Do Tummy Aches Disprove God?
Apologetics, Worldviews — By Joe Carter on July 1, 2008 at 1:14 amMy tummy hurts. Ergo, there is no god.
This argument may be absurd but it is not intended as a reductio ad absurdum. Although a very simplistic form, this enthymeme encapsulates one of the primary atheological arguments — the argument from evil.
The structure of the argument becomes more obvious once we include the unstated premises:
1. Tummy aches are a form of harm being done to the physical and/or psychological well-being of a sentient creature.
2. Harm is evil.
3. God–an omniscient, wholly good being–would prevent evil.
4. God did not prevent my tummy ache
5. Ergo, there is no god.
This argument is a type known as the evidential problem of evil, the primary remaining form since the logical problem of evil has been solved.*
The evidential problem of evil is the problem of determining whether the existence of evil constitutes evidence against the existence of God. As the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, “Evidential arguments purport to show that evil counts against theism in the sense that the existence of evil lowers the probability that God exists.”
One of the strongest and most famous examples of this type of argument can be found in William Rowe’s 1979 paper, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” Rowe outlines his argument as follows:
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Rowe 1979: 336)
I contend that Rowe’s argument is precisely the same as my Tummy Ache formulation.
Not so, you say, for Rowe has added the qualifier intense suffering. To which I’d respond: My tummy hurts intensely.
Actually, I would say that my construction is more solid. By sneaking in the adjective “intense” Rowe attempts to give the premise an emotional resonance, but merely succeeds in weakening his premise. The inclusion of the adjective shifts the premise onto subjective ground. After all, how does “intense” suffering differ in any meaningful sense from mere suffering?
Let’s imagine that all suffering could be converted to a single unit of measurement, say Tummy Aches (TA). Let’s also say that the range of suffering goes from .001 TA to 100 billion TA. At what level does suffering become “intense”? 10 TA? 100 TA? It would depend on the context. In the life of a single human, 100 TA of suffering might be considered intense. But what if we are talking about an amount that would disprove God shouldn’t we consider the entire universe? Would 100 TA be a lot then? Would even 100 billion TA be a considerable amount within the vast expanse of the cosmos?
Besides, what does it matter if we are talking about 100,000 TA or merely 1 TA. If God is omnipotent then he should be able to prevent my tummy ache. For the premise to support the conclusion it should discard all qualifiers and state its point more directly: “An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any suffering…”
Stated in this way, most people would abandon this Tummy Ache argument. Some would still contend, though, that an omnipotent wholly good being would indeed prevent all tummy aches and that stomach pains are indeed evidence against the existence of God. To which the proper response is to ask, “Are you omniscient?”
The reason this question is relevant is because premise #1 can only be judged by an omniscient being. When faced with the fact “Suffering occurs” we are left with the question, “Could the suffering have been prevented without losing some
greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse?” Only an omniscient being could know for sure, yet Rowe’s premise begs the question by assuming that the answer is “yes.”
Those of us that are not omniscient, however, should be hesitant to conclude this is damning evidence without knowing all the facts. By remaining agnostic about premise #1, we have no reason to believe the argument is sound. It becomes apparent that the mere existence of evil has no bearing on the probability that God exists. The evidential problem of evil is a non sequitur.
This is not to deny that evil is a problem. It is, just not a logical or evidential problem. As Alvin Plantinga contends, evil is a religious problem:
The theist may find a religious problem in evil; in the presence of his own suffering or that of someone near to him he may find it difficult to maintain what he takes to be the proper attitude towards God. Faced with great personal suffering or misfortune, he may be tempted to rebel against God, to shake his fist in God’s face, or even to give up belief in God altogether… Such a problem calls, not for philosophical enlightenment, but for pastoral care. [emphasis in the original]
*Most philosophers (including William Howe who is mentioned later) would admit that Alvin Plantinga has solved the logical problem of evil. In his brief and masterful God, Freedom, and Evil, Plantinga concludes that it is at least possible that God could not have created a world with moral good but no moral evil.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
77 Comments
On the other hand, if he had, you wouldn’t have had the opportunity to talk snotty about God.
Sigh! The problem of evil strawman…. again!
Ok, everyone raise their hands. Does anyone think the problem of evil argument is a valid argument against the existence of a supreme being of any kind? Anyone?
