Problem of Evil (again): Logic [intro]

[Vico]

…
Nonsense. There is nothing “logically” impossible to give information about these states of affairs.
…
The concept of “thought crime” remains the same, no matter what fancy names are you going to attach to it. Atheists are NOT against God, they simply do not believe that God exists.

There is no way to communicate the actual state of the Beatific Vision without having it.

The issue is about original sin which inclines a person towards malice rather than charity, for which a conversion is needed. We know that atheism is not exactly defined and it may mean agnostic in practice. Regardless, sin does not have to be intentionally against God (see Catholic Encylopedia below).

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” 63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

63 Gaudium et spes 22 § 5; cf. Lumen gentium 16; * Ad gentes* 7.

Catholic Encylopedia

Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.

O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

 

[Magnanimity]

I think the vast majority of things “wrong with the world” are attributable to people

This presupposes a very strong sense of human freedom of will. Theology, philosophy and science fairly unanimously reject strong notions of human free-will.

“There’s something seriously wrong with this world.” This is just another case of seeing what you want to see.

You, like everyone, are aware that this world could be improved upon.

And no one “wants” their natural, existential reactions to goodness or evil. They happen to all of us, irrespective of what we want. It would seem you almost entirely mistook my point. Perhaps re-read my comments. Or don’t.

 

[Hume]

This presupposes a very strong sense of human freedom of will. Theology, philosophy and science fairly unanimously reject strong notions of human free-will.

It presupposes that there’s a causal link between observable problems and human causes…

I don’t know about your theology, but science doesn’t reject the notion. We use science to propose solutions.

You, like everyone, are aware that this world could be improved upon.

Absolutely. Recycle. Have fewer (or no) children. Consume less. Things like that would yield enormous improvement if done on sufficient scale.

 

[Vico]

…

You: How would you know that [There is no way to communicate the actual state of the Beatific Vision without having it]?
Me. By understanding the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You. Yes, it is. Atheism is a lack of belief, nothing more, nothings less. Agnosticism is about “knowledge”, which is different from belief. To be against God requires an actual attitude. Atheism does not have that.
Me. Atheism can be no belief or rejection of belief or a philosophical position.

broad sense: absence of belief in the existence of deities.
moderate sense: rejection of the belief that any deities exist.
Narrow sense: position that there are no deities.

Catechism

2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.

Q. What kind of weird concept is that?
A. (Lexico) Virtual (adj.) “Almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition”

Matthew 25

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

 

[Vico]

…
That does not help. God is supposed to be able to do anything and everything - maybe excepting logical contradictions. Of course this presents a new problem for the believers. The laws of logic are “higher” than God… or God is limited by the laws of logic.

…

The laws of logic are God’s law, so God does not do what is not logically possible.

Good analysis on types of atheists.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The laws of logic are God’s law, so God does not do what is not logically possible.

This is a modern approach. Originally the apologists had no problem with the idea of “creating a stone which is so heavy that God cannot lift it”. They simply said: “Yes”. First God creates that stone and then lifts it.

By the way, the laws of logic have nothing to do with God. The law of identity is simply: “A is A”, or everything is itself. Which shows that “miracles” are impossible, because they violate the law of identity. The law of contradiction (or non-contradiction) is that a proposition cannot be both true and not true in the same circumstances. And the law of excluded middle means that a proposition and its negation comprise all the possibilities, there is nothing else.

Formally:

1. A is A
2. A and not-A is false
3. A or not-A is true.

Father Hugh Barbour, O. PRAEM. writes:

What is logically impossible is impossible because it contradicts the most fundamental laws of being. With the example of a square circle, not even God can make a thing to be something it is not, as long as it remains what it is.

Isn't Creation Ex Nihilo Logically Impossible? | Catholic Answers Q&A

 

[Magnanimity]

We use science to propose solutions.

I invite you to read Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne on free-will, if you view scientific voices as authoritative.

Absolutely. Recycle. Have fewer (or no) children. Consume less. Things like that would yield enormous improvement if done on sufficient scale.

So then none of us is just “seeing what we want to see” here. All of us understand that things are less-than-the-best.

 

[Hume]

I invite you to read Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne on free-will, if you view scientific voices as authoritative.

I’ve read a lot of Sam Harris, actually. If you walked up to him and said, “Determinism, so don’t bother with solving problems” he’d likely laugh in your face.

