Phoenix Down

[tonyrey]

Are you suggesting that I am a sucker for spending the time to think seriously about his argument?

I’m sure you didn’t mean to be as insulting as that, but you need to pay attention more carefully to what you say and write. And you did mean to be insulting, I assume, when you called him “king of the quibblers.” I just want to warn you to be more careful, because insulting posts are not allowed on this board and you could risk getting into trouble.

Second, I have to tell you something that I have told some atheists on this board before, not to make fun of things you don’t understand. If there is a post on a topic or a thread that you don’t understand, then either politely ask for clarification or else just don’t participate. There are threads I avoid because I don’t have the knowledge to deal with them yet. There is nothing wrong with that. But coming onto a thread and posting dismissive mocking replies doesn’t help anyone.

And it gives Catholics a bad name…

 

[danserr]

So then, I have two initial and tentative replacements to obtain the same result; namely, that inscrutable suffering is improbable on theism.

1. If theism is true, then skeptical theism is true. I don’t really want to defend that just yet; but, thought there are some here who already accept that, so this is aimed towards them. On skeptical theism, we can’t say what world God would probably actualize since the process of selecting a world bares moral implications, and God’s moral justifications are beyond-our-ken. Therefore, the highest probability P(I|T&K) would get is 0.5; but, it’d still be lower than this because we’re surprised, not doxastically indifferent.
2. Because our knowledge of and beliefs about persons believing suffering to occur must be removed from K in this evaluation; the theist must show how the theistic hypothesis itself implies that (i) suffering will occur, (ii) sentient beings will reflect on that suffering, and (iii) some sentient being who reflects on the moral nature of the suffering will fail to know its moral justification. But, there’s nothing at all about the theistic hypothesis that predicts any of this. It’s still controversial whether the theistic hypothesis even implies that God would create anything at all, much less (i)-(iii). Therefore, P(I|T&K) is very low.

1. I agree that you probably want to be cautious about arguing that theism entails skeptical theism. There is theological support for the idea, especially in Job, but still it would be hard to show that a Christian has to be committed it it.

I don’t think that skeptical theism entails that this world is improbable though, I think it entails that we don’t know. For all we know this probability of this world could be very high or low. But then we are not rationally warranted in concluding it’s probability is low, which seems to be what you want to do.

Now you could be using ST in two ways, it seems like. First to argue that given ST, the probability of the present world is low, but if you are arguing that the probability of inscrutable suffering is low because the probability of the present world being actualized is low, then we are back to the point that atheism is open to the same problem. (world improbable therefore suffering improbable).

Or, you are using ST to suggest that ST implies a low probability of inscrutable suffering. But this doesn’t seem plausible either, since on ST we might not be able to assign any probability to the existence of Inscrutable suffering. So we can’t conclude, as you want to, that the probability of inscrutable suffering is low given ST.

Actually, the reverse might even be true, ST could imply that we should expect inscrutable suffering on theism. I mean, if God’s motives and knowledge are at least partly beyond our understanding, mightn’t it even be probable that suffering should occur for which we can’t see a justifying reason?

1. This doesn’t strike me as an argument that inscrutable suffering is improbable on theism, so much as an argument that I (or the theist) has to show that inscrutable suffering is probable on theism. The only point this offers a hint of an argument is the line “but nothing in theism implies this.” This might be true, but I think you need to expand on it more. What about theism implies that the probability of inscrutable suffering is low? (That God is good, powerful, loving etc? As it stands now it isn’t enough to conclude that the probability of inscrutable suffering on theism is low.

p.s. have you read peter van inwagen’s work on the problem of evil? He argues that gratuitous suffering is indeed consistent with Christian theism. I haven’t read it yet, but I’m curious as to what he says.

 

[empther]

Well, that’s typical. Watch carefully.

Here’s my original post #14 which you can check out for yourself:

Quote:

that inscrutable suffering is improbable on theism

.
What does that mean? Nothing. :hey_bud:

Quote:

1. If theism is true, then skeptical theism is true.

What does that mean? Nothing. :hey_bud:

It’s impossible to disprove Perplexity’s statements because they mean nothing.
He’s found a formula that will keep suckers uselessly trying to make sense of his babblings forever,
which is what he wants.