That’s right. Nobody thinks it is. And Joe is, once again, attacking a strawman.
I’m not a big fan of this line of argument for several reasons:
In short, Joe’s argument does not prove that any sort of god must exist at all. Nor does it show that a god must have any particular moral properties (assuming that it exists). Joe hasn’t shown a darn thing, and the post misses the whole point of the argument.
Obviously Joe Carter has thought himself clever for stumbling upon this very simple and frequently cited argument. However I found it even more incredible that he has managed to reduce a “reduction ad absurdum” argument. By ‘reduce’ I am referring to the fact that he has conjured tummy aches as a pleasant euphemism. Well Mr. Carter – congratulations. An argument that has historically been known to be literally “reduced to the absurd” has been furthermore dumbed down until it is able to be understood by a 2 year old.
Allow me to rephrase the argument another way, with a little help from our friend Epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
If you had posted the argument using this syntax, I bet you would have a hard time trying to disprove this. And yes, it WOULD require you to use more than a play on the linguistical meaning of the term ‘intensity’.
Somebody respond to this.
Leroy Amadeus Lee Prowse:
Read my conversation with Victor (and El Duce) for a discussion of things an omnipotent God “can’t” do.
Mr. Amadeus:
Mr. Carter thought himself clever, but by failing to analyze the terms of the argument, and its applicability, failed to note his was the hand plunging the sword into his own chest.
Epicurus’s argument is far more eloquent than the dreaded tummy ache, but stumbles upon a concept it need not address: evil.
Further, we need not speculate whether God’s power extends to omnipotence, wonder whether His awareness extends to omnipotence, nor impose the burden of having anything more than normal moral intuition.
Mr. Carter’s own goal becomes readily apparent when considering the existence of gratuitous suffering.
At the certainty of repeating myself, there is a great deal of intense suffering, randomly distributed, that has nothing to do with fallen human nature, proper fealty, or the consequences of living in a material world so constructed as to not require constant divine intervention.
I cited obstetric fistula above, but how about another: the importance of pure water, and how to produce it. That one thing, so simple humans can do it, has greatly reduced the butcher bill of gratuitous suffering.
God could have, but did not, reveal this long before humans discovered bacteria.
Clearly, that gratuitous suffering — I think death from diarrhea qualifies, and also earns the adjective “intense” — is not necessary, or even beneficial in any imaginable way.
Which requires redirecting Epicurus, and revealing Mr. Carter’s misplaced ridicule. Let’s take as stipulated that God is powerful and aware, and place upon God only the requirement that His abilities in these areas are at least the equal of man’s.
Then, using normal moral intuition, God is malevolent.
There is no other way to explain willfully allowing the wholly gratuitous slaughter of children prior to modernity.
smmtheory:
… if [God had eliminated obstetric fistula], you wouldn’t have had the opportunity to talk snotty about God.
Perhaps you should attend my argument more carefully.
As an exercise, extend it to another source of gratuitous suffering: particular revelation.
Certainly it was/is within God’s power to reveal Himself to all of humanity.
Certainly, God is fully aware of human nature, and the endless tumbrel loads of corpses that would attend particular revelation.
Then explain why God is not malevolent.
That would put you in the position of refuting the message, rather than insulting the messenger.
What? You were insulted by my observation that you were talking snotty about God? You have no argument, and I have no explanation why you choose to judge God as being malevolent. You can take that up with God in the fullness of time.
You were insulted by my observation that you were talking snotty about God? You have no argument, and I have no explanation why you choose to judge God as being malevolent.
I have carefully posed the argument three times, you have failed to address it even once.
Without God, apparently, humans have no basis for making moral judgments, or doing anything moral at all.
Equally, it is impossible to make moral judgments without having the capacity to judge cause and effect.
Keeping all that in mind, is there such a thing as gratuitous suffering? E.g., are wisdom teeth or the appendix necessary in any way? Both have caused intense, significant random suffering. Both are well within God’s design purview; whether we have them, or not, is up to Him.
Is there any conceivable way in which humans would be worse off without those things?
If not — and not is the answer — then God either inflicted, or allowed to persist, (until human ingenuity got in the way) intense, random, suffering.
So, in order to demonstrate your conclusion that I am talking snotty about God, you need to either:
– show there is no such thing as gratuitous suffering, or,
– show how it is morally acceptable for God remain completely inert in the face of easily avoidable gratuitous suffering.
