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 discussed an earlier edit of this blog. -For anyone who would prefer to just listen. ] -- -- Humanity, as a species, creates a lot of problems for itself.

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 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 ironically glad for SOME 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 their own autonomous potential. 

 They would never grow up.
And they'd never rightly appreciate what they have.

The struggle 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, 
then we simply must be courageous and moral enough to admit:

That "deity" 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,
not the worst of it.

I take a 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* measure 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 naps. It also helps us appreciate times 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. We'd just be a bunch of boot-lick addicts. Time would lose all meaning. We'd all be content to suck on Father's swollen ego,
all non-day,
every non-day. 

In such a "heaven", we'd gradually stop caring if our loved ones share that kingdom with us. We'd gradually 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.
--

These popular 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 or pantheistic concept, then:
There's no blame to even talk about.
[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".

 Nor would such a "God" care about our failings, nor would it care what caused those failings.

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) basic facet of the cosmos; foundational to everything.

In this context, "sin" has no meaning, except as a way for humans to say there are some human failings which we strongly lament. 

I am often 'inclined' to think the Stoics were probably right about this.  
[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 usually *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 jaded, cynical, and mindfully aware of how messed up this reality is. But not just for my own sake. Rather, mostly, for countless humans and animals who have had far worse tragedies befall them. This leaves no room for trembling emotional highs 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 simply 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.

In other words,
DESPITE the fact that "perfection" is overrated,
...
this world
is absolutely not the best possible world. 
 
It's not even close. 

However, I'm not 'making this personal' (as a grudge between me and "it"),
because:
So far as I know, "The Great Mystery" 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 born from intent.
It passes no judgments.

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 relevance 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.

Although, I suppose we must admit Hollywood got the God-Awful idea of casually-disposable-people from the Abrahamic religions. 

In that way of thinking,
there are always "red shirts" (a Star Trek term) who:

a.) are people we don't deeply and truly 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, ...] 

Consider a willful Creator whom would litter their children's garden 
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 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, deciding to make MOST of Earth's water to be undrinkable.

Likewise, deciding to make bodies of fresh water 
as an active part of an UNSTABLE water-cycle.

Randomly, droughts dry up regional water.
Crops die.
Animals die.
Disease, thirst, and famine overtake the region.

Terrified religious-minds argue about WHO did WHAT to make the spooky supernatural forces so angry.

They seek magical causes and solutions.
This prevents them from seeking real causes and solutions.

This critically delays potential real-world solutions, like digging wells and organizing migration;
until there's nobody left to blame. 

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

 Additionally, other survivors may develop complex PTSD which differently sabotages their cognitive functions, social health, and their individual potential for spirituality. 
 
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?


 
 Religious minds 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~ which very damaged people can sometimes enter into. 

Per Abrahamic-God-Theory, 
"God" allegedly wrote an entire Bible where they fail to even address and define various types of sexual predators as a problem.

Those books 
failed to educate,
and failed to advise standards; 
except to provide very very bad examples to follow.  

"Consent, as a concept? 
I, the God of Abraham, never heard of it.
But let me tell you that 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" 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" heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, etc.. 

The "God" of Abraham, 
per that religious lore, 
made sure to include ALL of this in his "grand plan".

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.

Personal-God 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 these are the same people who keep saying they DO understand him and that it's all perfectly rational.

They insist on having it both ways.
And they're hoping we won't notice. 

They're also gaslighting us,
when they say something like "HOW DARE YOU find fault with GOD?".

 Nobody is finding fault with a "God".

Instead, critics are merely assessing the merits (and demerits)
of: 
 fallible humans' claims about "God".

Meanwhile, 
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 critically evaluate those claims. 

Gods or no gods.

ALL CHRISTIANS claim that ALL HUMANS are qualified to assess the merits and probabilities of literally any/all claims about "God". 

They also REFUTE this. Because their religion trains them to contradict themselves about literally everything specific to their religion. 
 But we can just ignore that for now.

We are qualified to assess.

They have assessed.

I have assessed.

During those assessments,
I discovered that all the "moral"-Authoritarian, "personal God"-theories are chaotic and duplicitous.

Worse yet, they are authoritarian PSYOPS.

They are being used to hijack vulnerable lives by hijacking vulnerable minds. 

They must invoke double-standards;
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 willfully DO
and neither did it willfully choose to ALLOW  
the things that "biblical" religions claim their own God(s) have willfully 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 all critics;
in order to delegitimize them,
in order to make their challenges unworthy to consider. 

4. Distract critics 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 watching. 
  
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. 
 





For them, it a dominance-focused, colonizing contest of egos.

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

It MUST win.

It's entitled to win.

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 poorly managed 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.