The epistomological weakness of the logical problem of evil

[Sair]

If your trying to say that atheism precludes a firm, enduring belief that certain things are right or wrong, well, that’s rubbish. There are many (for better or worse) moralist atheists.

Well said, aperture. It strikes me that there are a few folks on this thread who appear to be labouring under the misconception that “atheism” represents a single unified set of ideas and beliefs. That is just as absurd as it would be for me to claim that “theism” represents a single unified set of ideas and beliefs, when everyone knows that there is a vast array of concepts and beliefs across many different varieties of theism.

As for defining characteristics, there is one, and only one, thing that defines atheism - that is a lack of belief in gods. If you do not believe in any gods, then you are, in point of fact, an atheist, regardless of any other beliefs or ideas you may hold. I am an atheist, and I am also a utilitarian and an Epicurean; but the latter two are not characteristic of atheism as such. There are some atheists who are also nihilists - but this doesn’t mean nihilism is a characteristic of atheism.

This is why it is quite incorrect to assert, as reggieM does, that purposelessness is a defining feature of atheism. To illustrate, imagine a staunch protestant who believes in predestination and consequently thinks that nothing he does in this life matters, since his fate is already decided. If I were to claim, based on this, that belief in predestination and the pointlessness of earthly life are defining characteristics of theism, that would be an erroneous assertion, for exactly the same reason that reggieM’s claim regarding atheism is erroneous.

To tie this - somewhat loosely, perhaps - back to the original topic of the thread, the problem of evil is peculiar to one particular kind of theism - Abrahamic monotheism. There are other varieties of theism for which the existence of evil does not represent a philosophical problem nor a source of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Slowlearner]

Well said, aperture. It strikes me that there are a few folks on this thread who appear to be labouring under the misconception that “atheism” represents a single unified set of ideas and beliefs. That is just as absurd as it would be for me to claim that “theism” represents a single unified set of ideas and beliefs, when everyone knows that there is a vast array of concepts and beliefs across many different varieties of theism.

As for defining characteristics, there is one, and only one, thing that defines atheism - that is a lack of belief in gods. If you do not believe in any gods, then you are, in point of fact, an atheist, regardless of any other beliefs or ideas you may hold. I am an atheist, and I am also a utilitarian and an Epicurean; but the latter two are not characteristic of atheism as such. There are some atheists who are also nihilists - but this doesn’t mean nihilism is a characteristic of atheism.

This is why it is quite incorrect to assert, as reggieM does, that purposelessness is a defining feature of atheism. To illustrate, imagine a staunch protestant who believes in predestination and consequently thinks that nothing he does in this life matters, since his fate is already decided. If I were to claim, based on this, that belief in predestination and the pointlessness of earthly life are defining characteristics of theism, that would be an erroneous assertion, for exactly the same reason that reggieM’s claim regarding atheism is erroneous.

To tie this - somewhat loosely, perhaps - back to the original topic of the thread, the problem of evil is peculiar to one particular kind of theism - Abrahamic monotheism. There are other varieties of theism for which the existence of evil does not represent a philosophical problem nor a source of cognitive dissonance.

No misconception on my part. I’m discussing philosophy – and I think we still have a tie to the premise of the thread, the POE, and existence of evil. I recognize that culturally there are people who say (1) I don’t believe in God, but (2) I do believe in some objective truths. Such a belief, in my opinion, is not rational. In other words, from philosophic standpoint, if you dispense with God, you dispense with objective truth. I understand that some atheists believe in objective truth and in objective evil, and philosophic proof of that is what I’ve been trying to uncover.

 

[Slowlearner]

If your trying to say that atheism precludes a firm, enduring belief that certain things are right or wrong, well, that’s rubbish. There are many (for better or worse) moralist atheists.

I did not say that, nor attempt to say that. What I’m saying is that by definition, a relativistic purpose, meaning, or morality (where each person decides his or her own truth) is one that is subject to change. Now, subject to change does not mean will change. Ice is subject to melt, and you cannot disprove that by showing me some ancient ice in Antarctica.

 

[reggieM]

This is the first point on which your argument fails. No-one is claiming that temporal purpose is the same as ultimate purpose. The purposes we create for ourselves while we live are meaningful to us, while we live - that is not the same as saying that these things are of ultimate significance in the grand scheme of things.

