Stephen Fry “How dare you
create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault? It is not
right; it’s utterly evil… why should I respect a capricious, mean minded,
stupid God who created a world that is so full of injustice and pain.”
If
I refer back to St Augustine’s
theodicy in response to this statement, he believes that freedom is the
fundamental principle of evil and suffering because mankind abused their free
will by disobeying God. This is seen in Adam and Eve rebelling against God in
the Garden of Eden, therefore God did not create evil, He only created goodness
but man spoilt it all by sinning and bringing evil into this world. Augustine
argued that evil did not really exist as a thing in itself. Rather it is merely
an absence of good. (Privatio boni) He claims that evil is a punishment of sin
or an act of one person being sinful to another; none of that evil comes
directly from God.
Stephen
fry referred to the existence of bone cancer in children. In response, St. Irenaeus’ would say that suffering
is a necessary part of God’s created universe; it is through suffering that
human souls are made noble, as we develop, learn and mature through the bad
things in life. The world is a ‘vale of soul making’. We can also say that the human body is an
extremely complex machine that has many faults right from birth, therefore we
are put on this earth to be tested in many ways and this pain should strengthen
our faith in Him. Earth is not supposed
to be perfect and full of perfect, free moral agents. This is why God created
heaven and Hell. If you’re a good person, then you get to enjoy a forever-lasting
afterlife in heaven.
Fry describes the existence of underserved
misery as "utterly, utterly evil." This is an interesting moral
perspective, especially when viewed alongside Richard Dawkins' comments on the problem of suffering:
"In a universe of electrons and
selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are
going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any
rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has
precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Dawkins articulates what happens if you take God
out of your view of the world. In a godless universe we lose any concept of
ultimate justice, good or evil. The universe is ultimately impersonal and
indifferent to any of these concerns. Therefore, removing God from the equation
does nothing whatsoever to eradicate the problem of evil and suffering in this
world.
At the heart of the Fry's argument is the idea that the world that
exists is as God intended it to be. He assumes that God deliberately created a
universe with appalling suffering. But a central doctrine of the Christian
faith is that God created a good and perfect world and after the fall of
humanity nothing is fully as it should be. Rather than abandoning us when we
make mistakes, God stepped into our history. Jesus died on the cross to bring
forgiveness and reconciliation. He promises a future where evil is finally
overthrown, however in the meantime we should follow in the footsteps of Jesus,
showing the same love and grace to everyone.
S.C
Does this not raise questions about God's omniscience? If God meant the world to be a good and perfect world, did it take him by surprise when things were spoilt by humanity? We could argue that God cannot be omniscient unless he knows the future with perfect knowledge, and if he does, then he knew the Fall would happen, and chose to make a world despite that.
ReplyDeleteDo we know that it took God by surprise? If we take Ireanus' approach suffering has a purpose!
DeleteThis is an interesting response using two classic theodicies. Certainly, in the language Fry uses, he seems very open to the possibility that God does exist, but that he rejects him.
ReplyDeleteOn my blog, I've pulled together a few other responses that you may be interested in: http://talkingdonkeyre.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/stephen-fry-calls-god-evil-capricious.html
A great first blog post, well done!
The point you have missed out is the comparison with the Greek deities. He would prefer them to exist than the duplicity of Jehova . That claims to be an all loving , omnipotent deity , yet is unable to prevent 1) The discovery of duality 2) Its creations from disobeying it and lastly 3) Condemning and punishing them for its own failings ?
ReplyDeleteThe bone cancer example is that a completely innocent individual (a child ) that cannot make the choice to accept an idea of salvation (depending in the denomination as to if original sin exists ) is so flawed it can be killed by another of Jehovas creations for simply existing ? There is of course an odd precedent for infanticide . What is hypocritical from Frys viewpoint is it claims to be all love and compassion yet inflicts these terrible consequences regardless of obedience or not ?
I like the way that you have used different theodicies to argue against Stephens Fry's response. I also believe that God didn't create evil, but free will and that the abuse of free will is what we perceive as evil. Good work!
ReplyDeleteH.H
I think you raise a good argument, in addition to this you could consider another approach such as the Free Will Defence. Within this, it states that the world has natural laws that can cause suffering. Philosopher Richard Swinburne said that "If men are to have knowledge of the evil in which will result from their actions or negligence, laws that there will be victims of the system"
ReplyDeleteEr.B