Conversation with atheist

[icamhif]

But in this case you already have enough free will to choose between being kind and helpful or not being kind and helpful. And simply not being kind and helpful is worlds apart from torturing, maiming or slaughtering others. The number one problem when discussing the “free will” is that many people simply forget that most of our actions are neutral, neither good nor evil, as such we have sufficient “free will” if we can choose among morally neutral actions. To bad that no matter how frequently this is pointed out, they never learn.

Of course being kind and helpful only matters on the psychological level. Whether the doctor performs an operation on you because it is required by his Hippocratic oath, or if the genuinely cares about you makes no difference on the efficacy of the procedure itself. However, there is an extra advantage for the patient if he sees the signs of genuine caring. But there is no difference between real, genuine caring and correctly simulated (or emulated) caring. The outer signs are the same, and the patent has no access to the internal thought processes of the doctor. So a properly designed and an manufactured “robot” doctor would be exactly as efficient in performing the procedures as the human one, and the “caring” procedure would be there as well.

So what is the advantage of “free will”? None!

Pallas, for what it’s worth, I like your points. I suppose that it is possible to think of a world where all possible actions are either good or neutral. But my question is: how do we define “neutral?” Where do you think an action crosses the line between neutral and evil? Is neglecting to be helpful and caring a neutral act, or an evil act? Surely, you would agree that if my doctor does not perform an operation on me, it is not just a neutral act.

To put it another way: if God created a world where it is possible to do anything but murder, rape, torture, or anything of equal wickedness, would you have still cried, “Why does God allow negligence to happen?”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

icamhif:

Pallas, for what it’s worth, I like your points.

You just made my day!!! Thank you!

icamhif:

I suppose that it is possible to think of a world where all possible actions are either good or neutral. But my question is: how do we define “neutral?” Where do you think an action crosses the line between neutral and evil? Is neglecting to be helpful and caring a neutral act, or an evil act? Surely, you would agree that if my doctor does not perform an operation on me, it is not just a neutral act.

To put it another way: if God created a world where it is possible to do anything but murder, rape, torture, or anything of equal wickedness, would you have still cried, “Why does God allow negligence to happen?”

Let’s cross that bridge when we get there. As soon as God eliminates all the rapes and tortures we shall be in an excellent position to investigate the “next step”. But you are right; it is a good idea to define the concept of “evil”, “good” and “neutral”. The usual catholic definition is “evil is the privation (or lack) of good”. I do not agree with that - and if you are interested, I am willing to explain it in detail. So here are the definitions as I use them:

1. “Good” is an action to promote life or increase its quality.
2. “Evil” is the intentional and volitional action of doing or allowing harm to someone who has a nervous system. The one who performs the action must be aware of the ramification his action. So “evil” is a complicated phenomenon.
3. “Neutral” is none of the above.

So negligence - when someone could help, but refuses to do it - is definitely “evil”. The point is that performing an act or not performing an act are equally despicable; or in other words there is no difference between “commission” and “omission”.

 

[icamhif]

You just made my day!!! Thank you!

Let’s cross that bridge when we get there. As soon as God eliminates all the rapes and tortures we shall be in an excellent position to investigate the “next step”. But you are right; it is a good idea to define the concept of “evil”, “good” and “neutral”. The usual catholic definition is “evil is the privation (or lack) of good”. I do not agree with that - and if you are interested, I am willing to explain it in detail. So here are the definitions as I use them:

1. “Good” is an action to promote life or increase its quality.
2. “Evil” is the intentional and volitional action of doing or allowing harm to someone who has a nervous system. The one who performs the action must be aware of the ramification his action. So “evil” is a complicated phenomenon.
3. “Neutral” is none of the above.

So negligence - when someone could help, but refuses to do it - is definitely “evil”. The point is that performing an act or not performing an act are equally despicable; or in other words there is no difference between “commission” and “omission”.

Okay. What are some examples of “Neutral” acts?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Okay. What are some examples of “Neutral” acts?

Reading a book, listening to music, taking a walk, going to a movie, performing your job, playing a game, talking to your friends, taking a vacation, going to a restaurant… and zillions more. All of these activities have lots of “choices” imbedded in them. And none of the choices have a “moral” overtone to them. So free will is intact, and one would not become a “robot” by depriving him of the possibility to rape and kill.

