I've completely forgotten why God doesn't intervene

[Alameda]

or isn't there a reason?

I've mentioned before that a Gnostic I was speaking to said that God cannot be All-Loving, All-Powerful, and All-Knowing, but only two of those three things.

Perhaps the Divine isn't really bothered about what happens to us? There is a God but it doesn't care?

None of the reasons that I've seen for why a loving God would allow suffering have ever made any sense to me. My Gods aren't all powerful so I don't expect them to intervene (much) anyway.

I expect my prayers to be answered but I also accept that I will not understand or necessarily be reconciled to the answers. Right now I feel quite angry about Expat's loss. I prayed and the temptation is to think you must have prayed for the wrong things or not prayed hard enough. But what a terrible world that would be - when you can tip the scales by praying 'in the right way'. God hears all prayers - be it twenty verses sung by a squad of monks or the 'help me' you manage to offer as you run between crisis and disaster.
Most of the 'bad things' we think of involve death. I believe that when we die we go home to God and you can appreciate that to Him that's not a bad thing at all. That doesn't mean I think everything's fine when people die. Like the Christian Aid slogan I believe in life BEFORE death. I think there is a lot of intervention in this world but on this Earth God does not make us immortal.
So I get cross and sad, this week has been a notably cross and sad one actually, but I still believe.
That will either make sense to you or no sense at all depending on where you are at.

I see what you are saying AMIS but to me that sounds like a variation on the argument that goes "I believe god is good and so any evidence that suggests god is not good must be an error or misinterpretation on my part as god is good".

You can't break out of this circularity as ultimately whatever evidence you see with your own eyes can only be interpreted in the context of the predicate that god must be good! There is nowhere else to go with that.

Bluegrass - yes, I totally agree. I'm in a position where I'm (attempting to)justifying what I believe rather than proving it. I believe that God exists, and that God is "good" in the sense of not evil and not totally-not-giving-a-shit about humanity. But I believe that God's omnipotence is self-limited by previous choices.

But I can see that, to a neutral observer, there is nothing in what happens on earth that supports the hypothesis that "God is good".

The problem with the cause and effect/affect? line is that innocent bystanders get caught in the crossfire. And what did man do to cause the filarial eye worm? It all smacks of the 'just world' way of looking at things. Jesus didn't seem to have a problem intervening, or commanding his followers to intervene? God of the OT was Mr Intervention himself so why the change?

On the subject of prayer I'd say that intercessionary prayer has been a feature of a number of different religions, with those prayers directed at a number of different deities. If in each case believers are satisfied that they are getting some result you might reasonably asks whether it makes any difference which deity you direct your prayers to.

You might then wonder whether there is actually any difference at all between prayer and random chance. Sometimes unlikely things happen, statistics tell us it would be weird if they didn't. Sometimes these "miracles" happen to good people, sometimes to bad, very often nothing much unexpected happens at all. In fact the distribution of results not only looks pretty much the same regardless of your choice of god, it looks like what you would expect to see happen based on the dice roll of pure chance. Personally I find comfort in that, a bad outcome is not a result of a "failed prayer", it was just that this time the cards didn't go your way.

I don't think God exists, if he or she did terrible things wouldn't happen to innocent people in the way they do every day. If he or she exists and is all powerful, so could intervene but chooses not to, then god is in no way good.

In a way, though, I think a God who answered some prayers would be worse.

Someone emailed me a story about a girl who had to walk down a dark alley alone at night and prayed for protection. Halfway down she saw a dodgy-looking bloke who looked at her and looked away. She got through safely.

Next day she saw a story in the paper about a girl who'd walked down the alley soon after her and was raped by that same bloke. Somehow, I can't remember how, she made contact and asked him why he didn't rape her. Answer: "Because of those two big blokes walking on each side of you. That other girl was by herself."