Sair, that is a good explanation. You may want to reflect on what you said in post 105. If you had merely said what you offered in the paragraph above, it would have saved me a lot of typing, since here you are merely affirming the point I made.

Atheism proposes no ultimate purpose. We are agreed. That is good and we can go forward.

There is a metaphysical difference between an ultimate (final, or end) purpose to things and temporal purposes.

And yet you offer no reason for supposing that all purposes must be evaluated against the eventual end of our life, as opposed to the experiences they elicit whilst we live.

That is also an excellent response which is seeking a solid answer. I appreciate that.

I will address the reason shortly when I get more time.

What you appear to be saying here is that life is pointless because it ends. That, if I may say so, strikes me as a very foolish notion.

Consider that with a lack of purpose, we also have, necessarily a lack of final assessment. In other words, whatever happens before the end, cannot be assessed (judged, evaluated, analyzed) as against some ultimate purpose.

I will offer more on this, but there can be many analogies. You mentioned appreciating the journey versus only the destination.

Yes, that is a good thought, but a journey, by its nature, requires the possibilty of a destination. If we eliminate the possibility of a final destination, there is no way *to evaluate the quality *of the journey.

That is relevant to morality.

Was it a good journey or not? Was it successful or not?

If the journey has no purpose, then all journeys are equal. Whether you travel one inch, or a thousand miles – it’s the same. There is no destination so it’s just “movement”. But the movement is unnecessary and cannot be evaluated as successful or not – since it lacks purpose.

This destroys the meaning of the term “journey” since even a movement towards any point is the same as no movement. Both have the same lack of meaning, destination and purpose.

 

[reggieM]

• an individual’s conception of his own meaning, purpose, or truth is is a result of his creation (genetics or nature) and his environmental experience (nurture)
• as an individual’s experiences change, his views of his personal meaning, purpose, or truth changes
• without an external reference point, the relativist is completely reactive to his environment and his meaning, purpose, and truth are not his own, but those created by both his nature and nurture.

Slowlearner – that is exactly right. Nature would determine any minor purposes so even the claim that “we make our own purpose” would not be correct.

Such actions are simply in conformity with physical laws, no different than an apple falling to the earth. For purpose or meaning to exist, we must be taking about more than following basic animal instincts.

Exactly. Gravity moves something as a physical law will do. By itself, gravity would have no ultimate meaning. It requires something else to explain it.

There is this point also (I forgot I wrote this ) which may help Sair and others:

Therefore, there can be no measurement, assessment, reasoning, philosophizing or evaluating about the ultimate end of anyone’s life. It is nothing.

Without a final conclusion, there’s no way to know if something was ultimately good or bad.

For example, take all of the good things you do in your life and weigh them against all of the bad.

Did you do more good than bad?

There would be no way to know or measure that. And that’s a major consideration in morality.

The same is true of justice. Did a person make up for the bad things he might have done? Without a final accounting, there would be no way to know it.

That’s very important in determining justice – or if a person was a “just man” or not.

 

[Sair]

No misconception on my part. I’m discussing philosophy – and I think we still have a tie to the premise of the thread, the POE, and existence of evil. I recognize that culturally there are people who say (1) I don’t believe in God, but (2) I do believe in some objective truths. Such a belief, in my opinion, is not rational. In other words, from philosophic standpoint, if you dispense with God, you dispense with objective truth. I understand that some atheists believe in objective truth and in objective evil, and philosophic proof of that is what I’ve been trying to uncover.

From a pragmatist’s point of view, it is most certainly rational to believe in objective truth but to deny the existence of any gods. Objective truths- practically speaking, which is all that generally matters in the context of our lives and experiences - are those which any rational observer can identify as the same phenomenon - as opposed to subjective truths, which may be different for every individual. It is, for example, objectively true that grass tends to be either green, brown, or some shade in between; it is objectively true that the sky on a fine day is blue; it is objectively true that things which harm us and cause us pain exist. It is also objectively true that things which cause us pleasure and satisfaction exist. It is also objectively true that sentient beings tend to seek out things that cause pleasure and satisfaction, and avoid things that cause harm and pain. All of these things are true, and right there for the observing. A basic utilitarian ethic is based upon objective truths about sentient beings, suffering and pleasure.