---

Here’s Perplexity’s version, post #17

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
What does that mean? Nothing. :hey_bud:

What does that mean? Nothing. :hey_bud:

It’s impossible to disprove Perplexity’s statements because they mean nothing.
He’s found a formula that will keep suckers uselessly trying to make sense of his babblings forever,
which is what he wants.

Aw, bless him. Can someone help our friend out here with what skeptical theism is?

He left out the two quotes I selected from his previous post thus changing the sense of the post, actually, removing the point altogether ! .
Do you see how dishonest that is?

This is how Perplexity operates.
Is anybody surprised? You shouldn’t be at this point.

 

[prodigalson2011]

1.) I don’t think this stands up to scrutiny. For starters, I think it is a little misleading to say, “Theism is a core belief of Christian-theism.” While it is certainly true, in its way, it would be more appropriate to say that theism is the genus of which Christian-theism is the species. One necessarily provides more information than the other. Theism is, in itself, too broad of a concept on which to base any solid predictions. I think that eliminates the dilemma of the theistic hypothesis needing to predict inscrutable suffering, but I would go so far as to say that by it’s very nature, the theistic hypothesis should and could predict nothing further than a deity itself. By its very nature, it must be 1) conscious and 2) of higher order than its creations. That is to say that its creations cannot fully understand it or its workings. I have to run for the moment, but I will return to this…

#1: I readily acknowledge that my notion of inscrutability is subjective, I’m not sure why you think that’s a bad thing. It just means this argument will only persuade you if you believe in inscrutable suffering, and I provide reason why you should.

I also acknowledge certain theologies explain inscrutable suffering. But, two important points. First, Theism is a core-belief of Christian-theism. Christian-theism is a theological elaboration of theism, telling us more about who God is and his plans for us etc. So, while Christian-theism might have a response here (I don’t think it does), if Theism doesn’t, then it doesn’t matter if Christian-theism does, the rug has been pulled out from under its feet. Second, it needs to be shown that the theistic hypothesis predicts inscrutable suffering, not that it explains it.

2#: “You cannot label something morally gratuitous without a logical, and more importantly definite, ground for morality itself.”

You seem to be saying without God, I can’t reasonably say when there is or isn’t a moral justification. But, without any provided reason to think so all I can ask is ‘why?’

I don’t know many who’d endorse the position that God must exist in order to have an ‘absolute morality’ you’ll have to do some fancy foot work for this one.

Returning to number 1, particularly your statement that the theistic hypothesis must predict inscrutable suffering. This lies beyond the bounds of general theism and must necessarily move from the category of genus to species, as the prediction of such things as suffering will depend on the nature of the deity. Once we move beyond the basic assertion of a god’s existence, we must still determine his exact nature. Is he benevolent or malevolent? Does he allow free will? The theistic hypothesis asserts only that a higher intelligence is responsible for the universe, and nothing more.

1. Funny. I’d like you to refer me to one atheistic philosopher (present reader excluded) who believes in an absolute morality. Sartre was at least honest in stating that in the absence of God, the only absolute is absurdity. So, on the contrary, I think the burden of fancy foot work is on your shoulders… Or feet, as the case may be.

Also, aggressive as he may be, I would like to defend empther’s assertion that the statement, “If theism is true, then skeptical theism is true,” is a meaningless one. I say this because skeptical theism is not an affirmative position. Skepticism makes no claims, only doubts them. Skepticism is essentially perpetual questioning. A question can neither be true or false. Ergo, skeptical theism is not a truth claim.

 

[empther]

Also, aggressive as he may be, I would like to defend empther’s assertion that the statement, "If theism is true, then skeptical theism is true is a meaningless one. I say this because skeptical theism is not an affirmative position. Skepticism makes no claims, only doubts them. Skepticism is essentially perpetual questioning. A question can neither be true or false. Ergo, skeptical theism is not a truth claim.

Thank you prodigalson2011 for giving me the benefit of a doubt.