The alternatives, that God is unaware, or incapable, are also available, but I am guessing you don’t want to go there.
You should be disabused of your unfounded and unjustifiable assumption that you and everybody else are deserving of a life completely devoid of suffering. I’m not sure I’m the one to do that. As long as your arguments continue to harbor such a ridiculous notion, they will hold about as much water as a sieve.
You should be disabused of your unfounded and unjustifiable assumption that you and everybody else are deserving of a life completely devoid of suffering.
You need to attend my argument more carefully — I never once implied such a thing, as you will discover should you try to find a quote to that effect.
I clearly made the distinction between intrinsic and gratuitous suffering. Just as clearly, you missed it.
So, please review my argument. If you are still unclear as to the difference, then I will attempt to explain it more clearly.
Otherwise, your task still remains in front of you.
What we theists – and the non-theists among us – seem to have forgotten is that this argument is as much about man as it is about God. Hey Skipper makes a distinction between intrinsic and gratuitous suffering. The Christian answer would be that there is no intrinsic suffering, since God originally designed the earth so as to avoid all suffering. As well, there is no gratuitous suffering, since all suffering that exists is NECESSARY suffering – the necessary consequence of the curse on man’s sin, and necessary for many other more personal reasons that relate to God’s work of redemption. Those reasons include the necessity of the suffering of Jesus Christ; the suffering of those who reject God, either to bring them closer to Him or as punishment for their rejection of Him; and the suffering of those whom He has brought to Himself in this world, to purify their love for Him and their neighbour, or to demonstrate it to others, for His glory.
What we theists – and the non-theists among us – seem to have forgotten is that this argument is as much about man as it is about God. Hey Skipper makes a distinction between intrinsic and gratuitous suffering. The Christian answer would be that there is no intrinsic suffering, since God originally designed the earth so as to avoid all suffering. As well, there is no gratuitous suffering, since all suffering that exists is NECESSARY suffering – the necessary consequence of the curse on man’s sin, and necessary for many other more personal reasons that relate to God’s work of redemption. Those reasons include the necessity of the suffering of Jesus Christ; the suffering of those who reject God, either to bring them closer to Him or as punishment for their rejection of Him; and the suffering of those whom He has brought to Himself in this world, to purify their love for Him and their neighbour, or to demonstrate it to others, for His glory.
Mr. Dykstra:
… there is no gratuitous suffering, since all suffering that exists is NECESSARY suffering …
When you use the word necessary in this respect, you let yourself off the hook in two ways.
First, by asserting that such suffering is necessary without explaining why it is necessary, except to say that the necessary suffering is necessary because it is necessary.
Second, and far more crippling, you have relieved yourself of explaining why some gratuitous suffering is necessary, when it becomes optional.
One example suffices, although there are many more.
Prior to clean drinking water, the need for which God never mentions, there was a huge amount of intense suffering and death, particularly among infants and children. Now, wherever there is at least minimally competent government, that suffering is a thing of the past.
So, according to you, this suffering is NECESSARY.
Yet, because it has, with the exception of a few benighted areas, vanished, it is clearly OPTIONAL.
Which makes it gratuitous.
Unless, of course, you are able to demonstrate the consequences of nearly eliminating water borne disease make it, in fact, necessary.
I’m not sure which is the most difficult position: advocating a return to dirty drinking water, or explaining the moral justification for intense random suffering that is both necessary and optional.
You may not have explicitly stated it, but you most certainly did imply it. It is implicit in your consideration that some or any suffering is gratuitous; that creation could have been designed without some little bit of suffering which you judge to be unnecessary. For your logic to hold together you must also judge that all suffering is unnecessary, otherwise whether one or another bit of suffering is gratuitous becomes subjective.
You may not have explicitly stated it, but you most certainly did imply it.
I most certainly did not, and I’ll bet you cannot quote me to that end.
I very clearly distinguished intrinsic and gratuitous suffering.
Cancer imposes incredible suffering, but the very processes of life ensure there will be cancer. Cancer is intrinsic.
The consequences of human evil are intrinsic.
Death and destruction by natural disaster are intrinsic.
Tummy aches are intrinsic.
However, the intense suffering resulting from drinking impure water is not.
Why? Because because purifying water relies on the simplest of expedients, made obvious once humans discovered why purification is necessary.