To me, your belief in God seems entirely subjective. It is not rational, in my opinion, that you base the existence of any objective truth upon your subjective belief in God - and furthermore, I don’t see how it can even be supposed to follow, logically, that God must exist in order for objective truth to exist. This is why it seems odd to me that anyone would claim that purpose - even ultimate purpose, whatever that may be - requires theistic faith. Purpose exists in the context of human life and experience - everything we do affects us and those with whom we interact, and the environment in which we act, for better or worse. If I decide that the purpose of my life is to seek and attain happiness for myself and others, then that is what the purpose of my life is, and all my actions will be directed, to at least some extent, towards achieving that purpose. Indeed, it strikes me as arrogant in the extreme that someone with a subjective belief in a deity should use that subjective belief to belittle and even deny that my self-ordained purpose has any meaning, even for me.

 

[Sair]

Sair, that is a good explanation. You may want to reflect on what you said in post 105. If you had merely said what you offered in the paragraph above, it would have saved me a lot of typing, since here you are merely affirming the point I made.

Atheism proposes no ultimate purpose. We are agreed. That is good and we can go forward.

It seemed to me that you were seeking an admission that lack of ultimate purpose equated to lack of any purpose. That is a belief that you would find most nihilists hold, I imagine, but it is not characteristic of atheism.

There is a metaphysical difference between an ultimate (final, or end) purpose to things and temporal purposes.

I would have thought there was also an actual difference between them, but then, metaphysics has never made a whole lot of sense to me. I would also have said that it helps to be able to define the ultimate purpose - if it is to achieve happiness in heaven (as I understand it, happiness is supposed to go with being in heaven), then it is little different to what I and many atheists feel is the purpose of our lives - to attain happiness; only we consider it something worth working for while we live, rather than after we die.

Consider that with a lack of purpose, we also have, necessarily a lack of final assessment. In other words, whatever happens before the end, cannot be assessed (judged, evaluated, analyzed) as against some ultimate purpose.

A lack of external assessment, perhaps - but it is worth remembering that, if one has the opportunity to reflect upon one’s own life, one can usually make a reasonable judgement as to whether one achieved the purposes one set out to achieve, and whether one’s life, according to one’s beliefs and values, was well lived. Epicurus, for example, even in the pain of his final illness, was able to look back and reflect that his life had been good, in his estimation. He died happy.

Yes, that is a good thought, but a journey, by its nature, requires the possibilty of a destination. If we eliminate the possibility of a final destination, there is no way *to evaluate the quality *of the journey.

That is relevant to morality.

Was it a good journey or not? Was it successful or not?

If the journey has no purpose, then all journeys are equal. Whether you travel one inch, or a thousand miles – it’s the same. There is no destination so it’s just “movement”. But the movement is unnecessary and cannot be evaluated as successful or not – since it lacks purpose.

This destroys the meaning of the term “journey” since even a movement towards any point is the same as no movement. Both have the same lack of meaning, destination and purpose.

Life is change. That is the very nature of living things - we grow, we change, we die so that other things may live after us - that they may have the use of the stuff of which our bodies consist. There’s no getting away from that. The difference is in the quality of the journey while we live. I’m not convinced that all journeys are equal, simply because the final destination is the same for all (in my view). Ultimately, sure, the universe doesn’t care either way if we make the most of our lives, achieve many things and enhance the lives of others, or if we just bum around and squander all our opportunities and achieve nothing. But we care. That is what I mean by considering purpose in context - in the limited realm of human life and experience, the things we do in this life can have great significance, even if they matter not at all to the cosmos. The things that matter to humans still matter as long as there are humans around to care. Isn’t that enough?

 

[reggieM]

This is why it is quite incorrect to assert, as reggieM does, that purposelessness is a defining feature of atheism. To illustrate, imagine a staunch protestant who believes in predestination and consequently thinks that nothing he does in this life matters, since his fate is already decided. If I were to claim, based on this, that belief in predestination and the pointlessness of earthly life are defining characteristics of theism, that would be an erroneous assertion, for exactly the same reason that reggieM’s claim regarding atheism is erroneous.

I don’t want to forget your other question, but while I have a minute I’ll address this.

You’ve chosen a staunch protestant position as the example for all of theism, but theism is not restricted to those who believe in predestination.

When we talk about atheism, however, the idea that “there is no ultimate purpose” is universal. There is no life after death. No judgement. No ultimate purpose, meaning, design or intent for human life. Nature just “is”. It does not have an ultimate purpose or meaning.

