The epistomological weakness of the logical problem of evil

[kingal86]

Well, it is true that it would be quite nice to have an afterlife, depending of course on what kind of an afterlife it would be. Somehow hell does not look like a palatable option… But just because something “would be nice”, it is not a good idea to act as if it were true… would it? It would be nice to win a jackpot on the lottery, but should we base our existence on such an idea?

Yeah. I just wonder if that emotional desire for an afterlife is one of the main reasons a lot of people (not everyone) believe in God (or at least want to) rather than necessarily being convinced by logic, apologetics, a feeling of God’s presence etc.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yeah. I just wonder if that emotional desire for an afterlife is one of the main reasons a lot of people (not everyone) believe in God (or at least want to) rather than necessarily being convinced by logic, apologetics, a feeling of God’s presence etc.

I think it plays a huge part. In older times when people were mistreated by the rulers, they hoped for “justice” in an afterlife. People don’t really want to live “forever” (or if they do, they don’t think what a horrible thing it would be - see the Struldbrugs in Gulliver’s travels), they simply do not want to die prematurely and definitely do not want want to get old and weak. Sure, people want to stay young, strong and healthy, so they hope that it is possible.

 

[redhen]

I’m using atheism to buttress my defense, as I’ve made clear. If you want to consider atheism to be a mental disorder, that’s up to you. Again, “pleasure is good” and “pain is evil”.

Anyone who would **delight **in the gratuitous killing of 300,000 people in a tsunami would be classified as having a mental disorder. This has nothing to do with atheism.

It doesn’t matter if Nero was an atheist.He took pleasure in what he did. It fulfilled his self-interest.Therefore, according to atheistic principles, it was good.

Out of all the fields of science, psychology has the most number of atheist professionals (not surprising). They would all agree that Nero was an aberrant psychopath. You seem to imply that if you’re an atheist, you must condone such psychotic acts. Tell that to the hundreds of millions of Buddhists in the world, past and present.

More to it, you are implying that if you were not a Christian, there would be nothing holding you back from behaving like a psychopath. That’s not a strawman argument, that’s a legitimate inference.

I’m using a human being who found pleasure and self-interest in something to illustrate the logical requirements of atheism. The terms “psychopath” and “mental illness” assume a norm for human behavior. But given that human behavior is merely the result of material and physical processes then the idea that there is a “norm” is illogical.

Hmm, ok. Maybe you should inform the APA that all their members are wasting their time.

 

[Slowlearner]

Anyone who would **delight **in the gratuitous killing of 300,000 people in a tsunami would be classified as having a mental disorder. This has nothing to do with atheism.

Out of all the fields of science, psychology has the most number of atheist professionals (not surprising). They would all agree that Nero was an aberrant psychopath. You seem to imply that if you’re an atheist, you must condone such psychotic acts. Tell that to the hundreds of millions of Buddhists in the world, past and present.

More to it, you are implying that if you were not a Christian, there would be nothing holding you back from behaving like a psychopath. That’s not a strawman argument, that’s a legitimate inference.

Hmm, ok. Maybe you should inform the APA that all their members are wasting their time.

Perhaps reggieM was trying to draw out from you a statement of moral principles as you see them. I’m guessing that you would not say he APA is an arbiter or morals or philosophy. Anyway, I am curious, and would like to ask, do you believe there is an objective true morality? If so, please describe it and cite to, or explain, the proof of such objective true morality. Thanks.

 

[redhen]

Perhaps reggieM was trying to draw out from you a statement of moral principles as you see them. I’m guessing that you would not say he APA is an arbiter or morals or philosophy.

No, certainly not. Psychologists are concerned with mental health.

Anyway, I am curious, and would like to ask, do you believe there is an objective true morality? If so, please describe it and cite to, or explain, the proof of such objective true morality. Thanks.

Nope, I do not ascribe to any system of objective morality. Human morality, like many other traits, seems to have evolved along with physical evolutionary adaptations.

books.google.ca/books?id=PccMuO2pcOcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=philosophers+and+chimps&source=bl&ots=6dxorD_btT&sig=F-o2-U4KYWVQnY0Fqs0XILicgDk&hl=en&ei=qC8FTNzmF8XflgfxlIHXBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Slowlearner]

No, certainly not. Psychologists are concerned with mental health.

Nope, I do not ascribe to any system of objective morality. Human morality, like many other traits, seems to have evolved along with physical evolutionary adaptations.

books.google.ca/books?id=PccMuO2pcOcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=philosophers+and+chimps&source=bl&ots=6dxorD_btT&sig=F-o2-U4KYWVQnY0Fqs0XILicgDk&hl=en&ei=qC8FTNzmF8XflgfxlIHXBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Redhen, thank you. Well then, while Nero and a person who delights in tsunami deaths might be psychopaths by societal definitions, you’d say that there is nothing is objectively wrong with either of them. Further, I guess you would you say that while society might try to control psychopaths, society does so not for objective moral reasons, but rather as an expression of (a) group preference and group power in the case of democracies, or (b) individual power in the case of autocratic governments.