So then none of us is just “seeing what we want to see” here. All of us understand that things are less-than-the-best.

Sure.

But you and I differ on the cause of the problems, the nature of the problems and, thus, how to deal with the problems.

The only thing we’d have in common at the bar is that we’d both be fussy about the state of things.

 

[Magnanimity]

If you walked up to him and said, “Determinism, so don’t bother with solving problems” he’d likely laugh in your face.

Sam Harris has a fairly strong moral sense, so no, he likely wouldn’t do anything rude. He’d reply though that he is not free to stop bothering with solving problems.

From his book on free will:

“Free will is actually more than an illusion (or less), in that it cannot be made conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them.

The popular conception of free will seems to rest on two assumptions: (1) that each of us could have behaved differently than we did in the past, and (2) that we are the conscious source of most of our thoughts and actions in the present. As we are about to see, however, both of these assumptions are false.”
-Sam Harris, neuroscientist.

Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett is perhaps not as strict a determinist as Harris but he holds a similar view. St Thomas Aquinas’ view of free will grants us all a very constrained, limited sense of freedom and that sense is only from our perspective (not the Divine perspective). So, as I said, the consensus of relevant disciplines (theology, philosophy and science) are either strictly deterministic or grant only some very limited view of freedom of will.

the nature of the problems and, thus, how to deal with the problems.

The only thing we’d have in common at the bar is that we’d both be fussy about the state of things.

That’s always enough for a beginning. Two people being fussy about the state of things is common ground.

 

[Freddy]

As I’ve noted within these recent threads on the problem of evil, the Boxing Day tsunami reportedly killed 227,898 people. None of us escapes our rather natural repulsion at such events by renaming them “natural disasters” as opposed to “acts of God.” That renaming only refers to the perspective of the writer, not the event itself. And, more to the point, what I’m after in all of this, and why I’m convinced that good and evil are problems for theists, atheists, pantheists .

A tree is part of God’s plan for the world. Maybe not the specific tree that’s in my garden, but trees in general and other plants as well. So if I stand in the garden and the wind causes a branch to break and I get killed then…tough luck on me, but that’s the natural world. Even as a theist I wouldn’t think that God has planned that I be killed in that manner and that the tree was specifically required to grow at that point for a specific amount of time and that if I stand just so at just that particular moment…it’s just tough luck.

The same as if I’m standing in the garden and my neighbour shoots me. What caused that - who can tell, but I wouldn’t be blaming God for it. Some people do bad things some of the time and we need to.deal with it.

Now the tree wasn’t designed to kill me. Neither was my neighbour. Neither is tsunami or an earthquake
specifically designed to kill people. A hole isn’t designed to kill me simply because I fall into it.

However…a lion is designed to kill. Specifically to kill. It’s the lion’s job to kill other creatures in order to survive. It is effectively a killing machine. It just needs to survice and make other lions. And the antelope is designed to eat grass (and make other antelopes). Nothing more.

Now there is ‘design’ apparent in both these animals. And the question becomes, why is one designed to kill the other? Why did God decide that this is the way He wanted the world to work?

Back to atheist mode, and I have no problem with it at all. It’s as natural as a tsunami. Tough luck on antelopes but hey, there’s a food chain and everything needs to fit on there somewhere.

But the theist has to ask herself (or be asked by annoying guys like me on forums like this) why did He design it so that there was such much suffering involved? And I still haven’t had anything approaching a reasonable answer. Except for ‘I don’t know’. Which at least is honest.

 

[nicholasG]

I agree.

God cannot create an unnatural world.
God cannot create an evil world.
These are against God’s nature.

God created a natural world.
A natural world includes:

Mans free will good & evil = natural.
Super novas = natural.
Hurricanes = natural.
Floods = natural.
Tornados = natural.
Earth quakes = natural.
Viruses = natural.
Bacteria = natural.
Cancer = natural.
Birth defects = natural.
Car accidents = natural.
Etc…

 

[o_mlly]

Absolutely. Recycle. Have fewer (or no) children. Consume less. Things like that would yield enormous improvement if done on sufficient scale.

Consume less? Sure.

But fewer or no children? Then add euthanasia to your prescription for human extinction. Without children to care for their elders that job will fall on the rest of us. We can’t have that. We’ll need to efficiently dispatch those old and other feeble folks who otherwise would consume our limited resources. Last one left, please turn off the lights. We don’t want to waste.