I do understand what Perplexity writes, contrary to what he says about me.
It’s just not worth my time to go through his garbage line by line which would takes hours and hours. It’s a waste of anybody’s time. He’s nothing but a quibbler. The only consolation is that I don’t see the younger members of the forum responding to his posts. Apparently, they avoid his junk. Good for them!

 

[prodigalson2011]

Thank you prodigalson2011 for giving me the benefit of a doubt.

I do understand what Perplexity writes, contrary to what he says about me.
It’s just not worth my time to go through his garbage line by line which would takes hours and hours. It’s a waste of anybody’s time. He’s nothing but a quibbler. The only consolation is that I don’t see the younger members of the forum responding to his posts. Apparently, they avoid his junk. Good for them!

You’re welcome.

However, I do think it’s important to engage the opposition, and not to presume insincerity. Also, I am considerably “younger.”

And honestly, in equal fairness to Perplexity, after further reflection, I feel my criticism needs a bit of correction.
Skeptical theism is affirmative of God, but skeptical of humankind’s ability to discern his nature. This would seem to put it in a bit of an argumentative paralysis, as this doubt remains its only foundation, and thus it seems to become an argument from ignorance.

 

[Perplexity]

Well, that’s typical. Watch carefully.

Here’s my original post #14 which you can check out for yourself:

Here’s Perplexity’s version, post #17

He left out the two quotes I selected from his previous post thus changing the sense of the post, actually, removing the point altogether ! .
Do you see how dishonest that is?

This is how Perplexity operates.
Is anybody surprised? You shouldn’t be at this point.

I didn’t intentionally edit that post, I just clicked the quote button and that’s what popped up. I’m sure if anyone goes to empther’s original post and clicks quote the same thing will happen.

Do you see how dishonest that is?

 

[danserr]

Well, that’s typical. Watch carefully.

Here’s my original post #14 which you can check out for yourself:

Here’s Perplexity’s version, post #17

He left out the two quotes I selected from his previous post thus changing the sense of the post, actually, removing the point altogether ! .
Do you see how dishonest that is?

This is how Perplexity operates.
Is anybody surprised? You shouldn’t be at this point.

As he pointed out, he didn’t intentionally edit that post, that’s simply how the forum works when one selects the “quote” option to reply to a message. I was fully aware of your original post, and he was too because in post number 17 he mentioned your reference in it to skeptical theism.

I maintain my point in post 20. It is not a credit to you to mock what you don’t understand. Skeptical theism and inscrutable suffering are legitimate terms in philosophy of religion used by well known Christian philosophers. If you don’t understand them, then do some reading (the books I suggested are a good place to start), and work to understand them, but don’t simply mock them.

I do understand what Perplexity writes, contrary to what he says about me.

But you obviously don’t because you mocked as meaningless two expressions that he used that are widely accepted in philosophy of religion. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with not understanding a thread, frankly I have a hard time working my way through some, there is nothing wrong with that. But if you don’t, then just work to understand it and be modest.

I suggest you read post my post 20 again. You are continuing to be dismissive and insulting and need to stop. Like tony says, it does not make Christians look good, and it’s simply rude. The moderators won’t allow it.

 

[Perplexity]

Returning to number 1, particularly your statement that the theistic hypothesis must predict inscrutable suffering. This lies beyond the bounds of general theism and must necessarily move from the category of genus to species, as the prediction of such things as suffering will depend on the nature of the deity. Once we move beyond the basic assertion of a god’s existence, we must still determine his exact nature. Is he benevolent or malevolent? Does he allow free will? The theistic hypothesis asserts only that a higher intelligence is responsible for the universe, and nothing more.

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard someone say the bold statement before.

The theistic hypothesis, as used in the philosophy of religion, almost always refers to this:

There necessarily exists at least one essentially immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good person who causally explains all of contingent reality.

It’s also sometimes referred to as classical theism and bare-theism. It’s the God that philosophers reflect on, and the God they debate about.

Funny. I’d like you to refer me to one atheistic philosopher (present reader excluded) who believes in an absolute morality. Sartre was at least honest in stating that in the absence of God, the only absolute is absurdity. So, on the contrary, I think the burden of fancy foot work is on your shoulders… Or feet, as the case may be.