Therefore, as I mentioned above, the task remains: either explain why water borne illness is necessary, or failing that, explain why God is not a monster for perpetrating that which humans have so easily eliminated.
I did quote you – in comment 59 – furthermore, I explained in comment 64 how you implied it with what I quoted in comment 59. Now you must explain why the suffering intrinsic to drinking impure water is unnecessary. Drinking impure water may not be necessary, but that says nothing to whether or not the suffering in unnecessary. Moreover, it might be inferred that the suffering from drinking impure water is necessary in order to teach people that purifying the water is necessary.
smmtheory:
Just to review, here is how you quoted me:
So, in order to demonstrate your conclusion that I am talking snotty about God, you need to either:
– show there is no such thing as gratuitous suffering, or,
– show how it is morally acceptable for God remain completely inert in the face of easily avoidable gratuitous suffering.
From which you somehow derived the conclusion I implied humans deserve a life completely devoid of suffering. Since you might not have noticed the word “gratuitous” first time around, I have highlighted it.
Which means you completely ignored the distinction between intrinsic and gratuitous suffering, which I made clear from the outset, and subsequently reinforced.
So, far from implying humans should not suffer in any way, I clearly asserted some suffering is completely unavoidable in a material world.
In other words, you are engaging in a strawman argument.
Drinking impure water may not be necessary, but that says nothing to whether or not the suffering is unnecessary.
Well, yes it does. Humanity has, through its own devices, nearly eliminated the hecatombs associated with impure water. So, if the suffering was necessary before, is it still necessary? If not, why not?
Moreover, it might be inferred that the suffering from drinking impure water is necessary in order to teach people that purifying the water is necessary.
In order for this inference to not fall flat on its face at the outset, you have a couple challenges.
First, explain why the Old Testament contains all those fussy dietary rules. Do they have any point whatsoever, or are they just pointless hoop jumping?
Second, again with those dietary rules, in what way that doesn’t wholly offend moral intuition does it makes sense to include all those rules, without even giving a passing wave to clean water?
Finally, that half the children born failed to survive to their fifth birthday was glaringly apparent; telling people to purify water (and wash their hands) would have been all the cause required for the inevitable effect to teach people pure water and clean hands are necessary.
Instead, God gave it a complete miss until man, using rational inquiry — the very thing that brings God’s existence into question — learned bacteria have dominion over use, rather than the other way around.
Not putting the what ahead of our discovering why is such an astonishing act against interest that it raises a number of questions.
None of them good, so far as you are concerned.
Never mind that, though, as it risks taking the conversation OT. Your characterization of my position is wrong, and your inference fails.
So your task still remains: either explain why water borne illness is necessary, or failing that, explain why God is not a monster for perpetrating that which humans have so easily eliminated.
No, I don’t need to show there is no such thing as gratuitous suffering. The burden of proof rests on you since you obviously believe contrary to all available evidence and logic that there is such a thing.
IF (and that is a very big if) there is any gratuitous suffering, it might be the suffering God undergoes for your lack of faith and belief in Him. But then again, that is probably suffering that is intrinsic to his love for us.
No, I don’t need to show there is no such thing as gratuitous suffering. The burden of proof rests on you since you obviously believe contrary to all available evidence and logic that there is such a thing.
Already done, but I will reiterate.
The death and suffering due to water borne illness is gratuitous because it is so easily prevented.
It is so easily prevented that the failure to provide clean water is considered a sure sign of completely incompetent, or absent, government.
The necessity of clean water is so obvious that if you were to advocate a return to bacteria-ridden water, people would consider you either insane or evil. And they would be right.
You have provided not one whit of evidence, or logic to the notion that water borne illness is necessary.
So, by all means, do so. Because the ball is very much in your court.
IF (and that is a very big if) there is any gratuitous suffering, it might be the suffering God undergoes for your lack of faith and belief in Him.
The problem of gratuitous suffering is fatal to your concept of God.
Its existence, and there are more examples by the tumbrel load, means God is one or more of unaware, incapable, or malevolent.
Or is the deists’ g–.
Or simply doesn’t exist.
Returning to my original point, though: Mr. Carter was so intent on trivializing the evidential argument from evil, and those who make it, that he made no attempt to understand the underlying terms.
In so doing, he scored an own goal.