 

[icamhif]

Reading a book, listening to music, taking a walk, going to a movie, performing your job, playing a game, talking to your friends, taking a vacation, going to a restaurant… and zillions more. All of these activities have lots of “choices” imbedded in them. And none of the choices have a “moral” overtone to them. So free will is intact, and one would not become a “robot” by depriving him of the possibility to rape and kill.

I would argue that all of these acts are “good,” as long as they are not done at the expense of you or other’s well-being. I’m not sure if I agree with your definition that an action needs to “improve” the quality of life in order for it to be good. I would, instead, say that things like charity and donations are more than “good.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I would argue that all of these acts are “good,” as long as they are not done at the expense of you or other’s well-being.

Oh, I agree with you, but there is something that needs to be pointed out. There are biologically and socially “good”. It is peculiar to the English language that there is a word “missing”.

We have a word: “bad”, which describes a biologically undesirable condition. We also have a word: “evil” which describes an intentionally harmful activity, performed volitionally and purposefully.

The opposite (not the negation!) of “bad” is “good”, but there is no opposite of “evil”. All those activities we spoke about are biologically or socially good, but morally neutral.

A few more examples: “trimming your fingernails” is definitely a morally neutral activity. Getting a “haircut” is morally neutral. Choosing a “pineapple” over a “apple” is morally neutral action. I contend that most of our activities are morally neutral, and therefore even after removing all the “morally bad” or “evil” activities we would still have a plethora of “choices”, and as such we would not turn into “robots”. That is all I am talking about.

I’m not sure if I agree with your definition that an action needs to “improve” the quality of life in order for it to be good. I would, instead, say that things like charity and donations are more than “good.”

There was an “or” in the proposition you reflected upon: “or improving the quality of life”. Charity and donations are not only “biologically good”, but are also “morally good” - and it is inconvenient that there is no simple word to describe it.

 

[icamhif]

I would take it a step further: If something you do infringes on the well-being of others, then it is morally evil, regardless of whether it is biologically and/or socially good. Conversely, if something you do is biologically and socially good and no corruption comes out of it, then it is morally good.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I would take it a step further: If something you do infringes on the well-being of others, then it is morally evil, regardless of whether it is biologically and/or socially good. Conversely, if something you do is biologically and socially good and no corruption comes out of it, then it is morally good.

I think that this should be refined and discussed in more detail. The next thought experiment is just a hypothetical, but it points out the difficulties.

Suppose that someone develops a cure for cancer, which would necessitate to forcefully extract a milliliter of blood from everyone between the age of 25 and 26. That would include people who consider their own blood sacrosanct (like Jehovah’s Witnesses). Of course they would suffer no physical harm in this process, but there would be a psychological harm, infringing on their privacy and deeply held beliefs.

So would it be “morally evil” to do this process? I agree that the end does not justify the means, and I argue that the end and the means must be examined together, and the justification must be based on this examination process. In this example the psychological harm perpetrated on a small group of people is more than “outweighed” by the good of finding a cure for cancer.

A similar thought experiment could be to “steal” one penny from all the millionaires to facilitate the cancer research. Here there would be an infringement on the property right of the owners. Very probably the millionaires would be willing to donate that penny, but that is irrelevant. Without that permission it would be “theft”, a supposedly mortal sin.

Another problem is that you did not mention the “awareness” of the perpetrator. The usual example is that cat that “plays” with the mouse. The cat is not aware of the agony of the mouse, and as such its action is not morally “evil”.

---

Be as it may, I think that we need to get a conclusion on the fact that most actions are neither morally good or bad (evil) and as such the removal of evil actions would not render us “robots”. Would you please give me your thoughts about this, so we can concentrate on the other issues?

 

[icamhif]

Be as it may, I think that we need to get a conclusion on the fact that most actions are neither morally good or bad (evil) and as such the removal of evil actions would not render us “robots”. Would you please give me your thoughts about this, so we can concentrate on the other issues?

Certainly. At the moment, I’m not entirely convinced that there is such thing as a completely neutral moral act. There are choices with varying degrees of evil and choices with varying degrees of good. Things you perceive as neutral like reading a book and listening to music are, if done without being a detriment to the well-being of yourself or others, are not only biologically good because it gives you relaxation, not only socially good because it heightens your awareness of other’s values, but also morally good because it is free from corruption.

