal standards of good and the existence of God?

The transcript states that without an objective standard provided by God, personal standards of right and wrong are meaningless and cannot form a basis for moral judgments.

What is implied about nature's role in the concept of justice?

The implication is that nature, driven by survival, does not embody concepts of justice or morality. Thus, any sense of injustice in suffering must be grounded in a belief in God.

Who is the speaker, and what is his affiliation?

The speaker is Peter Kreeft, a Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, presenting ideas for Prager University.