Problem of Evil (again): Logic [intro]

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Well, allow me to say that I assume that someone who has made a decision on such matters has thought about it enough as to make that decision an honest one based on what they believe.

Yes. You do not know, you just assume.

Yes. In the same way that I assume that anyone who argues against abortion has actually thought the matter through and has listened to the arguments and has understood them and is not just automatically following church teaching.

 

[o_mlly]

Freddy:

But goout and I feel a sense of injustice.

To what do you appeal that allows you to feel a “sense of injustice”?

I don’t ‘appeal’ to anything.

Then your sense of injustice is irrational. If one claims an injustice then one must demonstrate the standard which has been violated.

If you say, “I’m just being irrational” then we’re done. But if you claim your sense of injustice is rational then you must provide the reason, i.e., to what do you appeal as the standard that has been abused.

 

[Freddy]

o_mlly:

Freddy:

But goout and I feel a sense of injustice.

To what do you appeal that allows you to feel a “sense of injustice”?

I don’t ‘appeal’ to anything.

Then your sense of injustice is irrational. If one claims an injustice then one must demonstrate the standard which has been violated.

If you say, “I’m just being irrational” then we’re done. But if you claim your sense of injustice is rational then you must provide the reason, i.e., to what do you appeal as the standard that has been abused.

Your question makes no sense. What standard do you mean? The sense of justice is inherent in us just as is a sense of fear. A dog attacks me and I automatically feel fear. Someone takes advantage of my work without reciprocating and I feel aggrieved. These are evolved characteristics.

They are automatic in us and in other animals. I doubt very much that a bat or an ape is going to internalise the feeling and define it in some way. Just as an ape doesn’t think ‘Wow, that’s scary’. But it obviously exhibits exactly the same reaction to frightening situations us us. It’s an evolved sense that has obvious advantages to the ape and to us. And our reaction (and the ape’s or the bat’s) to someone not sharing the load, be it sharing food or helping to protect the group, is the same. It’s an evolved sense that has obvious advantages.

All the literature confirms that we share these senses with so many creatures. There’s no ‘standard’ to which appeal for them or us. It’s a simple reaction to a particular interaction. There’s no mystery here.

Again, if you want to deny that this has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years (the length of time is something you’d obviously deny) and that God installed it ready made into all creatures that utilise it then please say so and we’ll be done.

 

[o_mlly]

The sense of justice is inherent in us just as is a sense of fear.

Progress, well, maybe.

Yes, as rational creatures, a sense of justice is inherent in us but is not inherent in non-human animals. It is our reason that enables us to make the judgement that our current circumstances are disordered as to what the just circumstances ought to be. The ape, lacking reason, never cries out. “That’s not fair!”

And, yes, as emotional creatures, the sense of fear is inherent in us and in non-human sentient animals. The sources of a sense of fear and a sense of injustice are different. We have both; the animal kingdom has only one.

So, why do you think you are unjustly treated? Your answer must contain the demonstration of what the just treatment should be. So again, to what do you appeal as the authority to prescribe what is just and what is unjust?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The sense of justice is inherent in us just as is a sense of fear.

Progress, well, maybe.

Yes, as rational creatures, a sense of justice is inherent in us but is not inherent in non-human animals. It is our reason that enables us to make the judgement that our current circumstances are disordered as to what the just circumstances ought to be. The ape, lacking reason, never cries out. “That’s not fair!”

And, yes, as emotional creatures, the sense of fear is inherent in us and in non-human sentient animals. The sources of a sense of fear and a sense of injustice are different. We have both; the animal kingdom has only one.

So, why do you think you are unjustly treated? Your answer must contain the demonstration of what the just treatment should be. So again, to what do you appeal as the authority to prescribe what is just and what is unjust?

I’m repeating myself. You are not reading what I’m writing.

When the sense of justice evolved it didn’t emerge fully formed as a characteristic that we could internalise and describe. We weren’t able to do it in any case. It was (and mostly is) an instinct. And other creatures have this instinct as well. You (obviously) don’t expect an ape, for example, to be able to describe the instinct. Just because we now can doesn’t make it any different.

And a lot of creatures have emotional reactions to stimulus. An ape will react to a frightening situation as will we. An ape will react to a situation where there is an injustice (BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Monkeys show sense of justice) as will we.

And there is no authority to which one appeals. And ‘what is unjust?’ Good grief, if you don’t understand when an injustice occurs then I’m wasting my time explaining any of this.

I think we’re done.

 

[o_mlly]

Good grief, if you don’t understand when an injustice occurs then I’m wasting my time explaining any of this.

As the exchange shows, it’s not me that doesn’t understand from what and where our sense of justice comes but rather you as evidenced in your rather lengthy repetitive non-answers.