By the way, as I’ve said, I think a moral skeptic/nihilist belief system is rational. It is the humanist atheists that perplexed me. I’m still trying to find out if r daneel is a moral skeptic atheist or a humanist atheist.

reggieM, one insight you’ve provided me that I particularly appreciate is the following: how much of the justice, liberty, freedom, goodness in western civilization – which is acknowledged, accepted, and commended by atheists – is the product of Judeo-Christian morality? Thus I wonder if a group of moral skeptics were to establish a society free from any influence of Judeo-Christian morality, what would it look like? I’m sure you can provide better literary sources than I, but I’ll start with Lord of the Flies.

 

[R_Daneel]

It is the humanist atheists that perplexed me. I’m still trying to find out if r daneel is a moral skeptic atheist or a humanist atheist.

Why do you think there is a contradiction there? I don’t accept the idea of an “absolute” morality, but there is an “objective” morality - which is not the same in all societies or static in one particular society as time changes. Is that what you mean by “moral skeptic”? I have no idea what you actually mean by it.

 

[Slowlearner]

Why do you think there is a contradiction there? I don’t accept the idea of an “absolute” morality, but there is an “objective” morality - which is not the same in all societies or static in one particular society as time changes. Is that what you mean by “moral skeptic”? I have no idea what you actually mean by it.

I’m guessing that in the philosophical sense, objective is used to connote what you refer to as absolute. I think what you call objective morality would be a positivistic statement of societal morality – i.e. an observation of the collective moral thinking within society. But perhaps I am not using conventional philosophical terminology.

Well, I was just asking if you fall generally into the camp that would call themselves moral skeptics. I realize there are various schools within moral skepticism. If you want to be specific, you could name the schools of philosophical thought with which you identify.

I’m just trying to understand your arguments better by understanding where you come from. So either by reference to certain philosophers, or by a bit of explanation, would you be willing to share your beliefs regarding morality and truth? In other words, what are your first principles and how do they build into a framework?

 

[redhen]

… while Nero and a person who delights in tsunami deaths might be psychopaths by societal definitions, you’d say that there is nothing is objectively wrong with either of them.

That’s correct. These deviants break societal norms, but there seems to be no objective morality underpinning these norms.

I watched an apologist video once (William Lane Craig) who gave the example of Nazi atrocities. His argument for objective moral standards (God) was a hypothetical situation where Nazi Germany had won the war and taught in schools all over the world that Holocaust was necessary, and therefore good. Craig suggested that if this happened, the Holocaust would still be an evil, even if everyone on the planet believed otherwise.

I suspect that he uses this an attempt to embarrass atheists in debates. I think it fails, because it still does not prove that objective moral standards (God) exists.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m guessing that in the philosophical sense, objective is used to connote what you refer to as absolute.

Ok, let’s clarify.

The concept of “absolute” morality would mean that regardless of society, regardless of the beings which comprise that society, regardless of the age and technology of that society - there is one, unchanging moral code.

The “objective” morality means that in every specific society there is one moral code - which reflects the written and unwritten rules of “socially acceptable” behavior - regardless of what a specific individual might think about it. This objective morality changes from time to time, and it might be different from society to society. Some of these behaviors might be codified into the legal system, others might carry a “social stigma”. One should not equate the legal code with the moral code.

One particular member may not agree with the prevaling moral code, might even behave against it. In such a case either legal actions will be taken against such a member, if the behavior was codified into a law, or that member might be ostracised for being different.

 

[Slowlearner]

That’s correct. These deviants break societal norms, but there seems to be no objective morality underpinning these norms.

I watched an apologist video once (William Lane Craig) who gave the example of Nazi atrocities. His argument for objective moral standards (God) was a hypothetical situation where Nazi Germany had won the war and taught in schools all over the world that Holocaust was necessary, and therefore good. Craig suggested that if this happened, the Holocaust would still be an evil, even if everyone on the planet believed otherwise.

I suspect that he uses this an attempt to embarrass atheists in debates. I think it fails, because it still does not prove that objective moral standards (God) exists.

I will agree that existence of objective moral standard can’t be proved. Faith is required. Even early Christians recognized that arguments cannot bring people to God. In the words of St. Paul:

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God. 1 Cor. 1:21

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,

13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Cor. 2 (NASB)

Through the guidance of the spirit, I believe that there is an absolute and objective goodness: Love. When we choose to act with selfless love towards others – Charity – then we make the correct choice. When we choose to hurt others or ignore the call of Love, we choose evil. I can only live my life. I cannot stop tsunamis nor suffering on the continent of Africa. So these things outside my control have no bearing on my little daily decisions between charity and evil.

