Skip to main content

Stephen Fry asks the wrong question about God.

Stephen Fry asks the wrong question about God. He asks why a God would allow human suffering with diseases such as cancer.  By asking such a question he implies that the real answer is that there couldn't really be a God, or at least not a God that is benevolent.  His assumption is that if such a God existed then there would be goodness and no badness in the world.  It simply begs the question of what such goodness would be.  Goodness and badness is clearly a human viewpoint.

It is 'good' that there is a world of nature, but it is also 'natural' that it changes, grows, develops and reproduces, else the world about us would not exist other than as a permanent fixed entity, and we along with it would also be fixed - no thoughts, no human decision, no cultural development, no history,  no Steven Fry. The later would, I think be very bad.

All this doesn't suggest Stephen Fry is wrong to question the existence of a God. I do that also. But his question is misplaced because it doesn't answer the question in the way he clearly supposes. He asks it as a rhetoric which fails to provide the answer he thinks it does.

It presupposes an interventionist God. If such a god existed then what would be his priorities? Would he intervene in every detail? In which case there would be no 'free will' and Stephen Fry would not be able to ask his question, let alone answer it.

No, if God does not exist it is not because of the answer to Stephen Fry's rhetorical question. If God does not exist, whatever a 'god' is,  it will be because the proposition of a god is found to be unnecessary as an explanation.  I do not know whether that is so or not.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba
7 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more