You claim reciprocal altruism – disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others – as an evolved behavior in animals and men. And then claim that the altruist feels a sense of injustice if others do not respond in kind. That just does not make sense.

The animal studies on fairness are interesting but not helpful. The antagonist in the studies cited is the human being, not the peers in the animal group tested.

 

[Vico]

…

And there is the supernatural influence of grace in the supernatural soul, and the supernatural soul effects the natural human.

 

[goout]

I think we’re done.

I doubt it.
Can you bring some extra Speysides with ya tomorrow? Bring several since you will be here awhile and you don’t want to get thirsty.

 

[Abrosz]

Can you bring some extra Speysides with ya tomorrow? Bring several since you will be here awhile and you don’t want to get thirsty.

Speyside single malt is not a thirst quencher. And it is pretty expensive.

 

[Freddy]

goout:

Can you bring some extra Speysides with ya tomorrow? Bring several since you will be here awhile and you don’t want to get thirsty.

Speyside single malt is not a thirst quencher. And it is pretty expensive.

Indeed. Sippin’ whisky most definitely.

 

[MPat]

Yes. In the same way that I assume that anyone who argues against abortion has actually thought the matter through and has listened to the arguments and has understood them and is not just automatically following church teaching.

That is a clear improvement over the approach demonstrated by another atheist above, but sorry, not interested.

I am not scared of you thinking I might be following Church without understanding the reasons for teaching. Thus the bargain you propose does not interest me. Add more concessions to your proposal, if you want that to change.

And anyway, if you can just assume everyone carefully thinks things through, why can’t you likewise just assume that Catholicism is completely correct? Start by assuming that God exists now, and see what you can reach!

After all, we already know that assumption that everyone (everyone!) carefully thinks things through is false.

And “Pascal’s Wager” justifies assuming that God exists much better than your bargain justifies your assuming that everyone carefully thinks things through.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Yes. In the same way that I assume that anyone who argues against abortion has actually thought the matter through and has listened to the arguments and has understood them and is not just automatically following church teaching.

That is a clear improvement over the approach demonstrated by another atheist above, but sorry, not interested.

I am not scared of you thinking I might be following Church without understanding the reasons for teaching. Thus the bargain you propose does not interest me. Add more concessions to your proposal, if you want that to change.

And anyway, if you can just assume everyone carefully thinks things through, why can’t you likewise just assume that Catholicism is completely correct? Start by assuming that God exists now, and see what you can reach!

After all, we already know that assumption that everyone (everyone!) carefully thinks things through is false.

And “Pascal’s Wager” justifies assuming that God exists much better than your bargain justifies your assuming that everyone carefully thinks things through.

Those that have thought a problem through and have reached an honest decision having listened to all the arguments for and against will have their views treated with much greater respect than those who haven’t. That’s the only point I was making. I wasn’t offering a ‘bargain’.

And thinking something through and reaching an honest decision doesn’t automatically mean that what you have decided is correct. Otherwise all religions would be true.

 

[jochoa]

Not until we can agree what kind of behavior is / should be called “loving”.

What do you propose is the definition of love?
I propose the definition of love is being patient and kind for the greatest being.

Of course. And so does a tumor, malignant or benign.

If there is a single tumor throughout the history of mankind that has naturally developed into an independent being that can think, feel and will on its own, then I will support not killing tumors either.
Do you know of any case?

And it is none of your business to render judgment about those who disagree.

On this note, consider the beginning of our dialogue, you shared: “we would be considered to be just as evil as the actual perpetrator.“
Given your subjective morality, whoever is considering is evil because it is none of their business to render judgment about those who disagree.
How do you reconcile the contradiction of rendering judgment in disagreements?

You don’t understand. The ideal…

Perhaps we misunderstand and talk past one another because we have different ideals.
What is a brief summary of your ideals?
My ideals in brief is a world in which everyone experiences unbreakable peace with unlimited joy, a world in which everyone is patient (for peace) and kind (for joy).

Perhaps in knowing each other’s ideals, we can help one another connect the dots in our incomplete and mistaken analysis of our solutions.

 

[Freddy]

What is a brief summary of your ideals?
My ideals in brief is a world in which everyone experiences unbreakable peace with unlimited joy, a world in which everyone is patient (for peace) and kind (for joy).

Honestly? No triumph over adversity?

As my grandad used to say: If losing didn’t hurt so much, then winning wouldn’t feel so good.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

What is a brief summary of your ideals?
My ideals in brief is a world in which everyone experiences unbreakable peace with unlimited joy, a world in which everyone is patient (for peace) and kind (for joy).

Honestly? No triumph over adversity?

As my grandad used to say: If losing didn’t hurt so much, then winning wouldn’t feel so good.

Since I think you are referring to the ideal I presented, for further clarity: The adversity and loss in this ideal comes in getting and sharing the means to get there. As for the triumph, once reaching the ideal the triumph grows infinitely.