I would respond to your other points, but as you say, I agree with you that we must focus on this point first, as it seems that it is most fundamental to our differences.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

icamhif:

Certainly. At the moment, I’m not entirely convinced that there is such thing as a completely neutral moral act. There are choices with varying degrees of evil and choices with varying degrees of good. Things you perceive as neutral like reading a book and listening to music are, if done without being a detriment to the well-being of yourself or others, are not only biologically good because it gives you relaxation, not only socially good because it heightens your awareness of other’s values, but also morally good because it is free from corruption.

I would respond to your other points, but as you say, I agree with you that we must focus on this point first, as it seems that it is most fundamental to our differences.

I certainly agree that there are varying degrees of good and evil. To tear out the wings of a fly is not as serious as burning a cat alive.

But I have problems with your phrase of “detriment to the well-being of yourself”. Everyone has dominion over one’s own existence and whatever you do to your own body is no one else’s business. Of course here we run into a problem. Since we are both individuals and social beings, there needs to be a balancing act between the two aspects and results of any given action. But actions that do not cause harm to others cannot be considered “evil”. Moreover, an action that causes unintended harm to others is not “evil”. As I tried to say before, the term “evil” is a very strictly defined category, not to be used willy-nilly. It requires “ill intent”.

I don’t know what you mean by “free from corruption”. Would you explain? It seems to me that we might benefit from establishing a visual representation of different actions and their “moral” content. For example a scale from minus ten to plus ten, where the negative values would represent a negative assessment of an action, while the positive values represent to morally good actions. But as you pointed out not all actions have the same value, and I would say that the values close to zero would be the neutral actions.

A few more examples: parting your hair on the right or on the left is not a moral choice. Choosing to walk to work or taking your bicycle is not a moral choice either. Buying a Big Mac and not a Whopper is indifferent morally. Drinking a beer or a wine at dinner is a neutral choice. I think you stretched the “moral choice” a little too far in your analysis. Please let me know what makes a choice “moral” in your vocabulary.

 

[MarkInOregon]

*** sigh *** That is not what I said or insinuated. The point is that believers SAY all sorts of things ABOUT God which are logically inconsistent. Good parents forgive their children (unconditionally, of course) and do not chase them out of the house. They do not curse them for disobedience. But that is a minor issue. What I would like to understand is why do some believers argue for the continued existence of psychopaths and sociopaths? What do these people ADD to the love we feel toward others, and how would their removal from this existence negate or lower our love toward our fellow humans. After all there are ample natural causes for pain and suffering and we could fulfill our need to care for others by helping these people. I wish someone would take these questions seriously and attempt to answer them.

Sometimes good parents–in the case of addicted children for example–have no other recourse than to kick a child they love out of the house. No parent does it gladly or joyfully and it a source of great pain and sorrow for them. But sometimes their safety or the safety of other children in the home are at stake. Forgiveness and help are offered but they are not always accepted and they cannot be forced on children after a certain age.

Believers don’t argue for the continued existence of psychopaths as if they add something to our society. They may think freedom is a good thing and that certain things come from everyone having freedom that they don’t like–that’s not the same as advocating for their existence–which is kind of what you imply. Their removal wouldn’t negate our love as long as we still had our freedom. I’m not sure that if I can only act in a programmed way–that you can say I am doing anything out of love–I’d be doing the only thing I could do–there wouldn’t be any motive behind the action–it would simply be an action.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sometimes good parents–in the case of addicted children for example–have no other recourse than to kick a child they love out of the house. No parent does it gladly or joyfully and it a source of great pain and sorrow for them. But sometimes their safety or the safety of other children in the home are at stake. Forgiveness and help are offered but they are not always accepted and they cannot be forced on children after a certain age.

Let’s be more accurate in translating the biblical story into modern day terms. Parent tells the child: “Do not smoke that cigarette because the very day you do; you surely will get lung cancer”. A bigger boy comes and tells child: “Don’t worry, you will not get lung cancer from one cigarette”. Child smokes one cigarette. Parent discovers it. Does not give a second chance, kicks child out of the house, curses the child (and all his descendants). One strike and you are out! No learning occurs, nor it is possible. Sorry, but that is not one would expect from a “loving” parent.

Believers don’t argue for the continued existence of psychopaths as if they add something to our society. They may think freedom is a good thing and that certain things come from everyone having freedom that they don’t like–that’s not the same as advocating for their existence–which is kind of what you imply.