You have agreed with this already (in post 111).

The fact that there is no ultimate purpose is a defining characteristic of atheism.

That is part of the first principles of atheism and it is the metaphysical structure that covers every part of atheistic philosophy. In the end, there is no purpose or meaning.

Philosophy is about ultimate meaning. It measures against the end or purpose – that’s how the reason of things can be measured.

For example, if there was a mathematical model which stated: “The end result of every equation is necessarily zero”. Then every equation must be measured against that end.

In the moral life – if the ultimate end and meaning of every human action is zero (non-existent), then we measure against that standard and every human action is equalized.

 

[reggieM]

Thus it is because we recognize hierarchical standards of living in which some forms or standards are truer in degree to life than others, that we are able to conceive of a “problem” with our standard of living.

That is a good point. We measure against a standard. It’s a universal recognition that some things are “better” and others “worse”. So this is hierarchical scale of value. If the end was necessarily “nothing” or “purposelessness”, then why not establish “better” as being closer to “nothingness”?

Instead, we establish “better” as closer to life rather than death. So the hierarchy of values moves towards life and is measured against that standard.

You have to begin with an experience of “worth” before you can experience the effects of it being degraded or oppressed.

Exactly. “Worth” is the essential point. Worth cannot be measured as a value in a system that says all ends without ultimate purpose or meaning.

Why do we create purpose? We create purpose because it fulfills our being to a degree. But if fulfillment has no objective meaning or existence in terms of purpose, then why do we feel fulfilled when we act for a purpose?

If we created purpose while knowing that the end is ultimately purposelessness – then it would be an illusion or a foolish game with no meaning.

 

[Sair]

I don’t want to forget your other question, but while I have a minute I’ll address this.

You’ve chosen a staunch protestant position as the example for all of theism, but theism is not restricted to those who believe in predestination.

When we talk about atheism, however, the idea that “there is no ultimate purpose” is universal. There is no life after death. No judgement. No ultimate purpose, meaning, design or intent for human life. Nature just “is”. It does not have an ultimate purpose or meaning.

You have agreed with this already (in post 111).

The fact that there is no ultimate purpose is a defining characteristic of atheism.

That is part of the first principles of atheism and it is the metaphysical structure that covers every part of atheistic philosophy. In the end, there is no purpose or meaning.

Philosophy is about ultimate meaning. It measures against the end or purpose – that’s how the reason of things can be measured.

For example, if there was a mathematical model which stated: “The end result of every equation is necessarily zero”. Then every equation must be measured against that end.

In the moral life – if the ultimate end and meaning of every human action is zero (non-existent), then we measure against that standard and every human action is equalized.

Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier argument - it seemed to me that you were saying that without ultimate purpose there is necessarily no purpose at all. Is that what you intended? If not, then we are in agreement, at least as far as my own denial of ultimate purpose is concerned.

I still dispute that such a belief is characteristic of atheism, as such. Atheism is a generic term for a lack of belief in gods, just as theism is a generic term for belief in and worship of god(s). I’ll use the example of Buddhism again, since it is the one most familiar to me; Buddhists generally don’t worship or believe in deities (although they may venerate the Buddha, they don’t conceive of him as a god), but they do believe in ultimate purpose, which is the attainment of nirvana, the ultimate state of enlightenment (any Buddhists on the forum, feel free to correct me if I have this wrong).

In speaking of ends and purposes, of course actions are evaluated against their outcomes, against how well they worked in terms of achieving a particular goal. But what I’m still not seeing is why ends must be ‘ultimate’ in order to be important in a human context. We have plenty of opportunities to evaluate our own actions and those of others, in terms of whether they achieve their desired ends, whether they contribute to happiness and wellbeing for those involved, and so on - temporal ends are the basis of most atheistic moral systems.

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier argument - it seemed to me that you were saying that without ultimate purpose there is necessarily no purpose at all. Is that what you intended? If not, then we are in agreement, at least as far as my own denial of ultimate purpose is concerned.

You’re correct on this. I accept that some concept of purpose can be created. But whatever that is, when measured against the ultimate meaning, it’s value is zero.

In speaking of ends and purposes, of course actions are evaluated against their outcomes, against how well they worked in terms of achieving a particular goal.

