Stephen Fry and God
Stephen Fry has caused a bit of a stir with his comments to Gay Byrne on the kind of god he does not believe in. As is his habit, Fry did non hold back:
How cartel yous? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is non our fault. Information technology's non correct, it'southward utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and hurting. That'due south what I would say.
At present, if I died and it was Pluto, Hades, and if it was the 12 Greek gods so I would have more than truck with it, because the Greeks didn't pretend to not exist human in their appetites, in their capriciousness, and in their unreasonableness… they didn't nowadays themselves as beingness all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all-beneficent, considering the god that created this universe, if information technology was created by god, is quite clearly a bedlamite… utter maniac, totally selfish.
We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that?
It'southward worth listening to the clip yourself, if you have non already done so.
Before engaging in the substance, there are a few things worth noting almost this as communication. First, it is curious either that Byrne should be surprised by this 'outburst' or that Fry should be surprised past the response. Fry's comments are simply what you would expect if yous had done your inquiry well (or even watched a couple of episodes of QI) and when you lot call the god that many people claim to believe in 'arbitrary, hateful-minded, stupid…an utter maniac, totally selfish' you would have to be living on another planet to imagine this will not crusade a stir of some sort.
Just the second thing worth noting is that Fry's comments are expressed in highly emotive terms. Fry cites Bertrand Russell every bit one of his rational forebears in this atheist tradition, and a adept many atheists have welcomed his comments equally some kind of knock-down logical argument to which religion has no response. When I was discussing this on local radio with a humanist, his main comment was 'I am glad people are asking questions—that's what I want people to do.' Curiously, non many are asking questions about Fry's own comments, for practiced reason: his fashion does non invite questioning. In turns out, for example, that the eyeball-burrowing worm he mentions does not in fact be. Earlier in the programme, Fry had mentioned that he stole a jacket as a teenager and lived the high life off credit cards he had establish in the pocket for three months.
"He gave as his respond every bit to how he got away with information technology for iii months, part of the reason was he is a very big guy, and secondly he said, 'because I had an aura of dominance about it'." said Gay.
"He had this voice, this very upper class British voice. He said, 'When I effect a argument information technology stays issued and you'd exist a very brave person to accept me on.'"
The popularity of Fry's approach is that information technology is emotive and closes questions downward, rather than that it is rational and opens questions up, which is somewhat ironic.
Thirdly, we demand to remember that scepticism is easy—that'south why so many stand-upward comics deal with scepticism and cynicism in their textile. Being disquisitional of something is commonly quick and easy; offering a reflective defence on any result requires a lot more than piece of work—and usually depends on the kind of patience and trust within the chat which is hard to plant in any broadcast medium.
In terms of a the substance of Fry's objection, at that place are a number of inter-related things to say. First, we take to admit there is no quick and piece of cake philosophical response to the problem of suffering. That applies to Fry's comments as much as information technology does to the standard Christians arguments. Fry isnon offer a solution to the trouble of suffering; when you abolish God, you practice not cancel the trouble of pain. In upshot, he is saying 'There is no solution, so just get on with it.' As David Robertson responds:
If you take God out of the equation you even so accept the suffering, pain and apparent meaninglessness. Evolution still provides y'all with the worm that burrows through children's eyes. What'southward your answer and solution – apart from suck information technology upwardly and run into?
On the other paw, some of the classic Christian responses don't cutting the mustard either. The pop version of the classic 'free will defense force' says that a suffering world is a necessary consequence of God giving humanity free will. This does offer ane answer to Fry's comment that God 'could easily' have created a world without suffering; it looks about equally easy as making a square circle. Just an obvious response to the free will defence is: well, was it really worth it? Is my human dignity really worth giving someone the ability to torture another human being and burn them alive, let alone the suffering caused by natural disasters? Besides, when someone is in a identify of suffering themselves, the last thing they demand is a philosophical defence of God.
This relates to the second chief issue: the god that Fry describes is not the God that most Christians believe in. This God does not sit aloof from a suffering world, nor is the earth the manner God intended it to be. It is non as straightforward as saying that homo sin causes tsunamis, simply Scripture is clear that human sin does destroy relationships in wedlock (Gen 3), in families (Gen four) and across club (Gen 8–xi). It harms the earth (Hosea four.three), and in some mysterious sense the whole of creation is 'in chains to disuse' (Romans 8.21). And God's response to this is i of both justice and compassion—to the point of stepping into this troubled globe. A god who does not share in the suffering of the earth is not a god worth believing in.
