Ought We Blame God(s) For How Much Tragedy Persists On Our World?

[First draft] [This video is a live-stream where I read and discuss this entire blog. -For anyone who would prefer to just listen. ] -- -- Humanity, as a species, creates a lot of problems for the human species.

Humans, individually, create a lot of problems for themselves and other humans; although, not equally. 

But to have this conversation properly, I am very careful not to say things like "we did X-wrongs", because: "I" am not responsible for what other people do.

I am never a "we" that did a thing ... if I myself did not do the thing (whichever thing).

This funny video will help illustrate that point:


Now, if we want to say we are glad for the freedoms people abuse, because we can enjoy those freedoms without abusing those freedoms, ... I can certainty understand that line of reasoning.

There are many things that I am glad we have the freedom to do; despite the fact that those very same freedoms are often abused by random other people.

I am also glad for "much" of our ignorance.
There is great value in the pursuit, discovery, and growth ... that comes with having to earn our way into progressive stages of personal development.

In fact,
one of history's most famous "atheists",
the late Christopher Hitchens, 
has made that same concession.

We should be glad we don't know everything.

We should be glad that there is much to struggle and grow against. 

Because "a people" who are TOO-well provided for ... would never grow into its own autonomous potential. 

 They would never grow up.

Also,
the struggle itself,
as part of the journey itself,
is valuable.

It's valuable, because of the way it provides experiences we could never otherwise have. 

Without it, there would be no "blues music", 
no rap,
no country music, 
etc.

There is also a lot of really great art that would never have been created, in a perfect world. 

Nor would we appreciate many other experience as much as we do.  

However,
if we suppose a literal deity has planned out just how bad things would get for the vulnerable creatures of Earth, 
the we simply must be courageous and moral enough to admit:
 It would be a monster. 

I'll explain why I say this, in just a moment.
But just so we're clear on this, ...

 I'm glad for our pains;
but not the worst of it.

I am glad for our ignorance.
But again, I am not glad about the worst of it.

So then, I take a very balanced approach. 

Something as mysterious and beautiful as "love"
would lose a lot of its power .. if we understood it fully and objectively.
 So then some ignorance about that too ...
is ironically a good thing. 

Also,
humans (very ironically) need *some* measures of risk, loss, pain, and discomfort ... in order for us to really appreciate our better experiences.

Hunger makes us really appreciate food.
Thirst does the same for a tall cold glass of water.
Tiredness does the same for how much it helps us appreciate when we have focus and energy.
Loss does the same for when we reap gains.



Struggles even help give meaning and depth to family and friends; because:

"In a heaven" .. nobody would need anyone for anything; because we'd all be entirely self-sufficient and always happy.

So then it wouldn't matter if our loved ones are always available to us. We'd gradually (and probably very quickly) lose appreciation for "the people who have our back";
in a paradise where there's never anything (or, at least, never anything too important) we need from each other.
--

Those notions of paradise of very short-sighted. 

There are other ways it would be an accidental "hell". But I don't want to get too distracted by going further into that point.
--

Now, having admitted to all of this, ...

Once we bring "God" into the discussion, we need to decide first what sort of "God" we mean.

If we mean the early Stoic concept, then:
There's no blame for the things I (personally) think "are not ok".
[I'll get to that list in a moment]

We couldn't fault a "God" for whatever a Sentient-Person type "God" should or shouldn't do ... if the "God" we are talking about isn't a Sentient-Person type "God".

Stoicism's "God" is roughly pantheistic.
It's an eternal intelligence, beauty, and power 'from-which the universe naturally flows'. It's a natural (not a supernatural) part of the cosmos. In fact, it would be foundational to everything.

I am often 'inclined' to think the Stoics were probably right about this.
Although, I say this only because it appeals to my intuitions.
It does not adequately appeal to rational considerations.

There is not much evidence to support it with. But I do find it plausible, and it does "feel correct" (or, at least "in the ballpark" of correct).  

[Link to commentary for why I regard myself as qualified to assess anyone's God-claims] 


When I'm "in the mood" to think Stoic-God (or something similar) is correct, ... 

I don't call it "God" because "God" (as a title) is "a crown of words".
 I don't think anything deserves that crown. 

It also infers a sense of "awe" that a person is "humbled" by.
But I don't *feel* that way either.
At this confession, a very religious person might say "Ah hah!"; thinking I just confessed to a failing of moral character. However, a lack of "awe" is not a failing of moral character. Nor does it manifest from such a failing. I'm just so jaded, cynical, and mindfully aware of how messed up this reality is. But not just for me. Rather, mostly, for countless humans and animals who have had far worse events befall them. This leaves no room for a trembling emotional high about the cosmos. Thus, I don't call it "God".