I’m not sure what honesty has to do with Sartre’s belief.

If by absolute morality you just mean moral realism, then you have very, very, very few people who’d agree with you.

Moral cognitivism is the position that moral judgments are able to be true or false. Moral realism is an addendum to moral cognitivism: it says at least some of these beliefs are true.

As Stephen Law told Craig in their recent debate, most philosophers are moral realists (they believe moral judgments are truth-apt, and at least some are actually true), but only like 15% of them are theists. Even Richard Swinburne, one of the world’s most renowned theist philosophers thinks the argument you’re using here is unsound.

So, for starters I’d say Stephen Law, who is an atheist moral realist.

Also, aggressive as he may be, I would like to defend empther’s assertion that the statement, “If theism is true, then skeptical theism is true,” is a meaningless one. I say this because skeptical theism is not an affirmative position. Skepticism makes no claims, only doubts them. Skepticism is essentially perpetual questioning. A question can neither be true or false. Ergo, skeptical theism is not a truth claim.

You’re the first person I’ve ever met who doesn’t think skeptical theism is a truth claim.

There are many versions of skeptical theism (making stronger or weaker claims); but, they all make truth-apt claims.

Here’s one easily accessible source:

Skeptical theism is the view that God exists but that we should be skeptical of our ability to discern God’s reasons for acting or refraining from acting in any particular instance.

…

If skeptical theism is true, it appears to undercut the primary argument for atheism, namely the argument from evil.

So, in response I’d say your objection doesn’t stand.

“If theism is true, then skeptical theism is true” translates as:

“If there necessarily exists at least one essentially immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good person who causally explains all of contingent reality, then we should be skeptical of our ability to discern God’s reasons for acting or refraining from acting in any particular instance (or whatever flavor of skeptical theism you want).”

 

[empther]

I suggest you read post my post 20 again. You are continuing to be dismissive and insulting and need to stop. Like tony says, it does not make Christians look good, and it’s simply rude. The moderators won’t allow it.

The Protestants and other visitors to these forums won’t care what I say.
What they will care about it that a Catholic forum is permitting Perplexity and others to start obviously atheistic threads and members of this board respond to them as if they were worth commenting on thoughtfully, which gives the impression some people around here think there may be some truth to them.

I wonder what Protestants and other visitors think of all this?

I wonder why you don’t care?

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard someone say the bold statement before.

The theistic hypothesis, as used in the philosophy of religion, almost always refers to this:

There necessarily exists at least one essentially immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good person who causally explains all of contingent reality.

It’s also sometimes referred to as classical theism and bare-theism. It’s the God that philosophers reflect on, and the God they debate about.

Fair enough. I was approaching this from the stance of general theism (encompassing deism, etc.)

I’m not sure what honesty has to do with Sartre’s belief.

If by absolute morality you just mean moral realism, then you have very, very, very few people who’d agree with you.

Moral cognitivism is the position that moral judgments are able to be true or false. Moral realism is an addendum to moral cognitivism: it says at least some of these beliefs are true.

As Stephen Law told Craig in their recent debate, most philosophers are moral realists (they believe moral judgments are truth-apt, and at least some are actually true), but only like 15% of them are theists. Even Richard Swinburne, one of the world’s most renowned theist philosophers thinks the argument you’re using here is unsound.

Ok, again, I’ll take the loss. Clearly some atheistic philosophers cling to moral realism, though I’ve never heard one make a convincing case for it and don’t really think they could. I don’t want to drag you away from the topic at hand, but if you find the time, I would very much like to see how you would defend moral realism from an atheistic standpoint.

You’re the first person I’ve ever met who doesn’t think skeptical theism is a truth claim.

There are many versions of skeptical theism (making stronger or weaker claims); but, they all make truth-apt claims.

Here’s one easily accessible source:

Conceded. I’m not sure if you saw, but after the post you were critiquing herein, I directed a post towards empther in which I also retracted this statement. It was, admittedly, unfounded and haphazardly conceived. I decided (after posting; not the best time, of course) to do a little homework on the idea and I admit I was wrong. Consider this my apology.