Exactly. Actions must be measured (valued, evaluated, assessed) against what the goal was. But with atheism, it is known that the ultimate goal is nothing. In other words, ultimately there is no purpose or goal to any action. That “ultimately” is a factor which cannot be taken away, ignored or dismissed. It is “attached” to every action.

What is the “ultimate value” of the action? With atheism, it is “none”. There is no ultimate purpose for the action. It was unnecessary and without an ultimate meaning. It disappears into nothing and cannot be judged for its ultimate value.

You make a decision today, you think it is good. But is it really good? When it is known that the end result is “purposelessness”, then all actions are equalized in the end. That’s the only way we can judge them. We have to measure against a standard, and the fixed, permanent, eternal standard for all actions in the atheistic model are “purposeless”, “meaningless” and “nothing”.

Why is it necessary to measure against that standard?

Because other standards are variable. A person can claim one goal or the opposite. There can be a meaning today which changes tomorrow. Even the outcomes of events change over history. “Did this person make a good decision or a bad one”? Over time, this can change.

Was it successful or not?

But what I’m still not seeing is why ends must be ‘ultimate’ in order to be important in a human context. We have plenty of opportunities to evaluate our own actions and those of others, in terms of whether they achieve their desired ends, whether they contribute to happiness and wellbeing for those involved, and so on - temporal ends are the basis of most atheistic moral systems.

When we evaluate actions in a system that starts with the premise that “there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to any action” – then we know the ultimate value of every action at the beginning.

There is no need to evaluate them after that.

You’re right – temporal ends are the basis of most atheistic moral systems.

But those ends are measured against some temporal standard.

What is the nature of that standard itself? Ultimately, it is meaningless and purposeless. Temporally, it can have whatever meaning. It can increase pleasure or decrease pleasure. It can create happiness or sadness. It can create wellbeing or death.

The ultimate value of all of those things is “nothing”. Ultimately, they are equal. Ultimately, one cannot have a greater meaning or weight than the other. So, using “temporal standards” one is assigning value to something that ultimately has no value.

I’ll close with a mathematical formula that might help.

We have

a(x) = y

a = total of all temporal meanings
x = ultimate purpose or meaning
y = value (success, goal-acheivement, worth)

If the formula was just

a = y

Then, whatever temporal meaning you had would be the value of the action.

But x is a factor which is attached to every action. It is “what is the ultimate purpose” of the action"?

So, we could say that we had 1,000 temporal meanings.

In the atheistic model, x=0

So, 1,000(0) = 0

The true value is always zero.

A thousand clusters of zero is zero.

We can say “the temporal meaning” is 1,000 though. Yes, but we’re solving for the value of any of those meanings. You can’t take away the fact that every one of them is “attached” to the fact that they are ultimately purposeless.

So we have to measure by the end and if the end is nothingness, then every action has that characteristic.

 

[redhen]

All this stuff about ultimate purpose reminds me of a Dawkins quote;

" When we die there are two things we can leave behind us: genes and memes. We were built as gene machines, created to pass on our genes. But that aspect of us will be forgotten in three generations. Your child, even your grandchild, may bear a resemblance to you, perhaps in facial features, in a talent for music, in the colour of her hair. But as each generation passes, the contribution of your genes is halved. It does not take long to reach negligible proportions. Our genes may be immortal but the collection of genes that is any one of us is bound to crumble away. Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William the Conqueror. Yet it is quite probable that she bears not a single one of the old king’s genes. We should not seek immortality in reproduction.

But if you contribute to the world’s culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool. Socrates may or may not have a gene or two alive in the world today, as G.C. Williams has remarked, but who cares ? The meme-complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus and Marconi are stil going strong. "

rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html

The prime directive of nature seems to be a drive to stay alive and pass on DNA. But humans have evolved to pass on culture as well.

One last quote, from Douglas Adams;

"Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? "

 

[reggieM]

But if you contribute to the world’s culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool. Socrates may or may not have a gene or two alive in the world today, as G.C. Williams has remarked, but who cares ? The meme-complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus and Marconi are stil going strong. "

rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html

The prime directive of nature seems to be a drive to stay alive and pass on DNA. But humans have evolved to pass on culture as well.

When it comes to purpose and meaning though, this is an after-the-fact explanation which does not help with decisions on future actions (e.g. moral actions).