 

[Hume]

But fewer or no children? Then add euthanasia to your prescription for human extinction.

Weee!!! The slippery slope! Weee!!!

Without children to care for their elders that job will fall on the rest of us.

Where’ve you been? It’s already happened. The idea of grammy and gramps moving into their kid’s house and being cared for there has been dead for at least a generation.

“Without children [Medicaid] to care for their elders that job will fall on the rest of us [healthcare professionals].”

Fixed it for you.

 

[o_mlly]

Where’ve you been? It’s already happened. The idea of grammy and gramps moving into their kid’s house and being cared for there has been dead for at least a generation.

Yeah, I know. It’s hard to cram granny or grandpa in when the adult kids are still living in their parents basement, hopefully, without any children of their own.

“With out children [Medicaid] to care for their elders that job will fall on the rest of us [healthcare professionals].”

You haven’t thought this through, have you? Those geriatric healthcare professionals have all died. No one around to replace them. Ties the whole thing up neatly; your planned extinction does fix the problem quite nicely.

 

[Magnanimity]

Even as a theist I wouldn’t think that God has planned that I be killed in that manner and that the tree was specifically required to grow at that point for a specific amount of time and that if I stand just so at just that particular moment…it’s just tough luck.

Yeah, Idk–that’s more of a deist answer. For St Thomas Aquinas, there is absolutely nothing outside of the providence and governance of God. Really, I think that has to be the “theist’s” answer (or else her god is just a big ole being, one being among other beings in the universe). But, that’s digressing…

The same as if I’m standing in the garden and my neighbour shoots me. What caused that - who can tell, but I wouldn’t be blaming God for it. Some people do bad things some of the time and we need to.deal with it.

Fair enough. I like this reasoning. It’s close to my own, reducing even “moral evils” down (on some level) to natural evils.

However…a lion is designed to kill. Specifically to kill. It’s the lion’s job to kill other creatures in order to survive. It is effectively a killing machine. It just needs to survice and make other lions. And the antelope is designed to eat grass (and make other antelopes). Nothing more.

As I believe @OneSheep noted to you in this thread, the lion is doing more big-picture stuff than she is aware. She is maintaining balance in the ecosystem and preventing populations from spiraling out of control. As I understood it, this was the line of argument onesheep was giving to you. So, it would seem this is a type of “greater good” ‘design.’ You seem to accept this when you say,

Back to atheist mode, and I have no problem with it at all. It’s as natural as a tsunami. Tough luck on antelopes but hey, there’s a food chain and everything needs to fit on there somewhere.

But the theist has to ask herself (or be asked by annoying guys like me on forums like this) why did He design it so that there was such much suffering involved?

The reasonable theist would push back directly against your assertion of “so much” suffering. As I noted above (to other users, perhaps) brutality/disease/war/killing/violence are rare interruptions to the norms of peace and animals just going about their business. “Nature, red in tooth and claw” is a mid-19th century perspective. It’s a British point of view (Tennyson), and one that was a natural outworking of the bleak conditions of British life for many in that time period. The rare punctuations of brutality/disease/war/killing/violence set against the ongoing peaceableness of the planet is not enough of an argument to undermine the theist’s conception of God. Rather, it just fits right in with her extant belief in a “fallen” (less-than-the-best) world.

 

[Freddy]

As I believe @OneSheep noted to you in this thread, the lion is doing more big-picture stuff than she is aware. She is maintaining balance in the ecosystem and preventing populations from spiraling out of control. As I understood it, this was the line of argument onesheep was giving to you. So, it would seem this is a type of “greater good” ‘design.’

“Nature, red in tooth and claw” is a mid-19th century perspective. Rather, it just fits right in with her extant belief in a “fallen” (less-than-the-best) world.

Onesheep’s answer didn’t address anything. It simply qualified the question. So the long-form version simply becomes: Why did God design a system whereby to balance the ecosystem, lions are required to tear apart antelopes. And the answer is then: Because God designed a system whereby to balance the ecosystem etc.

Yeah, we know that. We want an explanation for why it was done that particular way.

And I’m passing on any mention of evil or suffering caused by man’s inhumanity. I’ve covered that. It’s accepted as a fault within ourselves and with my theist hat on I wouldn’t blame God.

But if the answer is to be included into the concept of the fall of man then we can add that to the various responses we’ve had so far. On the understanding that one can accept grass eating carnivores and lions lying with lambs one day and wholesale slaughter the next.