Thus, I don't identity as a "theist".

This is also why I identify as "atheISH" rather than "atheist".

I don't reject the idea of a pre-existing, eternal intelligence from-which we flow, and from-which intelligence, logic, beauty, and virtue flow.

I just find it ... "lamentable"; that a BETTER "Source" does (evidentially) not exist,
Because:

While I do NOT want to live in a "perfect world",
...
the "sweet spot" would be a lot *closer* to perfect than where we are.

However, I'm not 'making this personal' (as a grudge between me and "it"),
because:
It has no personal identity, emotions, or agendas.

The "God" of the early Stoics is not self-aware. 

It has no ambitions. It had no political agendas.
It offers nothing (at least, nothing born from intent; nor judgment) as an afterlife for humans.

It didn't "plan" our existence.
Instead, we merely flow naturally from it.

It's not really "aware" of our suffering in any 'personal' sense,
nor does it ever take "personal actions" because it's not a "personal being".

So then there's not a "someone" to blame for letting things get so out-of-hand on Earth.

Whereas, if we were talking about a personal and literal deity,
who literally designed, planned, and gives a crap about what happens on Earth ... then we're automatically talking about a grossly negligent and psychologically dangerous Being.
And that's where the conversation takes a necessarily darker turn.

 

Consider:

WILFUL Super-Person(S) 
literally DECIDING to do things like:

Pollute this world (soil and water), 
DURING the design and creation phases, 
with things like arsenic, lead, and harmful microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, and parasites). 

 And then,
they "design" humans (and other animals) to NOT be able to see, smell, or otherwise detect those dangers. 

Even worse yet,
deciding to withhold knowledge that such dangers even EXIST. 

Nor are humans given remedies for any such poison. 

Nor are human bodies built to recover from most such dangers.

Meanwhile, humans are not a single collective organism.
So then saying something like "but humanity finds ways to survive and gradually to overcome many dangers"
... is an argument which has zero relevant to the value-and-reality of the individuals who suffer needlessly and die prematurely. 

In this way, I think the TV and Movie industry has damaged our conscience.
Because it has trained us to think "everything turned out fine" if our favorite characters survive.
In this way, there are always "red shirts" (a Star Trek term) who:

a.) are people we don't personally know, 

b.) aren't essential to our "story",

 and thus
c.) don't greatly matter.

[Getting back to the list of tragedy-causes which are not our fault, ...] 

Likewise,
for a "Creator" do the same with countless versions of mushrooms/fungi, plants, insects, etc..

Likewise, to create both small and large predators ... whom make no differentiation between seeing HUMANS are their next meals ... vs any other prey. 

Likewise, to create a world fraught with other hidden dangers which people often cannot plan effectively-enough for;

such as droughts, pestilence, famines, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, lightning as a cause of forest fires, 
etc..

Likewise, they decided to make MUCH of Earth's land to be infertile (deserts, mountains, rocky terrain, frozen lands, and large areas where there just isn't good enough soil to grow community-sustaining crops).

Likewise, designing us to be ignorant about the essential details of nutrition. 
 
Likewise, they also decided to make MOST of Earth's water to be undrinkable.

Likewise, to create humans as:
entirely vulnerable to the mind-altering effects of severe childhood neglect, and severe abuse;

such that:

Many children have their very SOUL stolen from them (not in a supernatural sense. I just mean the essence of their personhood)
by monster-parents who turns their own children into clinical sociopaths, psychopaths, clinical Narcissists, etc..

 -which then programs those children to become monster-adults; whom then go out into the world to destroy even more people. 

Likewise, deciding to make the human mind utterly vulnerable to being tricked and programmed by dangerous cults. 

[To continue humoring the "personal and willful Creator-Deity"-theory] 
 
They also decided that a small percent of people would be born intersex.

That, in-and-of-itself isn't "bad".
But when such a person is born to a culture of a  black-and-white sexual identity paradigm, 
it can be devastatingly confusing and painful. 

They also decided a fairly high percentage of people would naturally grow into their sexuality as gay, bi, or trans. 
-But the very same Creator(s) also see those people as extra-broken (morally speaking)? 

Hell, even if a "real God" was perfectly fine with trans people, 
why have anyone born into (or psychosocially develop into) a body they'd never feel 'right' in?

And even if they are perfectly fine with gays,..
why "inspire" religions which demonize them?

And if those religions have it wrong, 
why not show up and TELL THEM they misunderstood?


 
They certainly aren't going to listen to critics (not even qualified scholars or scientists) telling them they have it wrong; no matter what they're wrong about. 

This is why there are so many rival religious factions; all believing they are "spirit led".  