If we conclude that the prime directive of nature is a drive to stay alive and pass on DNA, then that is a standard by which to measure the goodness or badness of actions (if they even can be good or bad at all). Any action that conforms with this prime directive would be “good”. Nature would determine the action anyway (and this justifies any human behavior) since every action is a “directive of nature”.

Again, there is no ultimate purpose to any of this – so even the things left behind are unnecessary. They may live on or they may not. Whether they live or not is ultimately of no meaning or purpose. Things cannot have an ultimate value in that view.

Mr. Dawkins mentions Socrates, Leonardo and Copernicus – all three of which believed in a supernatural order and the immortality of the soul. Again, it trivializes their lives and thoughts to ignore this. They believe in an ultimate purpose and meaning.

"Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? "

This is a similar kind of dismissal of philosophy and any search for meaning.

“Isn’t it enough …?”

Well, no – it’s not enough to reduce the meaning and value of things to a superficial response. The idea that God can be equated to “fairies” is yet another means of trivializing and distancing oneself from the fact that in Mr. Adams’ world, there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to anything – including himself.

So, what he’s saying is, “isn’t it enough that I exist for a brief period of time and have no ultimate value or purpose”?

That’s the death of philosophical thought.

 

[anode]

When it comes to purpose and meaning though, this is an after-the-fact explanation which does not help with decisions on future actions (e.g. moral actions).

If we conclude that the prime directive of nature is a drive to stay alive and pass on DNA, then that is a standard by which to measure the goodness or badness of actions (if they even can be good or bad at all). Any action that conforms with this prime directive would be “good”. Nature would determine the action anyway (and this justifies any human behavior) since every action is a “directive of nature”.

Again, there is no ultimate purpose to any of this – so even the things left behind are unnecessary. They may live on or they may not. Whether they live or not is ultimately of no meaning or purpose. Things cannot have an ultimate value in that view.

Mr. Dawkins mentions Socrates, Leonardo and Copernicus – all three of which believed in a supernatural order and the immortality of the soul. Again, it trivializes their lives and thoughts to ignore this. They believe in an ultimate purpose and meaning.

This is a similar kind of dismissal of philosophy and any search for meaning.

“Isn’t it enough …?”

Well, no – it’s not enough to reduce the meaning and value of things to a superficial response. The idea that God can be equated to “fairies” is yet another means of trivializing and distancing oneself from the fact that in Mr. Adams’ world, there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to anything – including himself.

So, what he’s saying is, “isn’t it enough that I exist for a brief period of time and have no ultimate value or purpose”?

That’s the death of philosophical thought.

Philosophical thought exists only in the mind of sentient beings. In this part of the universe, it exists in the minds of the human race. It has no existence outside of the mind. When sentient beings cease to think, philosophical thought ceases to exist, outside of books and other media. When that is destroyed, philosophical thought is destroyed also.

Sentient beings create purposes for themselves. There is no other grand purpose flying around out there–again, like Russell’s teapot. People say, “But there’s got to be some purpose to life!” Why? We have no evidence that there is any “purpose” out there, certainly not reflected in the nature of the human race or its history. It doesn’t matter what Copernicus or Leonardo or anyone else thinks or thought --another error in analysis, to defer to the opinions (not the reasoning supporting their astronomy or art) --of great men, usually great white dead men. They had a different world view. This insistence on some Ultimate Purpose, for which so many have disagreed and have killed and murdered for–is a great stumbling-block.

 

[reggieM]

Sentient beings create purposes for themselves.

If you read back several posts, I think I have addressed this already. In order to measure the value or worth of the purposes beings create in the atheistic model, one must start with the recognition that none of those purposes has any ultimate meaning. Again, ultimately, they are all meaningless.

This is an equalizer. None of the purposes created can have more ultimate meaning than any other – in the end, the final result is that they’re all without meaning or value. Philosophy itself, as you frame it, refers to things which have an ultimate meaning of zero. It’s final reference point is nothingness.

Therefore, what is the value of whatever self-created purposes sentient beings come up with? The most important common factor of them all is that they’re ultimately meaningless. They have zero value or meaning in the end. That is a permanent condition for them and nothing can make any of those purposes rise above the final state of ultimate purposelessness.

As I said, this makes it impossible to give a final assessment on any of the meanings and purposes that people create - since they are all rendered in exactly the same condition and status at the end.