Trotting out the same old discredited theory over and over and over again about something that you judge is gratuitous suffering does not show anything but that you like to gratuitously torture a subject to death.
You can’t get around the fact that it is a judgement call, an opinion, on your part that any particular suffering is gratuitous. You cannot logically explain why your particular example should be classified as gratuitous when another particular example would not be. Being preventable is not an attribute indicative of gratuity because given enough time and resources, any particular situation could be either prevented or avoided.
Furthermore, despite the fact that I do not believe such a thing as gratuitous suffering exists, even if it did that would NOT be fatal to my concept of God, only your concept of God. You’ll have to try harder than that.
Trotting out the same old discredited theory over and over and over again …
Noting, all the while, that you haven’t explained why water borne illness is necessary.
In other words, you haven’t discredited anything I have said, you have merely engaged in name calling.
And the reason I focus on this one example, though there are many others, is because it is undeniable. Providing clean water isn’t hard, and once having mastered the germ theory of disease, is obviously essential.
God, presumably had mastered the germ theory of disease. Yet, despite ample opportunity, declined to reveal the importance of clean water.
Why?
You cannot logically explain why your particular example should be classified as gratuitous when another particular example would not be.
gratuitous |grəˈt(y)oōitəs|
adjective
1 uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted
See also: unjustified, uncalled for, unwarranted, unprovoked, undue; indefensible, unjustifiable; needless, unnecessary, inessential, unmerited, groundless, senseless, wanton, indiscriminate; excessive, immoderate, inordinate, inappropriate.
God deciding not to mention the very simple means — easily obtained even with the limited technology of the time — to virtually eliminate water borne illness means it qualifies as all of these.
There is no good reason for water borne illness. Tolerating it, despite it being so easily preventable, is indefensible, and indicates a wanton disregard of anything approaching moral behavior.
Being preventable is not an attribute indicative of gratuity because given enough time and resources, any particular situation could be either prevented or avoided.
Wrong. The terms gratuitous and necessary are, by definition, predicated on how easily prevented something is. As antonyms, they are inversely proportional.
Something both unwelcome and easily preventable is gratuitous. That is the meaning of the word.
In contrast, something not easily preventable — cancer, say — is never gratuitous, no matter how unwelcome it may be.
The concept of gratuitous suffering is, in fact, fatal to your concept of God as an aware, capable, and benevolent entity.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t have accused me of talking snotty about God.
Wrong. I accused you of talking snotty about God because you said he is malevolent and a monster. You don’t have to be right (and you aren’t as a matter of fact) about there being gratuitous suffering to talk snotty about God.
You don’t have to be right (and you aren’t as a matter of fact) about there being gratuitous suffering to talk snotty about God.
Was there significant suffering and death caused by water borne illness?
Did the Jews possess the technology to purify water?
Did God reveal specific dietary practices to the Jews?
Did they include any requirement to purify water or practice basic hygiene?
If God had added those two piffling revelations to the fussy food diktats, would millions of lives have been saved?
The correct answers to those questions are: yes, yes, yes, no, and yes.
Consequently, as a matter of fact, if the word gratuitous has any meaning it certainly applies here.
But never mind that. The fundamental question is this: does the prolonged existence death easily preventable by precisely the same kind of revelation as other dietary practices disprove the existence of God?
No.
But it proves that God is either completely unaware, or a malevolent monster with wanton disregard for pointless, easily preventable suffering.
Provided, of course, that the words malevolent, monster, wanton, and disregard have any meaning whatsoever.
Oh, those words have meaning alright, but when you use them incorrectly as you have it tends to indicate that you don’t know what the heck you are talking about. Enjoy it while you can though.
but when you use them incorrectly as you have it tends to indicate that you don’t know what the heck you are talking about.
Your responses have amounted to nothing more than automatic gainsaying
So, please, by all means tell me how I am using them incorrectly.
Since you haven’t, I’ll bet you can’t.
All I can think is, if someone is trying to disprove God using the analogy of a tummy ache… they desperately need a hobby!
If I stub my toe getting out of the pool later, does that mean there’s no God?
Gimme a break.
hpdroiwqk xcdlauopb cgpjsixu uobgi xbilt sxkqpu dpbl
hpdroiwqk xcdlauopb cgpjsixu uobgi xbilt sxkqpu dpbl