Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[Tomdstone]

There is a moral axiom that goes: When confronted with two inevitable evils, choose the lesser evil.

The operative word is “inevitable.”

This is not the same as saying the ends justifies the means. If the choice of action is not regarding two inevitable evils, the end does not justify the means.

So if you choose (but do not inevitably have to choose) to steal a great deal of money (an evil act) needed to avoid bankruptcy and stay solvent (a perceived good), the end would not justify the means.

If you choose to bring down a plane with 60 people to save 2,000, you inevitably have to choose one or the other. If you chose otherwise, all 2060 people would perish.

The problem with that is that nothing (or almost so) is inevitable. The plane may run out of fuel before it hits the building, or someone on the plane could overpower the terrorist flying the plane. And of course, due to the alarm system in the building, everyone could escape before the plane hit the building. Maybe, maybe not. But things are not inevitable.

 

[PRmerger]

What would the world look like in which there was no evil?

Would it necessarily make humans automatons–unable to choose to do right or wrong? Only programmed to do right?

Tomdstone: would you mind addressing the above question?

 

[Bradski]

There is a moral axiom that goes: When confronted with to inevitable evils, choose the lesser evil.

If you choose to bring down a plane with 60 people to save 2,000, you inevitably have to choose one or the other. If you chose otherwise, all 2060 people would perish.

Is it just numerical? Can you kill two evil people to save one good one? Can you kill a person because on the balance of probablity he will kill others? Who decides these things? Can you kill an innocent person to same many evil ones? It seems tyo me that there aren’t, and can never be, hard and fast rules to govern one’s actions. It’s all, what’s the term…? Relative.

Tomdstone: would you mind addressing the above question?

Sounds like heaven to me.

 

[PRmerger]

Sounds like heaven to me.

Yep. Where everyone’s will is fixed.

How do you have no evil in a world where there is free will?

What would that look like to you? How does that work?

 

[glendab]

Hello Tom.

How far off topic should we stray into the kinds of evils there are? God did not create evil. Evil created itself when the angels rebelled and it perpetuated itself into God’s creation when the devil slipped into the garden and seduced Eve. That kind of evil God foresaw and remedied as He gave us the Protoevangelium. Man was promised a Redeemer at that point in time. It triumphed then and now at the same time over any and all evils the devil can cook up. Now, as for this particular thread, there are many these days who no longer believe in the devil or their evils and credit all evils to either God or man or both, but anything demonic in origin is too medieval for their tastes and I’m sure they’d agree that belief in the devil is irrational. So, in that way perhaps we could consider this relative to the thread. How about that? Rational to believe God exists, but irrational to believe that devils exist or cause problems for man. Sound like a winner?

I stick with what I said. God doesn’t create evil in the same sense that you mean. Well, at least in the way I understand you do mean before you waffled a little on your definition. (Sorry, had to note that.) I agree with several on this thread about this verse and with the Haydock Commentary that the “evils” spoken of are things like the dark of night which can be quite frightening or the darkness of a threatening diagnosis or even the dark night of the soul. When juxtaposed with peace in a sentence one can easily see what is meant for peace leaves the soul’s mind when any of these three things I listed are experienced and it takes the dawn, medical intervention and God Himself to restore the peace He gives. I also think I’ll mention that the passage you’ve cited are part of the body of Prophetic works found in Scripture which means there meanings are variable and shadowy themselves by nature. Look into the future of which Isiah is speaking and you get the contradictions of the Crucifixion being the means by which God is making peace with Him possible for mankind. Surely you can see BOTH peace and evil created by God in that singular act can you not? Prophetic works aren’t so black and white, so be careful how you interpret them. Verse 16 could wind up applying if you insist.

Glenda

 

[Bradski]

Yep. Where everyone’s will is fixed.

How do you have no evil in a world where there is free will?

What would that look like to you? How does that work?

Yep. Where everyone’s will is fixed.

How do you have no evil in a world where there is free will?

What would that look like to you? How does that work?

On the assumption that we have free will, it obviously entails making decisions. And obviously some decisions may turn out to have negative consequences that would render the decision as being classed as evil.