This is very simple to understand in moral terms and is quite obvious. Ultimately, each human being reaches the permanent status of nothingness and purposelessness. This means that the actions of every person arrive at exactly the same status in the end. Judged from the perspective of an ultimate meaning – there can be no good or evil.

You yourself are a being that has no ultimate purpose, in the atheistic view. Your ultimate worth is zero. The meaning of your life is reduced to nothing.

This is an answer, or solution, that renders any other action, thought, philosophizing or reasoning as a trivial game to pass the time. Philosophy is the pursuit of meaning and a way to measure values. When the first principle, as it is in atheism, is that there is no ultimate meaning or value – then philosophy serves only a trivial purpose.

The same is true of any meaning that humans create for themselves. Those are superficial values that could easily be the opposite of what the person thinks, or not exist at all. Ultimately, it changes nothing and means nothing. It has not purpose or goal. It cannot be fulfilled.

It cannot ultimately be judged as successful or not. In the end it lacks purpose and is meaningless and without ultimate value.

 

[Slowlearner]

From a pragmatist’s point of view, it is most certainly rational to believe in objective truth but to deny the existence of any gods. Objective truths- practically speaking, which is all that generally matters in the context of our lives and experiences - are those which any rational observer can identify as the same phenomenon - as opposed to subjective truths, which may be different for every individual. It is, for example, objectively true that grass tends to be either green, brown, or some shade in between; it is objectively true that the sky on a fine day is blue; it is objectively true that things which harm us and cause us pain exist. It is also objectively true that things which cause us pleasure and satisfaction exist. It is also objectively true that sentient beings tend to seek out things that cause pleasure and satisfaction, and avoid things that cause harm and pain. All of these things are true, and right there for the observing. A basic utilitarian ethic is based upon objective truths about sentient beings, suffering and pleasure.

 

[Sair]

Slowlearner, you said:

*My dogs seek pleasure and avoid pain. They know the objective truth whether there is food in the bowl. (I don’t know about their ability to see colors.) We humans have a consciousness that allows us to ask why? What is good? Should I suffer pain in order to help someone else? What should be the priorities of my life? Should I feel hate toward the person who oppresses me, or should I try to feel love? Science and logic cannot provide us answers to these questions. A utilitarian ethic is very practical for enhancing the happiness of the most people, but to believe that it is the proper purpose of human existence is an act of faith no different than believing in God.

My belief in God is an act of faith. But that is another subject. Many who do not believe in a deity have the same belief as I do about the existence of purpose (absent a deity). reggieM quoted a number of those atheistic thinkers earlier in this thread. If I did not believe in God, I would agree with them that there is no purpose or meaning. This is a philosophical discussion, and I don’t mean to belittle or deny you or what you think. I am just stating my philosophical beliefs.

Up till recently, I did not believe that belief in a deity was necessary to establish purpose for an individual. I believed that purpose could be established with a faith in some objective truth that is greater than the individual. For instance, I believed that faith in a utilitarian system as the objective and true system for people was sufficient to establish purpose and meaning for those believers. In other words, I thought, you just gotta believe in something. But now, reggieM has me rethinking this. I tend to agree with his logic – that if death is the end, then it is impossible to prove to someone that existence has any meaning. When I say prove, I mean offer a philosophical proof, not an appeal to emotion. Thus, if reggieM is correct, the only logical escape for nihilism is to believe in an afterlife.
*

To me, the difference is evidence.

There is ample evidence to demonstrate the preference of living beings for pleasure, and the antipathy of living beings for suffering. This is a sufficient objective basis for constructing a moral system, and hence constructing purpose in a temporal context.

It’s quite rational to say that suffering can lead to greater strength for confronting future difficulties…but the truth of this is only discernible with hindsight - there are some who can say that they are stronger now for having faced hardship, but the fact is that suffering as at least as likely to brutalise the subject as to ennoble her. To use a familiar example, consider soldiers who are afflicted with shellshock after war - I don’t think there is any argument to be made to the effect that they are better off for having suffered such a devastating blow to their wellbeing.

This is what leads me to doubt the truth of any kind of divine purpose - firstly because any such purpose is inscrutable (at least if the evidence of believers is to be credited); secondly because any suggestion that suffering is necessary to achieving said divine purpose is akin to saying that the only way to teach a child about the dangers of playing with fire is to force him to hold his hand to the flame…which I’m sure any humane individual would agree is barbaric.

