Six reasons why I think Stephen Fry is Absolutely Fabulous

[Humanist_Activist]

50. Not sure what the point of the name drop is supposed to be, are any of their arguments compelling?

Particularly to a Non-Theist?

From what I can gather, Basil, Athanasius, and Hilary were and are famous and revered for defending orthodoxy and the trinity against heresies. Not sure about Nektarios, I've at least heard of Basil and Athanasius, Nektarios, when I google them, comes up with several possibilities.

Irenaeus: At least there's a developed argument that can be found and researched, and I find it rather lacking. Humans are imperfect, simply because "perfection" is a meaningless phrase, we are best adapted to this planet, no more no less. The idea that we were made incomplete, and need to suffer to reach moral perfection and contain a likeness to God, makes God no better than Jigsaw in the Saw movies. Actually it makes him worse, Jigsaw, from what I remember of the first movie, didn't demand that you worship him. There's also an argument that this is the best of all possible worlds, but frankly that just shows a lack of imagination. Quick rundown, what if we had a world where viruses didn't exist and bacteria cannot invade multicellular organisms? That's it, just those two would have alleviated a LOT of suffering, and wouldn't have violated free will or moral choice.

John Chrysostom: So he had a sermon, a speech, called "On the Devil" that talks, generally, about how evil entered the world and theodicy. First problem, the Fall of Man introducing evil into the world, I don't really care how many analogies are used, including the sinking ship one here, nothing Adam or Eve did justifies what came after. Not to mention it created a generational punishment, which makes God intrinsically unjust. Yet we are supposed to be thankful that he is so "charitable" to forgive us for the actions of our supposed ancestors?

The second problem, saying natural disasters that afflict the innocent and guilty alike are "...the sources of good to us, chastening our pride, goading our sloth, and leading us on to zeal, making us more attentive." I didn't know having kids die of disease was chastening there pride, well that makes it alright then!

Please bear in mind, I'm reading his sermon, which says little with a LOT, and I mean a LOT of words.

My last point from his sermon, is that he appears to justify God's acceptance of evil as simply the meting out of punishment, that God, not the devil, rules the world. He used the Book of Job as an example, Satan having to ask permission to torment Job, on orders from God. Of course, I then have to ask, how does this make God good? Indeed, the Book of Job was one of the many WTF? moments I had when I actually decided to read the Bible in my late teen years. Add in all the other atrocities, which Chrysostom also tried to justify, and I'm starting to wonder who would worship this monster in the first place?

Sorry, got side tracked. Anyways, next guy!

Grennadius, I'm assuming of Constantinople, yes I know how to Google! Anyways, not many original writings survive, he probably has a zinger of a quote or two that are relevant, and the reason you brought him up in this conversation, but I'm too lazy to look for them.

Tertullian introduced something totally unique to this argument, a surefire way to convince those cursed unbelievers! Oh wait, its the fucking free will argument again! May I just interject and say this doesn't account for suffering at all?

From what I can gather from Clement, his argument is best a rehashing of Irenaeus and Origen's arguments for the existence of evil. Though, I think he is slightly more justified in that he takes a more Stoic approach to reality, viewing it as merely a reflection of sorts, so the suffering here is, to him, less important.

Actually, this brings up a good point, a consistent theme is the primacy of the afterlife over this one, that this one is simply a testing ground, that all our lives, loves, etc. mean little to nothing if they don't bring us closer to God. The problem is there is no evidence for the afterlife, just this one. Not to mention, as I said before, this doesn't make God good, just a sadist.

But I do feel that these Fathers of the Church do make a huge, and I do mean HUGE mistake, the just world fallacy. Basically that every good and evil action has a consequence, whether felt in this world or the next. It is also reversed, so if someone suffers a consequence, let's say, childhood polio infection that lead to lifetime of disability and pain, then they must have done something to deserve it, and if nothing can be found, you have original sin to fall back on. Its an atrocious way to view the world, but a necessary consequence of believing in a Omniscient, Omnipotent God, just don't call this God Omnibenevolent, for they are anything but.