The person who sent it to me saw it as testifying to God's love and the power of prayer. I saw it as testifying to God deciding it was ok to let the other girl be raped because she hadn't asked for help. I thought it was utter bollocks because again, if God is more loving than a human parent, what adult who wasn't an utter psycho would decide to put ANY child through that just because the child hadn't asked them not to?

The non-interventionist God would at least be fairer.

I believe that God answers prayer; but the answers aren't usually the ones we think we are going to get, or maybe even want. Sometimes he answers prayer and the answer is 'no'; sometimes the answer isn't apparent to us except with hindsight.

I find it useful to think about all the things that children ask their parents for. How often do we, as parents, have to say no? How often do we have to say, well, I can't do that, but I can do something else? How often do we say, do it yourself? We do that because it's not good for children to have everything they ask for, and because it's sometimes not in our power to give them what they want, and because sometimes they have to get it themselves.

But surely, we say, God could do everything, and it is wrong of him not to? Surely it is wrong of him not to prevent all suffering? But what would a world without any suffering really be like? There would be no pain, but then there would be no joy either -- simply a blank contentedness.

And if God did intervene to stop all suffering, then what would our free will be worth? God made the universe to be free to be itself -- full of chance, risk, pain and joy. It's one of those zero-sum questions: either we have free will, or we don't. A world where God stops all suffering is one that is not free to be itself.

That doesn't mean that God never speaks to us, and that he doesn't have a purpose for our lives. But he works through what we are and what we do. Most often, when we pray that something in the world might be changed, what he changes is us -- that we might work to bring about the change we pray for.

"But I believe that God's omnipotence is self-limited by previous choices."

Whose choices- God's or man's? And if it's limited then it's not really omnipotence, is it?

seeker I meant by God's choices. Assuming there is a God, and that God chose to make a universe which developed through an evolutionary process in order to allow it and sentient life to develop in its own way, then that's a choice which would limit God's later choices.

If you're going to say "Life is going to have a chance to evolve from these basic principles" and allow it get on with it, then you can't turn round a bit later and say "Oh but I don't want any worms that cause blindness - Smite!"

Because he isn't interested?

Because we are an experiment and he doesn't want to "contaminate" the data with outside interference?

I think if you believe in a loving, omnipotent, omniscient god you are always going to come up against this contradiction regarding why there is suffering, why doesn't he intervene. In my cosmology there is no god, not one that requires worsip or is sat meddling (or not meddling) in human affairs. I am more swayed by the concept of a world soul/cosmic consciousness/whatever you want to call it. The spark of life within all living things comes from this source, so we are all connected, and when we die we return to that source. Bad stuff happens because we are part of the natural world, not because god is trying to punish us.

Amumin - when you refer to god is it the Abrahamic god or something else? I don't think your description of god is one that I could square with biblical god.

Very well said redmolly

Amumin - so god recoils from wiping out a species of worm on the grounds that he doesn't like to meddle with how things have gone but is happy to wipe out 99.999 percent of life on earth in one flood? Apologies if you're not referring to Yahweh though.

One of the most powerful books on this subject is by Pete Greig God on Mute: Engaging the Silence of Unanswered Prayer. Written by the founder of the 24/7 prayer movement it is a powerful testimony as to the actions of prayer and examing some of the whys surrounding apparent non answers. He is very honest and straightforward.

You have to wonder why god couldn't have given the writers of the bible the same inspiration he gave Greig seeing as it's necessary to read his book to justify the seeming inconsistencies in the bible.

It was only a few weeks ago we discussed the efficacy if prayer and the studies that have been done to find any demonstrable benefit. One such showed a negative effective in that knowing you were being prayed for saw an increase in complications in the recovery of heart op patients.

Headinhands: your points are based on the idea that unless Christians take the Bible absolutely literally they cannot be Christians. Clearly AMumInScotland (and I) don't nor do most Christians. So I doubt very much that she thinks that the flood in Genesis really happened. There isn't any need to square it with natural selection. A story can tell us important things even if it we know it is a story.

