M
mwok
Guest
What translation are you using? I can’t find one version that says “create evil”. Woes, disasters, yes; evil? No.
- Status
S
Serious
Guest
I looked at several ones, and this is the King James version. Indeed I chose it for the “shocking” value.
T
TS_Aquinas
Guest
No argument here, certainly no argument from the Church since she has two Sacraments devoted entirely to healing and an endless résumé of doctors, nurses and hospitals through her history. Also if pain was so essential, I doubt Christ would’ve devoted so much time in his ministry taking it away from people and ultimately taking the greatest pain away, hopelessness. Also if it was essential, I doubt the Church would condemn self-mutilation through negligence of health or self-infliction. Try not to listen to holier than thou types who think whomever is in more pain is closer to Christ in His Passion and has greater merits, because any pain unites one to the Passion, great or small (as long it is unavoidable pain.) Everyone suffers, good and evil people, and the only ones to blame for unnecessary suffering is humanity as a whole since we cause it. Very senseless for someone to blame God for his or her suffering as well; never seen a rational and unemotional argument drawn up that directs blame to the prime causer in secondary causes that involve free will and natural law.
S
Serious
Guest
Thank you for your contribution. Of course I agree.
Even though the sacraments are not impressive to an atheist, but the hospitals, doctors and nurses most certainly are. This kind of argument is the one I am constantly fooking for - solid, rational line of thinking. Thanks again.Well, let’s disagree a bit.
Even if one accepts that God does not directly cause pain and suffering, he still has to bear the ultimate responsibility. The unemotional argument is this:- God started the whole shebang.
- Classical theism asserts that due to God’s omniscience he knew the outcome before he created something.
- Since neither free will nor the “natural law” (not sure if you mean here the laws of nature?) lead logically to the existence of pain, suffering or evil, there is a possible world without them. (They DO lead logically to the possibility of evil, but not to the actuality of it).
- God could have chosen a different possible world without the pain, suffering and evil, and could have instantiated that.
- Therefore God intentionally chose this particular world, and as such he is responsible for it.
- To argue that this is the best possible world would be absurd. Any “best” possible world would be static, since any dynamic world fluctuates, and thus cannot be “best”. And it is easy to imagine a better one than this.
M
mwok
Guest
I say the worst example I got from avoiding pain was from my “Athiest” dad. Which he followed what I have witnessed as the direction that athieism takes you, do what pleases you. This, of course, comes from a lack of reverence for life in general.
M
mwok
Guest
Without pain, how do we know when our hand touches a hot stove?
S
Serious
Guest
Think outside the box. There are several possibilities. It is not mandatory that life or intelligence should biologically based, it could be crystalline based. Life is simply complex responses to complex stimuli. Even if it is biologically founded, it does not need to have pain receptor nerve endings. Touching a hot stove would burn your hand off, and just like a planaria, your hand would grow back. Just let your imagination wander and I bet you can come up with other solutions. As long as the solution does not lead to logically impossible state of affairs, it is a possible world, and as such God could instantiate it.
T
TS_Aquinas
Guest
On your question in premise three; when I brought up natural law, it was in context of secondary causes. I’m a strict Thomist regarding causal chain of events are more naturalistic then say the position of a divine interventionist. Example is the sorry excuse for the ID argument of Paley, I side with non-interventionists where the natural explanation is far more suitable and more aligned to the ways of an omniscient being. This has an affect on will since I will also say one’s will is affected by causal chain of events affected by secondary causes and not by the prime cause but sustained in being by Him with respect to will and law.Thank you for your contribution. Of course I agree.
Well, let’s disagree a bit.
What say you?
- God started the whole shebang.
- Classical theism asserts that due to God’s omniscience he knew the outcome before he created something.
- Since neither free will nor the “natural law” (not sure if you mean here the laws of nature?) lead logically to the existence of pain, suffering or evil, there is a possible world without them. (They DO lead logically to the possibility of evil, but not to the actuality of it).
- God could have chosen a different possible world without the pain, suffering and evil, and could have instantiated that.
- Therefore God intentionally chose this particular world, and as such he is responsible for it.
- To argue that this is the best possible world would be absurd. Any “best” possible world would be static, since any dynamic world fluctuates, and thus cannot be “best”. And it is easy to imagine a better one than this.