So, in response I’d say your objection doesn’t stand.

“If theism is true, then skeptical theism is true” translates as:

“If there necessarily exists at least one essentially immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good person who causally explains all of contingent reality, then we should be skeptical of our ability to discern God’s reasons for acting or refraining from acting in any particular instance (or whatever flavor of skeptical theism you want).”

Right. Again, I will admit in previous posts I have come out, guns blazing with empty barrels. This isn’t to say I have completely abandoned my own views and objections, but that my knowledge of the rules of “proper” philosophical discourse is admittedly far from refined. I am interested in engaging in a serious dialogue, and hopefully sharpening my philosophical teeth. That being said, I do still get the strong impression that alot of your reasoning is a lot less logical than it’s logical expression implies. For instance, I cannot for the life of me understand how you can deduce the probability of completely metaphysical events (such as God creating this or that world) with Bayes’ Theorem. It seems to me that any such calculation would be completely arbitrary and contrived. But I’m open to being proven wrong… Hope you’ll be patient with me.

 

[tonyrey]

The Protestants and other visitors to these forums won’t care what I say.
What they will care about it that a Catholic forum is permitting Perplexity and others to start obviously atheistic threads and members of this board respond to them as if they were worth commenting on thoughtfully, which gives the impression some people around here think there may be some truth to them.

I wonder what Protestants and other visitors think of all this?

I wonder why you don’t care?

A Catholic Philosophy forum is in some respects the on-line equivalent of the Catholic Evidence Guild in Hyde Park, London, at the Grand Central Terminal, New York and elsewhere. It is no place for the timid and faint-hearted! Hecklers are welcomed with open arms - provided they obey the rules of courtesy and respect for the beliefs of others…

 

[danserr]

The Protestants and other visitors to these forums won’t care what I say.
What they will care about it that a Catholic forum is permitting Perplexity and others to start obviously atheistic threads and members of this board respond to them as if they were worth commenting on thoughtfully, which gives the impression some people around here think there may be some truth to them.

I wonder what Protestants and other visitors think of all this?

I wonder why you don’t care?

This is a philosophy forum, and the problem of evil is a legitimate topic for discussion that is worth responding to. At least great Christian thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine thought so. Should modern Christians simply hide from the problem?

Commenting on a thread thoughtfully does not indicate that I believe the thread to be true. It indicates that I think the issue is a serious one that deserves consideration, as Aquinas agreed.

Think about this. There are Christians who are bothered by the problem of evil, there are Christians who have (at least professedly) become atheists because of it. What is the best way to help them? To insult people who propose the problem of evil and ridicule it? Or to try to point out where the error in the logic of the problem of evil is? St. Peter gave the answer when he commanded us “to anyone who asks, be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you.” He did not say “be ready to give an insult…”

If you are concerned about impressions, think about what impression it gives when rather than take the time to show the error of a problem or discuss it thoughtfully, you simply ridicule it. When atheists do this about some Christian idea, I conclude they are unable to give a rational answer. Don’t you think you might be giving people, both Catholic, Protestant, and non-believer the same impression?

As to whether I care or not, I’d rather not make this personal, but I will at least say that I care enough to hurt my head spending a few hours thinking about this problem and good responses. And before that, enough more to spend some time every week reading on some apologetic issue or question. This way, when someone asks a question about it, whether Christian or not, I can be in a position to give as good an answer as I can. There is always more to read and learn about, of course. CS Lewis said something like “study of any subject always leaves one a beginner, even at the end,” but that’s fine, you just do the best you can. And you should.

If you want to participate in these threads, take the time to do the serious reading on the issue, especially, if you really do care about being able to help people bothered by problems like this.

 

[danserr]

Fair enough. I was approaching this from the stance of general theism (encompassing deism, etc.)

Ok, again, I’ll take the loss. Clearly some atheistic philosophers cling to moral realism, though I’ve never heard one make a convincing case for it and don’t really think they could. I don’t want to drag you away from the topic at hand, but if you find the time, I would very much like to see how you would defend moral realism from an atheistic standpoint.