 

[MPat]

I am neither a psychopath or a sociopath.

I did not ask that question.

I asked you how if you checked. In other words, how do you know?

And the fact that you did not answer that question leads me to conclusion - no, you did not check.

Now, would someone who is “a psychopath or a sociopath” know he is one? Would he say so? Probably not.

Now, of course, the fact that you did not check if you are “a psychopath or a sociopath” does not mean that you are one.

But it does mean that you are unlikely to know what you are talking about. That you are unlikely to know how to find out if one is “a psychopath or a sociopath”. That you are unlikely to know how common they are. That you are not likely to know what they do.

And thus it seems likely that you use those words “a psychopath or a sociopath” as a “sciency” synonym of “evil-doer”.

And in such cases “evil-doer” tends to be “defined” in just such a way that the one who is talking wouldn’t count as one…

That might be pleasant for you. But it is not very informative.

Let’s don’t. How about dealing with the point at hand?

You supporting your claims with something is the point at hand.

Yes, I know, “an atheist” (or, at least, one of more common kinds of atheist) can almost be defined as “someone who won’t ever present any evidence”…

But that is not something to be proud of.

And, you know, there is a competing view. The view that all of us are “evil-doers” in one way or another. Yes, even you.

And if you would actually check if you are one, perhaps even if you tried to write down a more complete list of what you would count as “evil deeds”, you would soon discover that fact.

And think about it: isn’t that going to be the very reason why you refuse to do so…? The very reason why you do not give any evidence here…?

The very reason why you want to claim any such question is an insult…?

Obvious points do not need to be pointed out. You (in general!) are assumed to be somewhat rational, so that not every detail must be pointed out.

I have to admit that “You (in general!)” is a rather entertaining and inventive insult.

But, given how you complain about insults you claim to see, isn’t that an example of what you have to classify as an “evil deed”?

See, it is easy to claim “Problem of evil” proves something until one notices it is also a “Problem of all of us, including me”…

 

[Magnanimity]

Onesheep’s answer didn’t address anything. It simply qualified the question. So the long-form version simply becomes: Why did God design a system whereby to balance the ecosystem, lions are required to tear apart antelopes. And the answer is then: Because God designed a system whereby to balance the ecosystem etc.

Yeah, we know that. We want an explanation for why it was done that particular way.

I’ve been pushing back against two impulses here. The first was the unjustified suggestion that nature is abounding in frequent examples of the suffering of animals, as if their entire lives are brutal and full of suffering. This just isn’t the case. Nature is green much moreso than it is “red in tooth and claw.” Peace and stability are the norms of the natural world, and extreme sufferings are rare interruptions to these norms.

Second, onesheep’s remarks were to get you to look beyond the short-sighted perspective of the lion–it was as if you were suggesting that he’s just there to rip into animals and make them suffer. He’s there to provide balance to the ecosystem too. Nature tends to persist in relative harmony, and yes, the lion plays a critical role in bringing about that harmony.

But, you want to know about the brutality, I assume. I assume the suffering of the lion’s victim is what bothers you? In one sense, of course, suffering of any animal (to include humans) should bother us. It does. It should. The theist sees it as evidence of needing to work more toward this “kingdom” that onesheep spoke of–to not be satisfied with this ho-hum reality.

But also, only a recognition of the inherent sanctity/sacredness/dignity of the animal could underlie your disgust/unease/repulsion at the suffering of the lion’s prey. What, given atheism, justifies a view that animals possess such sanctity/sacredness/dignity? I agree with you that they do, but the theist has a worldview that makes sense of it. I don’t think you do, but I leave it for you to explain.

 

[Magnanimity]

It does not, since there is no sanctity, sacredness or dignity. These are all anthropomorphisms

I don’t know what this means. We are naturally repulsed by animals being ravaged in brutal and grotesque ways. The only people who no longer feel this disgust/repulsion have either been desensitized to it somehow or are struggling with some form of borderline psychopathy, I imagine. We all react with disgust at terrible animal suffering. I’m asking what accounts for it. If you would not react to the suffering of a dog, say, after it just got badly injured, then move along, I guess. Nothing to see here in this thread from my comments.

 

[Freddy]

Yes, I know, “an atheist” (or, at least, one of more common kinds of atheist) can almost be defined as “someone who won’t ever present any evidence”…

How does one produce evidence that one doesn’t believe in something?