But I didn’t know that one’s will was fixed in heaven. Which means you cannot make any decisions. That sounds a little unnerving…

 

[PRmerger]

On the assumption that we have free will, it obviously entails making decisions. And obviously some decisions may turn out to have negative consequences that would render the decision as being classed as evil.

Egg-zactly.

But the part where you talk about assuming that “we have free will” makes me go, “Huh?”

I can’t believe that there are rational folks around who entertain this notion.

 

[RGCheek]

The miraculous and the providential are not always mutually exclusive.

If that is the case a Christian needs to explain how the unknown laws are related to God. Do they exist independently?

I would guess that the laws of the universe are some sort of extension of God’s Mind, but I cant go much further than that speculation.

 

[RGCheek]

The Catholic Douay Rheims Bible says evil not woe.

It seems to clearly mean ‘evil’ in the sense of ‘bad things that happen’ as opposed to evil in the sense of anti-righteousness or ‘promoting rebellion against God’.

What meaning of the word ‘evil’ do you think it refers to?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The problem with that is that nothing (or almost so) is inevitable. The plane may run out of fuel before it hits the building, or someone on the plane could overpower the terrorist flying the plane. And of course, due to the alarm system in the building, everyone could escape before the plane hit the building. Maybe, maybe not. But things are not inevitable.

We have to go with our best judgment. We cannot be blamed for doing that. Some things in a crisis situation are inevitable (such as suicide bombers) , even if you can’t prove after the fact their inevitability.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Egg-zactly.

But the part where you talk about assuming that “we have free will” makes me go, “Huh?”

I can’t believe that there are rational folks around who entertain this notion.

PR can you please expand on that? Why about that statement makes you go, “Huh?”

You are promoting free will afa I can tell. Are you “Huh”-ing at the “assumption” as opposed to the “fact”?

Or am I reading you wrong?

MS

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is it just numerical? Can you kill two evil people to save one good one? Can you kill a person because on the balance of probablity he will kill others? Who decides these things? Can you kill an innocent person to same many evil ones? It seems tyo me that there aren’t, and can never be, hard and fast rules to govern one’s actions. It’s all, what’s the term…? Relative.

The police often “kill two evil person to save one good one.”

Infantry might often kill a person “because on the balance of probability he will kill others.”

In what context would you “kill an innocent person to save many evil ones”?

It’s not all relative, though apparently you would like it to be.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tomdstone: would you mind addressing the above question?

Well, there are a couple of things.

1. Some people question how free we really are. For example, there is the atheist Sam Harris who has written the book: Free Will (2012) in which he claims that we may not really have free will , or at least be as free as we would like to think that we are.
2. Suppose though that there is free will. Would it have been possible for man to have been created with limited free will, so that man would love and obey God, but not harm others. Or could it have been possible to create man with all the free will to do evil and to choose to harm others, but not the freedom to actually engage in activities which cause harm to others? You disobey and choose evil and want to do evil things, and you have thereby committed the sin, but then at the last moment, you are prevented from carrying it out?

 

[Tomdstone]

We have to go with our best judgment. We cannot be blamed for doing that. Some things in a crisis situation are inevitable (such as suicide bombers) , even if you can’t prove after the fact their inevitability.

The axiom states that the two evils must be inevitable. But if they are not in reality inevitable, does the axiom still apply or not? Seems like it boils down to a political decision where the good end justifies the bad means, because in the real world no one can foretell the future and nothing is absolutely inevitable. With some probabilty, yes, some things are probably inevitable. But now you are basing the morality of an action on a vague notion of probability. In other words you are justifying the direct killing of 60 innocent people because of some probability that something might happen in the future. But in Bible class they taught us the commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

 

[Tomdstone]

Infantry might often kill a person “because on the balance of probability he will kill others.”

Suippose that the probability that he will kill others is 2 percent. Would it then be justified to kill the person?

 

[oldcelt]

Suippose that the probability that he will kill others is 2 percent. Would it then be justified to kill the person?

