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

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

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha