Problem of Evil (again): Logic [intro]

[Freddy]

Freddy:

They are ‘evil’ (however you might define that) only if there are negative consequences.

I don’t want to be raped therefore rape is bad. I can’t see how there could be an argument against this.

So your argument is one of self-interest only.

If you were a psychopath and had no capacity for empathy, yes.

Edit: But you make a valid point in that under certain circumstances when there is next to zero chance of being punished, people will do terrible things. Wars, for example, bring out the worst in us I’m afraid. But people who do commit terrible acts (men mostly) know they are doing wrong. But that in itself is not enough to prevent them. And we all like to think we’d be the exception.

 

[Wesrock]

I think we have a problem with definitions. The way that you are using the word ‘good’ is not an antonym of the word ‘bad’ as is being used in this thread.

“Bad” isn’t a thing in itself. It’s a privation of the good.

You are using it to describe something that is fit for purpose. That fullfills that which is required of it. In that sense, a lion that is useless in catching antelopes is a ‘bad’ lion. And one that is adept is a ‘good’ lion. FIne. All good. No-one would disagree.

Moral goodness is just a subset of this same type of analysis.

Now we move on to the suffering caused when the lion tears apart the antelope. That is bad in the normal sense of the word. Something that is unpleasant. Something that anything would do to avoid. Something that’s really going to ruin your day. And again, no-one would disagree with that.

The antelope suffers evil/badness, yes.

Now please contradict this directly if you think I am wrong. But the world could have been any way that God decided. And this is true whether you are a fundamentalist who thinks that God created everything directly or whether you understand evolution and accept that He uses natural processes to obtain that which He wants. Either way, the emergence of lions and antelopes didn’t come as a surprise to God.

If we accept that, then we are left with the question: Why is it designed thus?

You’re shifting the goal posts here. The question is whether badness in created reality stands in contradiction to God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. That is really it. I feel I addressed this fairly thoroughly as far as off-the-cuff internet forum posting goes. You keep circling back to animal suffering, but that isn’t a special case. It falls under the general theodicy I provided much further above starting in post #72. Simply restating “animals do suffer” isn’t a response.

 

[Wesrock]

Now you can replace the word ‘design’ by any word you think is suitable. I would use it in an evolutionary sense to describe canine teeth (‘designed’ for tearing flesh) when we’d both know that it’s not an accurate way to describe the process. So change it if you’d like. But as long as it doesn’t remove God’s intention from the concept. This is the way He wants things to be. The question is: Why?

We need to be clear that there are two points under discussion in this series of threads. (1) Is the existence of evil in reality in contradiction to the Divine Attributes that Christians claim that God has? (2) If there is no contradiction, then why a reality with evil than a reality without? In my series of posts much further above I spoke to both of these points, (1) first and then nearing the end (2). To attempt to sum up (2) again very briefly…

The answer is really in the diversity and plenitude of being. That which is purely actual is ultimately perfectly good, and the only reason for creation we can ascribe to God is that he is manifesting that goodness (by manifesting being), and in turn also sharing this being with all of creatures. Separate from this, we have arguments for why God cannot just create another God, which (without going into it) boils down to there being no possible distinction between two things which we could call God (or an Unconditioned Reality). Therefore the only way to manifest his goodness through his act is by creating conditioned realities (creatures), each existing in their own conditioned type of way. None of these individually comes anywhere close to being similitudes of Unconditioned Reality. But in greater diversity/plenitude across many, many types of being the Unconditioned Reality is better imaged in creation.

If there are no predators, there are types of beings (and therefore goods) that would be absent from creation. The same goes to what in a classical sense what we would call different grades of “perfections” (not that there is ever an examplar case of a type of living thing, but there are obviously those who better manifest the properties of their kind, and others who by accident or congenital defect or illness who fail to manifest the properties one would normally expect. “Perfections” is understood in the sense that these properties are actual in a being as they all lead to better perfection of the nature). The differences in grades in this sense allow for other types of goods. For example in human behavior, the manifestation of certain virtues (which are perfections in a human nature) which would not otherwise exist. Ultimately the failure to manifest these and other types of being would be a reality that lacks certain goods and which would not be as good an image of God (as Unconditioned Reality, Pure Act, Subsistent Being… not as an angry sky-daddy-wizard).

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But you make a valid point in that under certain circumstances when there is next to zero chance of being punished, people will do terrible things.

Correction: … of being punished, SOME people will do terrible things. And they are the psychopaths.

Unfortunately they aren’t. They are people like you and me.

There was footage shown recently down here of an Australian soldier shooting a young unarmed Afghani. The guy was cowering on the ground and he was shot at point blank range. Our most decorated soldier is currently under investigation for war crimes.

Put young men in situations where their lives are constantly at risk, where they see their comrades killed and where they have complete control over who lives and who dies and you will get situations where ordinary men will commit atrocities.