Your grandad shared a great point that people seeking to artificially eliminate conception should consider. When creating a human unexpectedly, there will be great adversity and loss, particularly in the transition from personal striving to communal striving. Nonetheless, do not be afraid because embracing the new life will gain a triumph like no other!
Also, one does not win by preventing the ability to lose.

What is a summary of your ideals?

 

[Freddy]

What is a summary of your ideals?

It’s a good question. But I think it’s impossible to answer. At least personally.

But as far as mankind is concerned, it’s to keep exploring the universe. ‘To go where no man has gone before’. Although that’s been changed to ‘…where no-one has gone before’.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

What is a summary of your ideals?

It’s a good question. But I think it’s impossible to answer. At least personally.

Can you recognize that with lack of defined ideals, subjectivity will run amok?

But as far as mankind is concerned, it’s to keep exploring the universe. ‘To go where no man has gone before’. Although that’s been changed to ‘…where no-one has gone before’.

First, what do you mean by ‘…no-one…’?
Second, when I read this ideal and your modified term, I thought of the journey of following Mother Mary and Jesus to Heaven.

 

[Abrosz]

What do you propose is the definition of love?

It has several aspects, which are constantly confused. Erotic love, brotherly love, friendly love… the love of a good steak, or a movie… etc… There is also “agape”, which should be defined as “acting toward the best interest of the loved one”… mind you, not “willing the good of another”, rather “ACTING”.

If there is a single tumor throughout the history of mankind that has naturally developed into an independent being that can think, feel and will on its own, then I will support not killing tumors either.

That is not the point. Just because “something” shares a human DNA (which is not a precise term!) it is not a human being.

But technology is unpredictable. Any human cell (especially a stem cell) contains sufficient information to clone a new human being out of it. As soon as we shall have the new technology to take a clipped toenail and place it into a cloning device, which will grow that toenail into a replica of the original being - according to your view - that toenail will become the earliest stage of new human being and as such: “worthy of respect”?

Not to mention the mixture of human and animal chromosomes (chimera) (99% human + 1% animal) presents an interesting problem.

What is a brief summary of your ideals?

It is next to impossible to answer this in a few paragraphs. One important facet is “the right of your fist ends where my nose begins”, or live and let live…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

jochoa:

What is a summary of your ideals?

It’s a good question. But I think it’s impossible to answer. At least personally.

Can you recognize that with lack of defined ideals, subjectivity will run amok?

But as far as mankind is concerned, it’s to keep exploring the universe. ‘To go where no man has gone before’. Although that’s been changed to ‘…where no-one has gone before’.

First, what do you mean by ‘…no-one…’?
Second, when I read this ideal and your modified term, I thought of the journey of following Mother Mary and Jesus to Heaven.

What is this terror of subjectivity? Are your aims in life going to be exactly the same as mine? Are our priorities going to match?

And the writers changed ‘where no man had gone before’ to ‘where no-one had gone before’ to be gender inclusive.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

What do you propose is the definition of love?

It has several aspects, which are constantly confused. Erotic love, brotherly love, friendly love… the love of a good steak, or a movie… etc… There is also “agape”, which should be defined as “acting toward the best interest of the loved one”… mind you, not “willing the good of another”, rather “ACTING”.

Can you pick the greatest of loves, perhaps one that encompasses the others, and define that one?

jochoa:

If there is a single tumor throughout the history of mankind that has naturally developed into an independent being that can think, feel and will on its own, then I will support not killing tumors either.

That is not the point. Just because “something” shares a human DNA (which is not a precise term!) it is not a human being.

So let’s focus on the new point. Do you know of a case, in which a tumor naturally developed into an independent being that was born and began to think, feel and will on its own?

But technology is unpredictable. Any human cell (especially a stem cell) contains sufficient information to clone a new human being out of it. As soon as we shall have the new technology to take a clipped toenail and place it into a cloning device, which will grow that toenail into a replica of the original being - according to your view - that toenail will become the earliest stage of new human being and as such: “worthy of respect”?

If a toe nail is somehow made into a zygote, I still support not killing the zygote.

Not to mention the mixture of human and animal chromosomes (chimera) (99% human + 1% animal) presents an interesting problem.

What’s the problem?

jochoa:

What is a brief summary of your ideals?

It is next to impossible to answer this in a few paragraphs. One important facet is “the right of your fist ends where my nose begins”, or live and let live…

To realize how your important facet yields abortion is evil, let’s do a thought experiment:

1. What if you don’t have a nose, does the right of my fist end where your eyes begin?
2. What if you don’t have any limbs, does the right of my fist end where your chest begins?
   Nth Degree. The right of my force ends where your body begins, even if your body is the body of a single celled zygote.