It is striking that this God allows, even encourages, questioning. Human protestations against God occupy a large part of the Psalms, and the entirety of the book of Job. And contrary to Fry's assertion, God isn't interested in people grovelling in gratitude at his unquestioning power. In Ps 95, God'south power evokes celebration, not grovelling, and bowing downwardly in worship is a response to his tender care, not his omnipotence.
Thirdly, if in that location is no god, where does Fry get his sense of justice and injustice from? On what grounds does he make a judgement about things being 'evil', which is a moral, not a rational, category? The evangelist Michael Green'southward first experience of university missions was at the London School of Economics—a hotbed of left-fly liberalism—in the 1960s. He leapt onto the phase in front of a group of sceptical atheists and called out 'Why are you lot revolting?' He was asking where their sense of correct and wrong and injustice came from, if not from God. 'God has left his footprints in the heart of humanity' (see Ecc 3.eleven).
A much more than consistent position for an atheist is that expounded by Richard Dawkins:
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, bullheaded concrete forces and genetic replication, some people are going to become hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and yous won't find whatsoever 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 only pitiless indifference.
This is a much more than coherent position—but I suspect Fry is very well enlightened that it is not very appealing, and does not look like very expert PR. Nor does it actually respond the question he raises; instead, it declares the question itself meaningless. In that sense, the questions that Fry raises are really close to questions of faith, non questions of unbelief.
This leads on to a related question: Where does Fry find hope for an stop to suffering, or for any sense of justice and accountability? Will those who burn alive a Jordanian airplane pilot ever be held to business relationship? Or (more pertinently for an atheist) will those responsible for Stalin's killing of 20 million people always face justice? Information technology might exist that suggesting there is a god who sees all this and will hold people to business relationship in judgement is an inadequate respond. But information technology starts to look like the least worse selection when the culling is that there is no-one who sees and justice will never exist done.
The Christian vision for the earth is that one day there will be an end to suffering, and in that location will be an account given of all injustice and oppression—that, through the self-giving suffering of God, evil will in some mysterious style be brought to an terminate. This tin still be dismissed every bit wishful thinking, and I should make clear that I don't believe this because information technology would be squeamish—I believe it because I think information technology is true!
There is a real claiming here for atheists to offer a apparent, hopeful alternative. It is all very well telling wealthy Londoners to 'end worrying and savour life', only that doesn't cut much water ice with the vast majority of humanity who accept plenty to worry about and many fewer resources with which to relish life.
The terminal question Fry raises is that of human action. If God were to make a world without suffering, what would it look like? What would God arbitrate to prevent? Tsunamis and earthquakes are one matter; but what kinds of man activeness would God foreclose? I am certain nosotros would exist happy to see an end to war, murder, rape and abuse. But what most rivalry and jealousy, which has so oft inhibited scientific development? What about lack of cooperation and sharing of information that could bring existent relief to human suffering? What nigh financial inequality, which is possibly the greatest threat to global well-being? Stephen Fry's cyberspace worth has been estimated at around £20m, though anyone with a net worth of £500,000 is in the richest one% of the world who own half the world's capital assets. Beyond all that, what would this omnipotent God do nigh the sheer indifference of most humanity to the suffering of others? For many of u.s.a., God's lack of action (for the moment) looks like a mercy—an opportunity to 'redeem our lives'.
These questions take a connectedness with the free volition defence. Only they have sharper resonance with the effect of human responsibility. Equally John Goldingay once said:
The trouble of theodicy is not the justification of a holy God in the face of suffering humanity, but the justification of sinful humanity in the face up of a holy God.
Fry claims that 'the moment you blackball [God] life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner'. The testimony of history hardly supports such a claim.
In the aforementioned week that Stephen Fry was railing against worms that caused suffering, information technology was announced that another similar affliction was coming to an end—that of the guinea worm.
A devastating tropical disease should be eradicated within iii years, says the one-time American president leading the fight against information technology. There were three.v million cases of guinea worm worldwide when Jimmy Carter's arrangement started tackling the disease in 1986. Now there are just 126 cases globally – many of them in South Sudan and Mali.
Old US President Jimmy Carter has been motivated to this work by his evangelical faith—faith in the god that Fry appears to refuse. The Carter Foundation'due south next goal is to eliminate river blindness. Possibly his legacy is the best answer to Fry's complaint.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance ground. If you have valued this postal service, would you considerdonating £one.20 a month to support the product of this weblog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can brand a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skilful comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add together real value. Seek showtime to understand, then to exist understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate equally a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/stephen-fry-and-god/
0 Response to "Stephen Fry and God"
Post a Comment