There are simply too many examples to be able to deny this. Dozens here for example: https://www.globalpolicy.org/invasion-and-war/atrocities-and-criminal-homicides-.html

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Now you can replace the word ‘design’ by any word you think is suitable. I would use it in an evolutionary sense to describe canine teeth (‘designed’ for tearing flesh) when we’d both know that it’s not an accurate way to describe the process. So change it if you’d like. But as long as it doesn’t remove God’s intention from the concept. This is the way He wants things to be. The question is: Why?

We need to be clear…

I really do appreciate the time you spend on your posts. But you are a very long way indeed from making the problem any clearer. And I have repeatedly said that I (along with others) am concentrating on the suffering of creatures other than ourselves because I don’t see that there is a problem with human suffering.

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:

So your argument is one of self-interest only.

If you were a psychopath and had no capacity for empathy, yes.

Are not the so-called psychopaths also like you merely self-interested? Why do you categorize those who disagree with your sensibilities as mentally disordered? In other words, why do we label those who do unnatural acts as abnormal? What is normal and, and more importantly, why is it normal?

But people who do commit terrible acts (men mostly) know they are doing wrong.

In the moment, no one acts against what they perceive as wrong, that is against the “good” that they desired. Later, on reflection, one may change their notion of what is truly good and regret prior acts.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

o_mlly:

So your argument is one of self-interest only.

If you were a psychopath and had no capacity for empathy, yes.

Are not the so-called psychopaths also like you merely self-interested?

You should read up on psychopathy: Psychopathy | Psychology Today Australia

 

[o_mlly]

You should read up on psychopathy: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/psychopathy

The article agrees with my post back to you - the psychopath is superficially self-interested. What is your point?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Unfortunately they aren’t. They are people like you and me.

Indeed there were quite a few experiments…

I’d read about those two experiments. And also read about this study some time ago:

“This article integrates the findings of a series of studies that empirically address contentions that many “normal” men possess a proclivity to rape. In these studies, an attempt was made to identify individuals with such a proclivity by asking male college students how likely they personally would be to rape if they could be assured of not being caught. On the average, about 35% indicated some likelihood of raping.” https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01075.x

How chilling is that…

 

[Abrosz]

I’d read about those two experiments. And also read about this study some time ago:

“This article integrates the findings of a series of studies that empirically address contentions that many “normal” men possess a proclivity to rape. In these studies, an attempt was made to identify individuals with such a proclivity by asking male college students how likely they personally would be to rape if they could be assured of not being caught. On the average, about 35% indicated some likelihood of raping.” https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01075.x

How chilling is that…

Very chilling.

I made a straw-poll many years ago and specifically asked Christians, what would they do if they learned that there is no God. Quite a few answered that they would go on raping and torturing others - since there would be no repercussions in the afterlife.

Also very chilling…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’d read about those two experiments. And also read about this study some time ago:

“This article integrates the findings of a series of studies that empirically address contentions that many “normal” men possess a proclivity to rape. In these studies, an attempt was made to identify individuals with such a proclivity by asking male college students how likely they personally would be to rape if they could be assured of not being caught. On the average, about 35% indicated some likelihood of raping.” https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01075.x

How chilling is that…

Very chilling.

I made a straw-poll many years ago and specifically asked Christians, what would they do if they learned that there is no God. Quite a few answered that they would go on raping and torturing others - since there would be no repercussions in the afterlife.

Also very chilling…

I have to say that that is extremely difficult to come to terms with. To the point where I find it difficult to believe. Surely they were responding in a manner that reflects a common theist argument that atheists, having no belief in God, have no reason not to rape and murder. To claim that they would not revert to savagery would demolish that argument. So they are almost obliged to support it by suggesting that they would.

Somewhat convoluted I’m afraid. And a nonsensical position in any case.

 

[MPat]

What is your problem? If and when I assert that the Sun provides the energy for photosynthesis, that does not require extra “evidence”. Common knowledge is just that - it is common .

That sounds very convenient.

So, I can just say that God exists, and that it is common knowledge? And you will have to admit that no more evidence is necessary?

Yes, if I wanted to, I could actually argue that it is “common knowledge”, but that does not seem to be necessary, for you just asserted things.

So, are you going to suddenly rediscover importance of evidence now…?

I think that if someone suggested that the majority of people were relatively good and did not want to murder, rape and pillage then it would be accepted as a given and move on. Someone wanting evidence for that would probably find the discussion cut short.

Have you actually tried doing so?

For example, while the news talks about looting, police brutality and the like? (Shouldn’t be that hard nowadays…)

Or am I to take all those “would” as evidence that this is based completely on “faith as atheists imagine it to be” - “belief without evidence”?

Of course one of the problems is the definition of “evil”. I use the definition of “evil is an act which causes pain and suffering to someone, with a nervous system with pain receptors.”

Sounds very “sciency” and objective.

So, given that you believe in objective evil, you end up accepting objective morality.

Yet, as we know, atheists tend to disbelieve its existence… Are you willing to be an exception, or do you want to “take a move back”…?