I don’t know why it’s taken me so long, but I think I now understand why it’s necessary to posit an ultimate purpose in this context - the fact is, it’s impossible to argue one’s way out of the philosophical problem of evil without positing an inscrutable divine purpose. If one focuses upon temporal purpose, the problem of evil is a very real and immediate issue - there is no denying that unnecessary suffering is a feature of sentient life. If there is indeed a god who is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, there must be a purpose that is beyond human understanding in order for anyone to maintain belief in such a god.

The irony is that for anyone who does not believe in the God of classical theism, the philosophical problem of evil is a non-issue.

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t know why it’s taken me so long, but I think I now understand why it’s necessary to posit an ultimate purpose in this context - the fact is, it’s impossible to argue one’s way out of the philosophical problem of evil without positing an inscrutable divine purpose. If one focuses upon temporal purpose, the problem of evil is a very real and immediate issue - there is no denying that unnecessary suffering is a feature of sentient life. If there is indeed a god who is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, there must be a purpose that is beyond human understanding in order for anyone to maintain belief in such a god.

Very well said. Since there is no discernible, temporal “use” for a huge portion of suffering, the believers must invent some out-of-this world “purpose” to rationalize it.

The irony is that for anyone who does not believe in the God of classical theism, the philosophical problem of evil is a non-issue.

Exactly. Or to put it simpy: “…it happens”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The irony is that for anyone who does not believe in the God of classical theism, the philosophical problem of evil is a non-issue.

Its not just a non-issue. It is not real either. Thus you recognize that theism is dealing with definitions of good and evil that you cannot possibly know about without suggesting that you either intuitively or innately or rationally know objective good and evil. Therefore if you are to challenge theism on an honest footing, you must challenge them according to what they define good to be. If there is no such thing as objective good then there is no possible way that you could legitimately criticize theism without knowledge of what good is; because you have to judge the issue according to that objective standard. If you know what good is, then you must admit that God exists, since you cannot know that which does not exist in some form or other. If you claim that you don’t know what objective good and evil is, then you are judging the issue according to personal taste. But personal taste is largely subjective and thus it does not provide you with the the necessary knowledge upon which to judge good and evil objectively. It is logically impossible therefore, for the atheist, to rationally claim that the presence of evil is incompatible to the existence of “good”.

You could argue that according to our definition of God and good and evil, that perhaps they are improbable, but you would have to serve our definition of God, and not some straw-man definition that you have made up. As far as i can see, according to our definition of “good evil and God”, the problem of evil is not a real problem, and is a non-issue for those who can understand the issue.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t know why it’s taken me so long, but I think I now understand why it’s necessary to posit an ultimate purpose in this context - the fact is, it’s impossible to argue one’s way out of the philosophical problem of evil without positing an inscrutable divine purpose. If one focuses upon temporal purpose, the problem of evil is a very real and immediate issue - there is no denying that unnecessary suffering is a feature of sentient life. If there is indeed a god who is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, there must be a purpose that is beyond human understanding in order for anyone to maintain belief in such a god.

I’ll agree with R Daneel that this is an excellent point and well-stated.
If there is no ultimate purpose, then there can be no good or evil (since those things need to be measured against a purpose, goal or intent).

The irony is that for anyone who does not believe in the God of classical theism, the philosophical problem of evil is a non-issue.

Again, that’s very good. Evil cannot be a problem if there is no ultimate purpose. If evil cannot be a problem, then there’s no basis for morality. If the focus is on temporal purposes only, then what is considered evil for one person is not for another person.

One person may believe that the elimination of all human life on the earth is the best temporal purpose to achieve for reasons of making something better in the universe, etc. (as atheist, Peter Singer suggests here):

Should this be the last generation?

If evil cannot be a problem in the atheistic system, then we can see the illogic and contradiction in the atheist attack on God as being “evil”.

Atheism is an amoral (non-moral) worldview. There is no basis from which one can condemn anything in an ultimate manner.

If a person believes that this life we live on earth now is the only life one will have, that makes a major difference in how he must view justice, success, fulfillment, reconciliation, and the overall goodness or badness of his own life.

In other words, there is no way to assess those things in the end, and ultimately they have no meaning or value anyway.