I guess they do not even realize what they actually advocate. And unbridled freedom is definitely NOT a good idea.

Their removal wouldn’t negate our love as long as we still had our freedom.

Yes, this is correct.

I’m not sure that if I can only act in a programmed way–that you can say I am doing anything out of love–I’d be doing the only thing I could do–there wouldn’t be any motive behind the action–it would simply be an action.

You contradicted yourself. You correctly pointed out that your freedom is not affected by their presence or absence. As such you would still have zillions of choices, and you could decide which choice you will instantiate. Some might be better, some might be inferior. You could choose to give a dollar to a beggar, or you could give two dollars. That would be a meaningful choice - and it would NOT be programmed. Don’t think in binary categories. A simple action without a motive is exactly as beneficial to the recipient as the one backed up by good intentions. If someone needs a hug to help to deal with a sorrowful event, that hug is welcome whether the one who gives it genuinely cares for the other one, or just pretends it. We can not “peek” into the head of another person, all we can do is judge by the appearances.

If you wish to argue for the continued presence of psychopaths and sociopaths, you need to bring up positive evidence that their removal would do more harm than good. Please do not attempt to say: “Well, we cannot know it, but since God allows their continued existence, there must be some very good reason for it”. This would be a blatant “argumentum ad ignoratiam”.

 

[eddie_too]

“If God is good, why is God letting all the violence to take place in this world?”

are your friends arguing that God is evil or bad? are they trying to convince you that the Creator of all things, the Infinite Perfection is evil?

if that is what they believe, your prayers for them are far more important than any of their questions you might be able to answer.

OR,

are they asking this question to justify their believing there is NO GOD?

it seems to me that they are trying to impose an impossible to resolve dilemma on you. they are saying because there is evil in creation then either there is no God or God is evil.

this is a false conclusion and can only be voiced by those without faith. again, prayer for those bound by this ignorance is probably a much better strategy than dialogue. dialogue is most valuable when engaging a person who accepts they do not have all of the answers and sincerely desires to learn more.

one thing that should be clear even to the most obtuse among them is that they do not have the intelligence that is possessed by Perfect Being.

sadly, for thousands of years, human beings have been justifying rejection of God by making their own limited intelligence the demarcation of correct understanding.

the real answer is to tell them that just because they cannot understand Infinite Perfection is never a justification for abandoning one’s desire to be united with Them (the Three Divine Persons).

such people are only fooling themselves by pretending that they are justified in rejecting what they cannot understand. time and again in their daily lives they accept what they cannot understand. why, now, on this particular point, must understanding be a pre-requisite for accepting?

ultimately, the correct course is to provide to them what they can understand. any one can understand God becoming man and sacrificing Himself on the cross so that we might believe. if the Cross of Christ does not persuade a person of God’s love and goodness, I do not know what we have left to give some one. if the Resurrection of Christ does not persuade a person of the truth of the Cross, what will persuade him or her?

everything in existence points to something greater than human beings and greater than the entire universe.

finally, faith precedes understanding. those without faith can never understand reality as deeply as those with faith. this is because only faith can provide the human being with accurate knowledge and understanding of the spiritual side (as opposed to the physical side) of creation.

the physical universe is not all of creation. the physical universe does not exist in a vacuum unaffected by the spiritual universe nor is the spiritual universe unaffected by the physical universe. until a person understands that, there is little (beyond prayer and witness through action) that can be done to help them to realize the innate potential with which their Creator gifted them.

ask them, why would you reject the idea of a loving God knowing that He became man and offered His life on the Cross so that you might be saved? it is true they have already answered that their own finite knowledge and understanding is what they find more convincing than the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. and therein lies the great mystery of salvation, faith is a gift. our prayers can increase faith in this world because Jesus answers our prayers and He will most certainly respond with the gift of faith for those for whom we pray. my own experience in this area along with st. monica’s leads me to say that it may take years and years of prayer before a person receives the faith we pray they receive.

 

[MarkInOregon]

You contradicted yourself. You correctly pointed out that your freedom is not affected by their presence or absence.

sigh That is not at all what I said. I said: “Their removal wouldn’t negate our love as long as we had our freedom.”

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Pallas_Athene]

sigh That is not at all what I said. I said: “Their removal wouldn’t negate our love as long as we had our freedom.”