The point of the foregoing explanation is to show that the Problem of Evil has no more meaning to me than the Hitler argument you described has to you.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, I too don’t believe that an absolute moral code can ever be proven, or to use a different term, that natural law can ever be proven. But on the other hand, I hold that nothing can be proven; something can only be accepted as highly probable or highly improbable at best.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Out of all the fields of science, psychology has the most number of atheist professionals (not surprising). They would all agree that Nero was an aberrant psychopath. You seem to imply that if you’re an atheist, you must condone such psychotic acts. Tell that to the hundreds of millions of Buddhists in the world, past and present.

More to it, you are implying that if you were not a Christian, there would be nothing holding you back from behaving like a psychopath. That’s not a strawman argument, that’s a legitimate inference.

Objectively speaking, what is a psychopath and what is a mental disorder?

 

[redhen]

Objectively speaking, what is a psychopath and what is a mental disorder?

They’re all classified and coded in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual)

psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/complete_tables.htm

 

[reggieM]

They’re all classified and coded in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual)

psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/complete_tables.htm

Classification and naming is subjective.

Prior to the 1970s, homosexuality, for example, was considered a mental illness. That decision was no more objective than the one which changed it to the current status.

 

[reggieM]

Anyone who would **delight **in the gratuitous killing of 300,000 people in a tsunami would be classified as having a mental disorder. This has nothing to do with atheism.

Anyone who was Jewish was classified as a threat to the state. Therefore, according to this approach, that was correct.

Out of all the fields of science, psychology has the most number of atheist professionals (not surprising). They would all agree that Nero was an aberrant psychopath.

That is meaningless in a materialist system. They have made a subjective decision.

You seem to imply that if you’re an atheist, you must condone such psychotic acts.

I find it unfortunate that you feel the need (apparently) to re-write what I said and then condemn that false interpretation.

More to it, you are implying that if you were not a Christian, there would be nothing holding you back from behaving like a psychopath. That’s not a strawman argument, that’s a legitimate inference.

One of the most widely celebrated atheists in the world had this to say:

First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; **you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest *(it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions. * P.Z. Myers, Morality Doesn’t Equal God.

So, if I was an atheist like Mr. Myers, “the only thing holding me back” from going on a murder spree woudl be my own “self-interest”.

He merely takes atheism to its logical conclusion.

If it would be in any atheist’s “self-interest” then the person can behave like a psychopath. Again, blind, unintelligent, purposeless physical processes and matter do not mandate morals. Mr. Myers makes that clear. Notice again, "local temporary conditions shape behaviors. There is no ultimate purpose, so claims about a person being a psychopath are ultimately meaningless as well. They are subjective classifications.

Hmm, ok. Maybe you should inform the APA that all their members are wasting their time.

In the atheistic system, since there is no ultimate purpose to anything, then every action a person takes ultimately is a waste of time. There is no other way to use time since it all ends in the same way.

Again, as I qutoed from Camus, whether he kills a man or decides to let him live he realizes …

And just then it crossed my mind that one might fire, or not fire—and it would come to absolutely the same thing.

I can understand that many atheists do not like the implication of their own worldview. But the more honest of them actually point out the conclusions which necessarily follow from the idea that human life is ultimately without purpose or meaning.

Again, when the end (purpose, finality) of life is nothing, then everything is measured from that point. All of it is measured against the final end – and in the atheistic view, the final end is nothingness. If there is no purpose in the end, then whatever lesser purposes that are claimed along the way are simply meaningless and trivial.

As Mr. Myers points out, they are “temporary” – they’re really nothing and as such, all actions are equalized.

It’s a sign of mental disorder to ignore the fact that ultimately, the work or activities that one takes seriously have no value or meaning in the end.

It’s only because most people do believe in eternal life and justice that atheism adopts a pretense of meaning (by taking assumptions from the culture of belief).

 

[reggieM]

Yes, this is correct. Since atheism merely expresses a lack of belief in a “god” or “gods”, it allows all sorts of nonsensical beliefs. An atheist may believe in the Great Pumpkin.

This is essential. Atheism is compatible with any irrational beliefs. Since one’s beliefs or thoughts emerge from matter and physical laws then they simply exist. It is exactly the same with a person’s behaviors.

Major error. That does not follow. For example, nature does not care, if someone lacks the belief in gravity, it will crush everyone who jumps off from a cliff.