If we are going to discuss different possible worlds, can you demonstrate a different possible world that has no evil, suffering and pain? Remember free will and physicality are rigid designators. So this is an objection to premise 4.
S
Serious
Guest
I am not exactly sure what you mean here, but your following question is crystal clear. I agree that Paley’s argument is a crock of stinking fertilizer.
Of course I can. Let’s start with the definition of a “possible world”. (As a matter of fact, I disagree that some free will is a necessary requirement, but since you consider it relevant, I will accept it. Personally Ithink that “free will” is an idiotic idea when designing a “world”. Only a very incompetent or dumb creator would include unlimited free will in his creation, but this might be the topic of a different conversation.) A possible world is a state of affairs, which does not contain, nor does it lead to a logical impossibiliity. There is no stipulation on the number of inhabitants of this world, nor is there a stipulation on the morally significant dilemmas in this world.
As such we can have a possible world where there are no morally significant dilemmas. All the dilemmmas are morally neutral - for example what shall we wear today, a horizontally striped or a vertically striped suit. In this world we have free will and no evil at all. I could stop here, since it is now proven that there is a possible world with free will and no evil involved. However, I am pretty sure that you will find this solution unacceptable as too simplistic, since there are no morally significant dilemmas involved. Therefore I will go one step further.
The next world we shall consider is one where there is exactly one morally significant dilemma. There are two possible worlds here, one where the moral agent will choose the morally right decision and the other one, where the agent will choose the morally wrong decision. God still has the freedom to actualize either one of these worlds. The agent’s free will is not jeopardized. God can choose to actualize world “A”, where the agent will choose (freely!) the morally right decision, or God can actualize world “B”, where the agent will choose (again freely!) the morally wrong decision. If God happens to choose to actualize world “A”, there is no evil. If God happens to actualize world “B”, there is evil.
As such it is possible to have a possible world with free will and no evil.
Physical pain and suffering are contingent upon the physical structure of the beings. Beings which have no pain receptor type of nerve endings cannot experience pain. The objection that beings need a pain receptor to protect then from the negative effects of touching a hot surface (for example) is easily countered by stipulating beings with unlimited regenaration abilities (like the planaria) are possible. So there is absolutely no reason to have “pain” response to be included in the beings of the world.
R
robwar
Guest
the KJV is from the 1611 and is not used by Catholics as well as most Protestant churches.
Only a few die hard fundamentalist still believe and stand by it. To base your reason on an outdated old English translation of the Bible is grasping at straws. If you read in contents the whole Isaiah 45, it also states that in verse 9 “Woe to him who contends with his Maker, a potsherd among pots hers of the earth! Dare the clay say to its modeler, “What are you doing?” or What you are making has no hands”?
It talks about questioning and challenging God. I think you will probably respond in that the Bible has no value or meaning to you because you don’t believe in it. Yet you are not having a problem in quoting an old outdated Protestant translation on a Catholic forum. Not too logical or rational and I think you can do better. Why don’t you look up the translation that is closet to the Hebrew that Isaiah was written in and then read what was meant by the whole passage not just the one verse you want to use to try and prove your point about God.
S
sw85
Guest
I’ve never heard anyone making these arguments. Then again I don’t bother with the seemingly infinite number of “problem of pain” threads because there is no “problem of pain,” because it isn’t a problem.
T
TS_Aquinas
Guest
A and B are identical worlds. But let us suppose they are separable and B was actualized. Would agents, in your observation, of B know what they choose is wrong or would their choices really be evil to begin with?
Could you imagine such a world? Aren’t we plagued as it is with enough idiots making home made stunt films that end up on shows like “world’s dumbest?”
I’m not so convinced though of this position, I see way to many good affects of character development due to a sense and knowledge of pain. Not stating pain is good or one must inflict it to grow but the knowingness of it is enough. Also not saying it is necessary, per se, to know how good happiness and comfort is by knowledge of pain but by per accidens is comfort desirable through avoidance of pain, relief from pain by comfort and desire of comfort because of it effects.
K
Kithrus
Guest
not true, there are medical conditions where people are immune to pain. they have to go through ife checking their bodies almost hourly for injuries.
S
Serious
Guest
Yes, since evil is defined to cause gratuitous harm intentionally. If one defines evil as a privation of good (which is a nonsensical definiton, since it would mean that drought is “evil”) then the agent might not know it.