Consider, too, some SPECIFIC ~dangerous states~ that very damaged people can sometimes enter into. 

Per Abrahamic-God-Theory, 
they allegedly wrote an entire "Bible" where they fail to even address certain types of sexual predators as a problem,
failed to educate,
and failed to advise standards; 
except to provide very very bad examples to follow.  

"Pedos?
As GOD, I never heard of that. But let me tell you why "Shellfish is an abomination". 

Whereas, that very same "God" decided either hardly-anyone (or else literally-nobody) would "fall" into a state where they WANT to go around doing sexual things to Pencil Sharpeners, or eating piles of cow-poop. 

Fuckin' why? 

Why be so selective about the forms human deviations would take?

If a "Creator" "intelligently designed" humanity's world and circumstance, 
then:
 they also had to design the details of whatever "fallen" state and "fallen" world humans would fall into. 

 Thus, they'd have to pre-plan for making sure certain herbivores turn into carnivores, 

certain microorganisms ALSO instantly develop taste for devouring people, 

certain plants and mushrooms suddenly turn deadly, 

random bodies of water (and pieces of land) are spontaneously poisoned with carefully "designed" forms of poison, 

and randomly-some people would also develop an irresistible urge to destroy other people. 

Otherwise, eating the "forbidden fruit" would only result in:
 whatever it was "intelligently designed" to do. 

Abrahamic-religious people just haven't really finished 'thinking it through'. 

Naturalism can explain this.
But Abrahamic and Hindu theisms can't;
 at least, not rationally.


So then Christians will say "His ways are a mystery. It's not for US to question Him".

But they are overlooking how:
 Nobody is finding fault with a "God".

Instead, critics are "assessing" the merits (and demerits) of God-claims.

- This is EXACTLY what Christians claim that people ARE qualified to do. Because otherwise, Christians couldn't justify saying "Hinduism's God-claims fail to withstand scrutiny.". 

Nor could they justify saying "but Christianity's God-claims DO withstand scrutiny" if they claim humans aren't qualified to scrutinize. 

Gods or no gods.

I am qualified to assess.

I have assessed.

And thus, I discovered that all the "moral"-Authoritarian, "personal God"-theories are inherently flawed.

They must all invoke double-standards (hypocrisy; and "special pleading");
to decide their religion is correct while others are wrong.

They must also speak contrary to human virtues ... in order to justify a conceptualized "God" which thinks, speaks, and act in violation of human virtue;
which is something the early Stoics refused to agree with. 

The early Stoics realized:

 The only way for "Source" to be "good" 
is if "Source" did not  DO
neither did it choose to ALLOW  
the things that "biblical" religions claim their own God(s) have done.

Here, I have not even taken the time to list 
all the evil things
bibles claim their "God" intentionally chose to do. 
  

Nor have I taken the time to list all the arguments they use to justify those evils as "good".
 Although, here are some of most common arguments they use for that: 

 1. Might Makes Right. 

 2. "Nobody at all
 is qualified to assess the merits of our God-claims"
[silent disclaimer: except for people who agree with us] 

 3. [which naturally flows from #2]
Make ugly assumptions about the critic;
in order to delegitimize them,
in order to make their challenges unworthy to consider. 

4. Distract the critic with irrelevant commentary.
This is why religious fundamentalists are constantly going off-topic, but act as-if they don't realize they keep going off-topic. 

5. Creatively imagine hypothetical scenarios for why "God" made certain choices. But then pretend those extremely unlikely (and often debunked) hypotheticals are the "facts". 

6. Look for ways to misrepresent the challenges,
 and to attack the critic as a person.

The purpose of that is:
 
Nullify the perceived weight of any critics commentaries; just in case an influence-able person might be reading it.

Also,  
to steal the critic's peace,
put them on the defensive,
and then use that as a distraction away from the points (the points the critic has made).

7. Gaslight, as a way to create a mind-fog;
wherein the apologist can dance around and evade being held to any standard.  

They're also hoping to undermine the critics well-earned confidence; 
in their own mental faculties and character. 

This is also why they employ targeted personal attacks.
They're testing for emotional vulnerabilities that may impact a challenger's sense of identity; 
vulnerabilities they hope to exploit. 





For them, it a colonizing contest of egos.

The true identity of their "God" is (secretly; but still obviously) their own ego.

And theirs MUST win. Because it's entitled to win. And because nothing matters more to them. 

They aren't here (nor anywhere) for a civil and equitable sharing and discovery of ideas.

Religious programming has bonded with their ego. 

But I can still make the points. 

And anyone who isn't a mentally caged (f)lying monkey ... for a politically-weaponized cult of Narcissism ...

is invited to consider these points of view.
And, if they're willing,
to share some of their own.