Edit: But you make a valid point in that under certain circumstances when there is next to zero chance of being punished, people will do terrible things. Wars, for example, bring out the worst in us I’m afraid. But people who do commit terrible acts (men mostly) know they are doing wrong. But that in itself is not enough to prevent them. And we all like to think we’d be the exception.

Ah, now you’re getting somewhere!

Yes, you (and many others) like the idea that you are good.

And that is why you want this claim to be accepted as “common knowledge”, why you do not want to look for evidence.

For deep inside you fear evidence pointing the other way.

On the average, about 35% indicated some likelihood of raping.”

How chilling is that…

Let’s add one more: Redirecting. The abstract ends with “This study suggests that a significant minority of non-clinical high-school students is characterized by the presence of high levels of the Dark Tetrad traits and self and other-aggression.”. “Dark tetrad” consists of “Psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic traits”. And 15% of the students were found in the cluster with high values for all four.

As you see, evidence does not point where you want it to point.

Will you still deny it?

 

[Freddy]

As you see, evidence does not point where you want it to point.

I’m not sure what point it is that you are attempting to make. If it’s to point out that many of us have it within ourselves to do wrong, then yes, I agree. If it’s to claim that most of us do not do wrong, then again I’ll agree.

 

[o_mlly]

Surely they were responding in a manner that reflects a common theist argument that atheists, having no belief in God, have no reason not to rape and murder.

And you have yet to give us your reason why Fred does not want to rape and murder other than it might mean that Fred would be raped or murdered. How selfish is that? Well, it just as selfish as the psychopath’s desire to rape and murder.

 

[mary77]

evil is doing something that is not good and the doer knows its going to hurt or shame or harm etc either themselves or others. They have no feeling of obedience to respect or value their own bodys nor that of any other living creature created by God, given life by God. Evil must exist if will to do good is Love.

 

[MPat]

If it’s to point out that many of us have it within ourselves to do wrong, then yes, I agree.

Good.

If it’s to claim that most of us do not do wrong, then again I’ll agree.

“[M]ost of us” (including you) do not do wrong…?

How do you know that?

You already admitted that people (including you) want to think they are good.

So, you have to have something like a proper experimental design, or else this bias will give you the answer, and you will not really know if it is right.

Have you done anything? Have you tried any technique?

At the very least, have you tried listing what behaviours or traits you would count as evil? Or have you tried looking through a list made by someone else (thinking what you would add or remove, what you do or do not)? You know, such lists are not hard to find: many have been prepared for Examination of Conscience, one part of Catechism is effectively such a list with comments, as is Second Part of the Second Part of “Summa Theologiae” by St. Thomas Aquinas, “Nicomachean Ethics” by Aristotle…

Don’t just leave your bias to make decisions!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Surely they were responding in a manner that reflects a common theist argument that atheists, having no belief in God, have no reason not to rape and murder.

And you have yet to give us your reason why Fred does not want to rape and murder other than it might mean that Fred would be raped or murdered. How selfish is that? Well, it just as selfish as the psychopath’s desire to rape and murder.

If everyone raped and murdered and took whatever they wanted then society wouldn’d just collapse - it wouldn’t have started in the first place.

Some people are generous and some are pretty tight with their money. Some are courageous and some cowards. Some are helpful and some are selfish. There’s quite a range of natural chatacteristics. And those that had a tendancy to what we’d describe as positive characteristics found that they cooperated better with each other. They helped build a shelter. They protected each other. They shared food. So groups formed and societies grew. And those characteristics became the dominent ones.

Which isn’t to say that everyone was a saint. As noted earlier, under certain circumstances we can revert to our more basic instincts.

So just as you can breed intelligence or aggression into dogs for example, we have grown together to be a relatively cooperative society. And those characteristics that allow that are inbuilt. They are genetic. No more and no less than a mother’s natural reaction to protect her child.

You can call them a God given conscience if you like. I’ll class it as natural. But it amounts to the same thing.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If it’s to point out that many of us have it within ourselves to do wrong, then yes, I agree.

Good.

If it’s to claim that most of us do not do wrong, then again I’ll agree.

“[M]ost of us” (including you) do not do wrong…?

How do you know that?

For exceptions that prove the rule, turn on your tv tonight.

 

[o_mlly]

Some are helpful and some are selfish. There’s quite a range of natural chatacteristics. And those that had a tendancy to what we’d describe as positive characteristics found that they cooperated better with each other.

Quite a stretch. Let’s do some arithmetic.

You claim random mutation and natural selection explains not just the physical diversity in creatures but also non-physical dispositions, i.e., emotive forces.

Those humans who had mutated to be the mighty ones freely decided (absent a free will ?) to repress their physical superiority for the sake of community. It just wasn’t a positive characteristic to use one’s might to oppress others. You apparently need to study your history books more closely; that’s not what happened.

 

[Freddy]

You apparently need to study your history books more closely; that’s not what happened.

You won’t find any of this in history books. It’s pre-history. Which I appreciate is a problem for you as your available time lines are considerably shorter than those required.