Easily. Trees have no capacity to have pain, because they do not have a nervious system. I can imagine a world where trees do have a nervous system, but it would be geared toward information processing. They would be able to think, to ponder questions etc. Intelligence could be part of a non-biological system. After all intelligence or thinking is just information processing, so one can imagine a “necrosphere” where the beings are composed of metallic or crystalline substance. Or we can imagine a self-regulating Gaia-type intelligent planet. The possibilities are endless.
I am suggesting this: “any kind of world which does not contain a logically contradictory state of affairs is possible”. We can let our imagination roam freely.
I am not denying that some negative experience (pain for example) can have positive results. Though to teach via negative reinforcement (punishment) is inferior to teach something via positive reinforcement (reward). There was a very sarcastic sign on the wall of my cube, which said: “The beating will continue until the morale improves”.
The question is: “is there an alternative way to achiveve the same results?”. And again, since the only limiting factor is the lack of logical contradiction, the answer is obvious: “yes, there are always alternative ways.”
T
TS_Aquinas
Guest
You’re mixing definitions though. Drought is evil in the sense that food crops and water supply will suffer, not applying any moral defect in the privation of rain. With regards to moral agents, this definition carries but a moral definition of evil also and only applies to moral and rational agents.
Anyways, you seem to be applying understanding of evil in our world to B, almost implying our morality as a rigid designator. Say it ain’t so
You do know the Catholic teaching of original justice, right? It applies here. Mind if I suggest some light reads that summarize this issue?
aquinasonline.com/Topics/probevil.html
aquinasonline.com/Topics/boapw.html
S
Serious
Guest
Actually, I am clarifying them. Too many times people use “bad” and “evil” interchangably, and that only causes confusion. As if there would be no alternative to “good” and “bad” - and of course there is: “neutral”. The concept of “natural evil” is an oxymoron, or a sloppy choice of words.
Why would it apply? We are simply conducting a discussion about the possibility of a state of affairs where the agents have a certain amount of free will, and yet there is no pain or suffering in the world. I even gave examples of such possible worlds. I was hoping to see some arguments against those possible worlds, or an acceptance that those hypothetical worlds are possible. We could devote time and effort to discuss those articles. I read them and even at first glance there are some glaring errors and the lack of ability to think “outside the box”. To go into details about them would derail this conversation, so I suggest we postpone that.
Do you see any logical impossibility about the worlds I suggested? There are moral agents, they enjoy a certain amount of freedom (no one has total, absolute freedom to do anything and everything), there is no capacity to experience pain (one cannot “hurt” a rock), so you are presented with an example of a possible world and no suffering. If you see a logical problem, please say it.
Let me add, I am very much willing to discuss those articles, once we finish this particular exchange.
I
inocente
Guest
Presumably we feel pain because tissue damage reduces our chance of survival and pain helps us to minimize injuries and look after ourselves. Pain and suffering also make us aware that we are all vulnerable, and is perhaps why we developed to be social and rational, and in turn why we are moral agents. These things are all inter-related, so without pain and suffering we might not be rational, social and moral. It doesn’t seem valid to change one of them and assume the others could stay the same.
But in any event, while we can all imagine fictional worlds, it’s this world which needs to be explained. Perhaps another god would have done things differently, but that would be a different god and a different world. Religion and science try to explain this world, not alternate realities.
T
tonyrey
Guest
That very fact proves that in normal circumstances they would not survive. In other words pain is an essential self-defence mechanism. The inability to feel pain is not a blessing but a handicap.
S
Serious
Guest
I already answered this.
Of course there would be difference. Why is that important?
Thought experiments are very useful to analyze the state of affairs.
S
Sair
Guest
It certainly is so in a world ungoverned by any benevolent deity who cares about sentient beings.
At the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia, this weekend, Richard Dawkins floated the suggestion (as a suggestion, not something that yet has empirical support or challenge) that pain might actually be more useful to less intelligent organisms than, say, apes or whales. They might need stronger persuasion to avoid potentially dangerous situations, and thus might be more sensitive to pain than ourselves (even though many animals, such as dogs, are very stoic and instinctively avoid demonstrating their pain). Interesting - if somewhat unsettling - idea, and not implausible. Worth considering, too, when it comes to our treatment of other animals.
- Status