You seem to be saying that moral laws are the same as gravity. In other words, if you violate a moral law, you will feel an effect similar to being crushed from falling off of a cliff. What data do you use to support that idea? For example, what does nature do to a person who tells a lie? Where is the proof that this (whatever it is) occurs?

Sheer nonsense. A “true” proposition is in accordance with the external reality, while a “lie” is intentionally distorting the truth. Where do you get this kind of BS?

Physical laws and matter do not require anyone to tell the truth. They do not give rewards for telling the truth and avoiding lies. Why should they care? The truth or lies are a function of molecular processes (according to atheism). The fact that a person is capable of telling a lie, means that it is part of the natural order and simply “is”. It’s a material function and has no more meaning than telling the truth does.

 

[reggieM]

Just as a reminder, this is an argument about emotion. Christians often claim that God loves His creation, but when you read about the horrors R Daneel has related, what emotions do you feel? Anger? Disgust? Sadness? Does God feel these things too? If so, then his feelings are evidently insufficient to motivate him to take action. If not, then in what sense does he care about us? Either way, his so-called “love” seems pretty useless. Maybe we should just all be grateful he doesn’t smite us on a whim…

I think you’re somewhat heading on the right track with this line of thought.

First, when you read about the crucifixion of Christ and what he endured during the entire event, and what it meant to Him … what emotions do you feel? That is one approach to the problem of evil. Consider what Christ was thinking and what His intentions were. Why did He die in that way?

You ask “Does God feel these things too?” So again, consider what Christ felt. There are many Catholic saints to think about also. I can provide a list of 30 or 40 (or a lot more if you’re interested) who suffered much more than a singular pain of dying in a flood. Some sufferred acutely for 50 years. Then read what they said about these evils that came upon them. What did all of that pain mean to them? Did God experience it also?

If you’re interested in learning about the problem of evil from a Catholic perspective, there are many good sources that would give insights on what this means.

On the question of God “taking action” (to remove pain), in the Catholic teaching, each one of us is given the opportunities and resources to “take action” against evil. That’s what we’re supposed to do.

 

[reggieM]

Thus I wonder if a group of moral skeptics were to establish a society free from any influence of Judeo-Christian morality, what would it look like? I’m sure you can provide better literary sources than I, but I’ll start with Lord of the Flies.

Excellent example, Slowlearner. And that’s it. If you strip away all of the Judeo-Christian moral foundation and have a society that is based on materialist-atheism alone, the results will be quite different than what has developed in our society which had belief in God as a central principle.

 

[Sair]

OK. I’m going to have to tread a bit carefully here, owing to the ban on discussions of atheism that is still in place…

…but here goes.

I would like to get a few things straight, being that philosophy is still a fairly new field of interest and inquiry for me, and I’ve seen quite a lot of things on some threads here that make no sense to me, but which might make sense to those with philosophical training.

So I humbly submit my comments, in the full expectation that someone will either shoot me down, or perhaps confirm that I am possibly on the right track.

Now, this argument regarding God and the problem of evil - we’re talking abstract logic here, right? No-one, as far as I can see, has submitted concrete evidence that any gods exist - only arguments that god or gods might possibly exist, given what we know and experience of the world.

I have occasionally been accused here of claiming that evil doesn’t exist. Allow me to clarify my position on this. I do not believe there is any objective entity called ‘evil’ in the universe, nor do I think there is a corresponding objective entity called ‘goodness’ ranged against it. These are human concepts, based upon our capacity for pleasure and suffering. Basically, that which causes pleasure and comfort, we consider good; that which causes harm and suffering, we describe as ‘evil’ - in particular, if it is knowingly inflicted as such.

So much for whether evil exists - there can be no doubt that things and occurrences exist in this world which cause us harm and suffering, sometimes unbearably so. But as I see it, there is still plenty of room for doubt as to the existence of any gods. I can think of no phenomena in the known universe for which the best, most parsimonious, most plausible explanation is the existence or activity of a supernatural entity. Which is not to say that may not change as we find out more, but I think it’s fair to say this is the situation we have at present.

Now, I admit that the philosophical problem of evil is one of several factors that convinced me that the God of classical theism (that is, the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God) is highly implausible as an extant entity. It seems to me that what the OP has done is simply shifted the definition of God from a more concrete one that is contradicted by observed phenomena, to a somewhat more vague one that is not necessarily contradicted by observed phenomena. My feeling is that such abstract argument is a useful mental exercise - and perhaps good for supporting the faith of those who already believe - but it doesn’t actually get us any closer to having knowledge of whether any gods actually exist; much like riding an exercise bike is good physical exercise, but it doesn’t get you anywhere.

Oh, and I will catch up on the rest of the thread in due time - my interest was piqued by the first few posts, and I just felt the need to add my thoughts.