I'm repeating my post above, since no-one seems to have read it.

I believe that God answers prayer; but the answers aren't usually the ones we think we are going to get, or maybe even want. Sometimes he answers prayer and the answer is 'no'; sometimes the answer isn't apparent to us except with hindsight.

I find it useful to think about all the things that children ask their parents for. How often do we, as parents, have to say no? How often do we have to say, well, I can't do that, but I can do something else? How often do we say, do it yourself? We do that because it's not good for children to have everything they ask for, and because it's sometimes not in our power to give them what they want, and because sometimes they have to get it themselves.

But surely, we say, God could do everything, and it is wrong of him not to? Surely it is wrong of him not to prevent all suffering? But what would a world without any suffering really be like? There would be no pain, but then there would be no joy either -- simply a blank contentedness.

And if God did intervene to stop all suffering, then what would our free will be worth? God made the universe to be free to be itself -- full of chance, risk, pain and joy. It's one of those zero-sum questions: either we have free will, or we don't. A world where God stops all suffering is one that is not free to be itself.

That doesn't mean that God never speaks to us, and that he doesn't have a purpose for our lives. But he works through what we are and what we do. Most often, when we pray that something in the world might be changed, what he changes is us -- that we might work to bring about the change we pray for.

It's such a hard one, isn't it? I've said before on this board that I'ver had a long term illness for many years, despite the prayers of many faithful Christians who have prayed for healing. My illness has shaped my life in many ways, most of which I cannot be conscious of as they are too intrinsic to who I am. It's stopped me doing things, but started me doing other things as well. It's been difficult to have dc, but I am really glad to have my two (no chance of any more after that due to illness). Anyone who has known me over the years will know the low points, the real pain and suffering.

Obviously, I don't know yet how my life will pan out, when I will die, whether I will get much worse, whether my later life will be absolutely awful with unbreable pain, or whether a cure will be discovered which will enable me to live a long and pain free life. My chances of a long life are lower than most people's, but hey, really, who knows?

So where's God in all this? To me, God is where God always is, whether we are well, terribly ill, or somewhere in between - God is in us, with us, in the breaking of bread in Holy Communion, in his body which is his people, on the cross, bearing our sufferings, and disguised as a gardener after the resurrection, calling our name and helping us to realise that He is alive. No, I know that's not much of an apologetic, not much of a rationalist argument for why someone with a long term illness still believes - but it is what it's like to be me, to see the world through eyes of faith.

...Which is another thing. I don't think any one of us has any right to question God's dealings with any other person. It'd be so easy for all of those Christians who've prayed for me to get all cross on my behalf because I'm still not cured, but, the thing is, they're not me. They don't know how this feels, how it affects my life day-to-day and long term. Maybe I don't yet, either. Maybe it'll only be when I'm old that I can look back and have some perspective on how illness shapes who we are. Maybe I'll never know, maybe it'll always be too subconscious, too intrinsically bound up wih who I am. Which is maybe why faith is the only way to live really IMO.

Sorry that was a bit rambling! But it's a big question.

Some truly bizarre circular arguments going on here. "If god intervenes to stop all our suffering then what would our free will be worth?"

Either he answers prayers or he doesn't. If he doesn't he needs to stop getting the credit for things he had nothing to do with, like that crazy story about the woman walking down the alleyway .

Why on earth would he let children die of cancer if he could intervene to stop it? That and that alone proves for me that either god does not exist or he's the biggest bastard around.

Niminy - your response comes back to my first post on this thread about goal posts and interpretation.

No, sciencelover, I don't always see it as emotionally healing. I see a great deal of emotional harm done by religion. And I find the idea that a child can die young and live in bliss in heaven utterly tragic. I want my children to grow up here, with their loved ones and their friends and to experience life with all it blemishes and all its wonder.

And what about the unending agony of those left behind when their loved ones die young?