Pray tell, how could the absence or removal of a rapist or murderer affect your freedom to love? Is your freedom to love someone contingent upon the existence of murderers?The second part of your sentence “as long as we had our freedom” was just an unnecessary “filler”. Short of a total brainwashing nothing can take away your freedom to love.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Certainly. At the moment, I’m not entirely convinced that there is such thing as a completely neutral moral act. There are choices with varying degrees of evil and choices with varying degrees of good. Things you perceive as neutral like reading a book and listening to music are, if done without being a detriment to the well-being of yourself or others, are not only biologically good because it gives you relaxation, not only socially good because it heightens your awareness of other’s values, but also morally good because it is free from corruption.

I would respond to your other points, but as you say, I agree with you that we must focus on this point first, as it seems that it is most fundamental to our differences.

Interesting, but ultimately not too important. Even if all actions end up being slightly good or bad, being forced to choose from only good options still gives us many options to free-will choose between.

It would be like if God was a musician and wanted us all to play music. Some people might disobey and make non-musical or semi-musical sounds. If God only made people who actually played music, those people would still have lots of free-will options available to them. They could choose their instrument, style, and band-mates for example.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The consequence of their sin was exactly like the law of gravity! That’s why God said everything was for them to enjoy, except that one tree which would cause them to die. He didn’t trick them, He told them what would happen…the devil, lied & tricked them.

So how did Mary get out of it? Why couldn’t God just “immaculately conceive” all of us?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

“If God is good, why is God letting all the violence to take place in this world?”

are your friends arguing that God is evil or bad? are they trying to convince you that the Creator of all things, the Infinite Perfection is evil?

if that is what they believe, your prayers for them are far more important than any of their questions you might be able to answer.

OR,

are they asking this question to justify their believing there is NO GOD?

That seems like a middle school breakdown of the argument. When people are unable to resolve the dilemma, the conclusion I see made most often is that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent all at once. That conclusion implies that “God as conceived by Christianity” does not exist, but it doesn’t rule out the possibility of some other God (e.g. a non-benevolent one) existing.

it seems to me that they are trying to impose an impossible to resolve dilemma on you. they are saying because there is evil in creation then either there is no God or God is evil.

this is a false conclusion and can only be voiced by those without faith. again, prayer for those bound by this ignorance is probably a much better strategy than dialogue. dialogue is most valuable when engaging a person who accepts they do not have all of the answers and sincerely desires to learn more.

It is a real problem, and you acknowledge this when you attempt to give a response, approximately: “We can’t completely understand God, if we were able to completely understand God we would understand how there is no contradiction between his omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.”

What is the height of foolishness is to simply stick your fingers in your ears and say “this isn’t a true -]scotsman/-] problem with my beliefs, so I don’t have to respond to it.” Simply calling it a “false dilemma” doesn’t make it so.

Also by accusing people of “imposing” a dilemma, you are trying to dodge the question. They are not “imposing” anything, they are pointing out an apparent problem with a set of beliefs. You could argue (not assert) that they are somehow misrepresenting those beliefs, but you can’t just say “well, they came up with this argument all on their own so I shouldn’t have to listen to it!”

 

[truetofaith]

Let’s be more accurate in translating the biblical story into modern day terms. Parent tells the child: “Do not smoke that cigarette because the very day you do; you surely will get lung cancer”. A bigger boy comes and tells child: “Don’t worry, you will not get lung cancer from one cigarette”. Child smokes one cigarette. Parent discovers it. Does not give a second chance, kicks child out of the house, curses the child (and all his descendants). One strike and you are out! No learning occurs, nor it is possible. Sorry, but that is not one would expect from a “loving” parent.

---

You can’t compare parents telling a child not to smoke with God telling Adam & Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit!

Adam & Eve were the parents of the future human race & how they obeyed God was to be passed on to all humanity.
They had superior knowledge & knew the consequences of their actions. Satan convinced them to disobey. IT’S NOT GOD’S FAULT!!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You can’t compare parents telling a child not to smoke with God telling Adam & Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit!

Adam & Eve were the parents of the future human race & how they obeyed God was to be passed on to all humanity.
They had superior knowledge & knew the consequences of their actions. Satan convinced them to disobey. IT’S NOT GOD’S FAULT!!

So you’re saying that Adam and Eve had “superior knowledge” of good and the consequences of evil? Why weren’t they supposed to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil again?