When something beneficial happens to a person of faith, we are told that god is good. But when children under the age of five are killed by the millions each year, we are told that god is mysterious. To confuse this for morality is a failure of reasoning.
The video below lays out this argument in detail.
The alternative explanation of course is that tragic things happen to children as a results of natural, economic, and environmental factors. This is terrible, but you must realize that the world was not made for us. Just like any other organism, we are subject to the callous vortex of physical laws. To acknowledge this is important. With this view we can properly appreciate the suffering of others without explaining it away with a “god’s plan” type of argument.
Attributing suffering to a god necessarily makes the claim that this god is perfectly good nonsensical. If we are to live in a rational world, you must have enough moral fortitude to accept both the cruel and the wonderful of our world. To give agency to these happenings is “the perfection of narcissism,” and cheapens the suffering of other human beings.
Science-Based Life 
Kyle, I too find the horrific tragedies of others deeply disturbing, both emotionally and spiritually. I battle to make this world a better place daily. But unfortunately no one can remove all the suffering from the world. That does not mean that God doesn’t love us or doesn’t exist.
Have you ever watched a chick hatch? My sister bought a few last year to raise, and as I watched them peck at their shell with all their might until total exhaustion, I wanted to relieve them by removing the shell for them. That would make life more painless for them, right? Of course, it would not — they need the strength from that harsh experience to go on living. And of course, the chick does not understand this either.
There are lots of reasons and aspects for suffering. And I don’t know why they all happen. But I do know that we must not get caught up in the events of pain to say “no one who loves me would let me suffer like this.”
Here’s a talk I highly recommend: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-songs-they-could-not-sing
BTW, I must tell you that I find this speaker to be either extremely dishonest or misinformed in his description and judgment of religion and its “immorality”. There is definitely some chip on his shoulder!
Steve, the question is how can a supposedly all-good and all-loving good visit such torment on innocent children (even at this instant). If you define god as a being who is all-good and all-powerful and just and merciful, clearly that god does not exist or does not care to alleviate such suffering. For the worst tragedies in human history, there is no divine intervention. Either god does not care or he is evil (or he does not exist).
Your chick example is by extension morally reprehensible. You are saying that millions and millions of innocent children die to get “strength from that harsh experience.” If god existed and was all-good and all-loving he could easily stop it from happening. But of course, he does not. Your faith allows you to say such things. In any other context you wouldn’t even contemplate such a request. The death of 9 million young and innocent children each year is for their own benefit? Or for the benefit of their parents? The only reason you consider that to be somehow moral is because of your faith.
You are basically making the “god is mysterious” argument as offered in the video. Again, your faith allows you to brush aside a veritable decimation of innocent children as an event “we must not get caught up in.” I find this abhorrent.
What was the speaker dishonest about? The fact that god does nothing to save millions of innocent children? Or the fact that faith lets people cheapen the suffering of millions?
“Your chick example is by extension morally reprehensible.” It was meant, of course, only as an analogy, and not to degrade human life to that of a chick. The suffering of little children is revolting especially to Christ, who knows all pain (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/18.6-7?lang=eng#5).
“How can a supposedly all-good and all-loving good visit such torment on innocent children (even at this instant).” This is a fundamentally flawed assessment. *God* did not cause any harm to these innocent children, did He? Just as if someone punches you in the jaw, God didn’t do it, right? The blessing (and perhaps the curse?) of God to each of His children on earth is that they have agency — the choice of how to act. They are responsible to God for how they use their agency, but it is their choice. Other people — both religious and non-religious in fact — choose to use their agency for good, and they too will be held responsible to God’s justice and find immense joy for it. (I also will those innocent victims who suffered terribly at the hand of evil men will be eternally rewarded by God as recompense.) But emphasis must be made that it is man’s choice, not God’s. If your argument is “God could save them but doesn’t”…. well, just look at what people jeered at Christ on the cross: (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/23.36-39?lang=eng#35)
“For the worst tragedies in human history, there is no divine intervention.” I will be the first to acknowledge that there have been too many horrible tragedies throughout history. But there are also storybooks (non-fiction) full of events where God did save them. For example, my church’s early Mormon history of pioneers who both suffered great tragedies and enjoyed wondrous miracles. God’s way ARE INDEED higher than ours. Perhaps that fact strikes at the core of the human (and even scientific) hubris. But it is nevertheless true, similar in concept to how my ways are higher than my dog’s ways (simply put).
Many good people and churches, including mine, do so many great acts of organized charity and kindness around the world, trying to relieve as many of those who are in pain as possible. It is the teaching of Christ to do so, to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
Still, much more of your question can be answered from that link I gave you if you’d read it.
Unfortunately, natural disasters still fall under the purview of god’s “power.” If god controls everything and is in all things, and the climate does not have human agency or free will, then the millions of people who die on account of natural disasters are still attributable to god.
Still you are explaining away human suffering. Name me one example in modern history where god has saved people from an earthquake, a tsunami, a flood, etc. When something good happens, god is said to be good. When something bad happens, you explain it away by saying we can’t understand god. If we can’t understand god’s ways, how are you so sure of his goodness? Accept one or the other and do not lessen the suffering of millions.
Saying that you do good works does not say anything about why a supposedly all-good and all-loving god lets so much evil happen (that is not caused by any agent besides god) to so many innocent people.
“If we can’t understand god’s ways, how are you so sure of his goodness?”
God is good. God is love. But more importantly, God is perfectly just and all-wise. I am neither. As such, how could I possibly describe His purposes. It is logically impossible. You may as well ask my dog how to build a house, or a chick why it must break through its shell.
However, I believe that one day, after this life, we will come to understand God’s purposes for our lives, each of which are unique in some way. And there will be one gigantic palm-to-the-forehead, and a bent knee to our Father and loving creator.
“Saying that you do good works does not say anything about why a supposedly all-good and all-loving god lets so much evil happen.” I believe that you’ve partly answered your own question. Sometimes he lets these things happen so we can help one-another, and prove we are willing to help His children instead of pursue our selfish desires. But you are certainly right, I cannot explain why all the suffering of innocent children happens. It is a sad thought, and I believe it makes God weep as well.
You say:
Explain to me the justice or love in murdering millions of children each year. I do not think it can be explained with your conception of god. It does not fit with any description of him and is morally inconsistent.
Again, you are using a double standard. If god is always good, you must think that god is still good when he allows so much evil. How do you reason with this? Saying “god is mysterious” whenever anything bad happens is simply avoiding the question.
You are quite literally saying that god allows an untold scope of human suffering to occur so that “we can help one-another.” I find this morally reprehensible. Your belief in a kind and just god is clearly refuted by the objective state of suffering in our world, and lets you ignore it by saying “god is mysterious.” I think this is a failure to logically extend one’s concerns for other people.
You say that you cannot explain why so many children suffer. But the answer to me is evident: Either your god is not as just or kind or powerful or loving as you believe, or an all-loving god (as you described above) does not exist (or does not play a role in our lives). Logically extend your skepticism about the problem of evil and see where it takes you.
Kyle, it’s quite obvious to me that you haven’t read the material I’ve sent you, let alone taken it into consideration. I thought that’s how discussions should go, especially skeptical ones. Consideration of all the facts?
To me, your perspective is very shallow and one-sided on a deep topic, I’m sorry if that sounds derogatory. Yet you have not proven anything without taking all the facts and concepts into consideration. This could be an interesting discussion, but unfortunately it is going no-where, and it’s your fault — or maybe not, because you can’t choose right?
This is awful (I mean the part of kids dying). What are you going to do about it?