I am a believer that self-defense is valid.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The axiom states that the two evils must be inevitable. But if they are not in reality inevitable, does the axiom still apply or not? Seems like it boils down to a political decision where the good end justifies the bad means, because in the real world no one can foretell the future and nothing is absolutely inevitable. With some probabilty, yes, some things are probably inevitable. But now you are basing the morality of an action on a vague notion of probability. In other words you are justifying the direct killing of 60 innocent people because of some probability that something might happen in the future. But in Bible class they taught us the commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

Did they teach it is never permissible to kill? Even in war? Even to protect the innocent? To protect your own life?

Certainly there are grey areas where we may err in judgement, but that does not mean every instance is, therefore, in question, just those that are determinably within those grey areas.

I think Charlemagne’s example of shooting down the airplane with 60 passengers to save 2000 lives, given a reasonable probability (not the wild ‘what ifs’ you gave as possibilities,) they will all be killed is determinably the lesser of two reasonably probable evils and it would be immoral not to act to save 2000 lives merely because of some wildly improbable possibility that something ‘might’ just ‘come up’ and change the course of events serendipitously. The ultimate cost would most certainly be 2060 lives and someone in a position of responsibility, who could have acted to prevent that number of lives lost would be negligent for not doing so.

Recall another teaching in Bible class that it is as possible to sin by omission as by commission. Not acting or being negligent in one’s responsibility can place a person as much at fault as acting injudiciously.

If a child under your care was under probable threat, it would be incumbent on you to take action even if remote possibilities existed that the outcome ‘might’ turn out unexpectedly. Inaction that jeopardizes the life of the child would be negligent. Appeals to a remote possibility that something else ‘could’ happen would not justify inaction.

 

[Bradski]

But the part where you talk about assuming that “we have free will” makes me go, “Huh?”

I’m working on the assumption that we have it, but there is a lot of literature out there that indicates that we might not (like Tom, I’ve read Harris’s book and it’s thought provoking). Personally, I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that we might not have it and everything I feel indicates to me that we do have it. But then, I would have felt exactly the same if I’d lived a few hundred years ago and someone told me the world was not the centre of the universe and the sun did not go around the earth.

That said, the idea of eternity without it horrifies me.

The police often “kill two evil person to save one good one.”

Infantry might often kill a person “because on the balance of probability he will kill others.”

In what context would you “kill an innocent person to save many evil ones”?

It’s not all relative, though apparently you would like it to be.

You keep saying that it"s not relative, but then you keep giving different examples where it is plain that it is relative to the situation. and, more importantly, as you said earlier ‘we use our best judgement’. Well, your best judgement in deciding how many peoiple to kill to prevent (potential?) harm to your family will certainly not be the same as mine.

I have heard the argument that says that there is a correct answer to every dilema (the truth is out there!)…it’s just that we don’t know what it is. Which used to make me laugh until the novelty wore off.

For every situation, there is a set of circumstances specific to that situation that is dependent on an infinite number of contingencies. And every single person will have a different viewpoint on the matter depending on her circumstances (which are dependent on an infinite set of contingencies).

It’s practically a definition of relative.

 

[Tomdstone]

You keep saying that it"s not relative, but then you keep giving different examples where it is plain that it is relative to the situation. and, more importantly, as you said earlier ‘we use our best judgement’. Well, your best judgement in deciding how many peoiple to kill to prevent (potential?) harm to your family will certainly not be the same as mine. …
For every situation, there is a set of circumstances specific to that situation that is dependent on an infinite number of contingencies. And every single person will have a different viewpoint on the matter depending on her circumstances (which are dependent on an infinite set of contingencies).

It’s practically a definition of relative.

His analysis does seem like moral relativism to me also.

 

[Bradski]

His analysis does seem like moral relativism to me also.

For moral relativism not to exist, then there would have to be just one correct moral answer to every moral problem.

As there is an infinite set of contingencies associated with every problem, there are an infinite number of answers. To which there can hardly be universal agreement because everyone would view the problem from their own particular standpoint. Which would depend on an infinite number of contingencies.

Where there is agreement on any problem, then all we have in that specific instance is universal agreement on that specific problem. But universal agreement doesn’t mean that the answer is correct - we don’t vote on what is correct. We decide ourselves (relative to our position). And if there is agreement then we simply feel justified in holding that view. A common human trait (and a dangerous one).