Conceded. I’m not sure if you saw, but after the post you were critiquing herein, I directed a post towards empther in which I also retracted this statement. It was, admittedly, unfounded and haphazardly conceived. I decided (after posting; not the best time, of course) to do a little homework on the idea and I admit I was wrong. Consider this my apology.

Right. Again, I will admit in previous posts I have come out, guns blazing with empty barrels. This isn’t to say I have completely abandoned my own views and objections, but that my knowledge of the rules of “proper” philosophical discourse is admittedly far from refined. I am interested in engaging in a serious dialogue, and hopefully sharpening my philosophical teeth. That being said, I do still get the strong impression that alot of your reasoning is a lot less logical than it’s logical expression implies. For instance, I cannot for the life of me understand how you can deduce the probability of completely metaphysical events (such as God creating this or that world) with Bayes’ Theorem. It seems to me that any such calculation would be completely arbitrary and contrived. But I’m open to being proven wrong… Hope you’ll be patient with me.

Why not put some ammo in your guns then? Think about looking into the books I suggested to emp. (post 20). They are just beginning introductions to these subjects, but they’re useful places to start.

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The Protestants and other visitors to these forums won’t care what I say.
What they will care about it that a Catholic forum is permitting Perplexity and others to start obviously atheistic threads and members of this board respond to them as if they were worth commenting on thoughtfully, which gives the impression some people around here think there may be some truth to them.

I wonder what Protestants and other visitors think of all this?

I wonder why you don’t care?

danserr wrote this

This is a philosophy forum, and the problem of evil is a legitimate topic for discussion that is worth responding to. At least great Christian thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine thought so. Should modern Christians simply hide from the problem?

Perplexity, and BB2 if he’s still around, start columns promoting atheism, not evil.
Why do you try to twist things around?

Acquinas promoted faith in God. That has nothing to do with what Perplexity is doing, which is to remove the Standard and Judge for what is evil

 

[Perplexity]

Danserr:

With 1 I’ll have to concede, and even if I disagreed it’s just too weak an argument anyways

With 2, I’d say if theism doesn’t predict inscrutable suffering, then inscrutable suffering would count as evidence against theism. I don’t think theism predicts inscrutable suffering because it doesn’t seem to indicate what God would do. Obviously, when discussing whether theism predicts inscrutable suffering, we remove the clause from the theistic hypothesis that God causally explains contingent reality. So, we’d be working with something like this:

(T): There necessarily exists at least one essentially immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect person.

(T) doesn’t seem in anyway to tell us that this person would create anything, much less inscrutable suffering with all the conditions it requires.

Atheism is different though, because on atheism we know that there is gratuitous suffering, and since K contains knowledge of natural disasters around populous areas it’s extremely probable suffering would thereby occur. Further, it seems quite likely people would reflect on that suffering, and consequently fail to know of any moral justification for it.

As far as Van Inwagen’s work, I’ve heard of that before. I haven’t read it yet, I really should. Sounds interesting. What do you make of it?

 

[Perplexity]

danserr:

Sorry I can see how that last post can be ambiguous.

Hopefully this is better. When K includes knowledge of our world, friends and family etc. minus beliefs and knowledge of suffering, it doesn’t seem like theism leads us to expect to find inscrutable suffering. Whereas atheism, coupled with knowledge of natural disasters (etc.) seems to near entail inscrutable suffering.

 

[empther]

Please read prodigalson2011’s post #15 on page 1 of this thread to see what I’m talking about here.

While I don’t presume to know exactly what prodigalson was trying to do by giving an extensive quote of linguistic philosoher Naom Chomsky, I think I see Chomsky’s point in his quote.

Philosophy is not about throwing ill-defined terms like “indeterminism”, “skeptical theism” and other junk terms invented by Perplexity onto a long sentence of words like light bulbs on a string of Christmas lights. Philosophy is about clarifying truth.

Folks, this may be called the philosophy section, but don’t kid yourselves, there’s no real philosophy going on here. This is a vast wasteland, with atheists rummaging through the trash and trying to drag the rest of us down with them.

Read Plato’s Dialogues, Aristotle’s Niomachaen Ethics, and of course Acquinas. See how they use simple language with terms whose definitions are agreed on by all, developing one point at a time, sometimes spending a dozen pages or more to make a single point so that there’s no misunderstanding.
That’s philosophy. That’s why these authors are the giants.

 

[danserr]

Perplexity, and BB2 if he’s still around, start columns promoting atheism, not evil.
Why do you try to twist things around?

Acquinas promoted faith in God. That has nothing to do with what Perplexity is doing, which is to remove the Standard and Judge for what is evil

You stated that people who respond to Perplexity’s arguments are suckers, and have not since apologized for insulting me in that way.

I observed that great Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas had taken the time and trouble to consider and respond to the problem of evil. So it is right that we should follow his example.

Second Aquinas never insulted an opponent. He was famous for how polite, calm, and fair he was in debates (and he engaged in many. This was one way he worked to bring people to the faith, by politely, and also with great intellectual care answering the arguments of his opponents. He never resorted to the insults and ridicule that you keep throwing around.

The only time you come close to making a legitimate point, is when you remark on how hyper-professionalized philosophy and some other fields have become through the development of new semantics. But skeptical theism is not an ill-defined term, nor is indeterminism. Mocking them as such does not make Catholics look good.

 

[danserr]

As far as Van Inwagen’s work, I’ve heard of that before. I haven’t read it yet, I really should. Sounds interesting. What do you make of it?

I’m not sure, I’ve only skimmed his gifford lectures, I really need to read it more carefully. That’s one of the reasons I hesitate a bit to participate in threads like this, since I haven’t made up my own mind on the best ways to answer the problem of evil yet. But apparently van inwagen argues that given the fall, gratuitous suffering (not just inscrutable suffering) is compatible with Christian theism.

So, at this point to summarize and clarify for people following:

You are arguing a version of the problem of evil that says (in short):

1. The existence of inscrutable suffering is highly improbable on theism.
2. The existence of inscrutable suffering is not highly improbable on atheism.
3. Therefore, the existence of inscrutable suffering is evidence (not proof) of atheism over Christianity.

[inscrutable suffering is suffering for which we don’t see a justifying reason]

Now, we both agree that even if the argument is a good one, it need not cause one to be an atheist. It only concludes that suffering is evidence for, not proof of atheism. There might be more evidence that still indicates the Christianity is probable. Such seems to me to be Richard Swinburne’s view in The Existence of God.

For example, say I know that Sam is a student at the university of Colorado, and i know that 95% of Colorado students ski. Well, it would be probable on the basis of this evidence alone that Sam skis. But suppose I know more information. I know that Sam is from texas, and 95% of texans don’t ski. I know he is paraplegic and 95% of paraplegics don’t ski. Suddenly, with all the evidence taken together, we should not believe that Sam ski’s even though that fact that he goes to Colorado is strong evidence that he does. Finally, suppose I have little evidence, but I know Sam personally, and know he does not ski. Again, I am still justified in believing that he does not ski, even though there is strong evidence that he does.

• Likewise with God and the existence of evil. Evil might be strong evidence of atheism (or it might not), but even if it does, other evidence and else my personal knowledge of God can overwhelm it. This is actually the conclusion of many Christian thinkers on the subject.

So far, Perplexity and I agree on this, he just thinks (presumably) there is not enough other evidence to outweigh the evidence from evil, while I think there is. Some can be found here: 5 arguments for God. Alvin Plantinga recently listed 26 such arguements. I don’t want to derail the thread by getting into them, we can have other threads for those. The point is just to show where we stand so far. Since Perplexity mentioned this in an early post, this is more for other people following.

Options for the Christian

1. We have mentioned. A Christian could agree that evil is evidence for atheism, but hold that there is sufficient evidence for theism to outweigh it.
2. A Christian could try different ways to argue that the existence of inscrutable suffering is not highly improbable on theism. To put it similarly, a Christian is not really surprised at the existence of inscrutable suffering in the world. Now we have to say why.