The epistomological weakness of the logical problem of evil

[R_Daneel]

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).

If you would have said: if there is no “ultimate” purpose then there is no “ultimate good or evil” - then I would agree with you. After all we do have purposes, goals and intents, they are just not “ultimate”.

Evil cannot be a problem if there is no ultimate purpose.

The “problem of evil” is not simply a problem of the “existence of evil”, it is the contradiction between the alleged existence of an “omnimax” god and the “existence of evil”. Two different questions.

If the focus is on temporal purposes only, then what is considered evil for one person is not for another person.

That is also correct. There is no “absolute morality”, but there is “objective morality”. One person’s “freedom fighter” is another person’s “terrorist”.

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”.

Hold your horses there. No atheist would ever attack God - after all one cannot attack someone one does not believe in. Atheists don’t even “attack” believers (most of the time, and they should not) but they expose the illogical and irrational description of this alleged God.

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

Correct again. One cannot condemn in an “ultimate manner”, but that is not the same as condemning something in a “particular 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.

Yes, correct again. If someone is helpful here, we praise him here. If someone is a villain here, we condemn him here. Both the acts and their evaluations happen here and now - based upon the evidence. Before anyone brings it up, the procedure is not foolproof.

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

“Ultimately” and “specifically” are two different matters. Since no one could even define what the “ultimate meaning” might be, it does not matter. However, the particular can be defined and evaluated.

 

[reggieM]

If you would have said: if there is no “ultimate” purpose then there is no “ultimate good or evil” - then I would agree with you. After all we do have purposes, goals and intents, they are just not “ultimate”.

The goals that you create are ultimately meaningless and without purpose. But yes, you can create trivial purposes which have no ultimate meaning or purpose and have the equivalent value of their opposite or if they didn’t exist at all. The act of creating such purposes actually defies reason and logic in a philosophical sense.

Atheists don’t even “attack” believers (most of the time, and they should not) but they expose the illogical and irrational description of this alleged God.

Atheists have already accepted that their worldview is consistent with irrationality and illogic. Atheism is an amoral system. Atheists do, indeed, attack God (or even the concept of God) on moral grounds. That is what this thread is pointing to. But atheism destroys the moral foundation where any kind of rational attack can be built.

Correct again. One cannot condemn in an “ultimate manner”, but that is not the same as condemning something in a “particular manner”.

One is accepting as a first principle that the “particular manner” is ultimately meaningless and without an ultimate value. So the condemnation from that perspective is equally meaningless when measured in terms of “what’s the point”? There is no point, ultimately.

Yes, correct again. If someone is helpful here, we praise him here. If someone is a villain here, we condemn him here. Both the acts and their evaluations happen here and now - based upon the evidence. Before anyone brings it up, the procedure is not foolproof.

The procedure is ultimately without meaning or value. If someone helps you kill Jews (and you hate Jews), you would praise him. If someone prevents you from robbing a bank, you could rightly condemn him. Or the opposite. It’s a violation of the principle of contradiction.

 

[reggieM]

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.

True. When it is admitted (rightly) that atheism cannot ultimately evaluate, measure or distinguish good or evil because there is no ultimate purpose to human life, then any human action must necessarily be accepted as having equal value (that is, no ultimate value).

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.

That’s an excellent point. Atheism has to accept the theistic view in order to challenge good versus evil. By accepting the theistic view, atheism refutes itself.

More importantly, in the atheistic system it is impossible to measure or determine the ultimate moral value of any human action – since none of those actions has an ultimate purpose, meaning or value.

As Sair said (rightly) the problem of evil goes away because there is no utimate purpose to measure the actions against.

This actually kills rational thought itself.

To reason correctly or to be rational, one must place a higher value on truth than on lying or falsehood, for example. If falsehood has the same value as truth (which it does, ultimately for atheism – that is, zero value), then the truth of a logical theorem is as ultimately meaningless as the denial of the truth.

Personally, one could choose to tell the truth or to tell a lie. In the atheistic model, both are valid and acceptable responses, since both end with an ultimate value of zero. There’s also no way to determine if telling lies or outright refusing to accept various truths does not serve a “greater temporal purpose” in atheism.

 

[R_Daneel]

The goals that you create are ultimately meaningless and without purpose. But yes, you can create trivial purposes which have no ultimate meaning or purpose and have the equivalent value of their opposite or if they didn’t exist at all.

So the aim and purpose to lead a good life - for its own sake - is meaningless? To be decent and helpful - without expecting a heavenly reward - is just a trivial little, meaningless endeavor? I am simply amazed. There is a good sign in some national parks: “take only pictures and leave only footprints”. I like it a lot. The second part describes my sentiment: “lead a good life, and leave good memories”. But you say this life (on its own right) is meaningless. Helping the needy, curing the sick - unless it is done in the name of some “ultimate reward” is a trivial, useless endeavor. Are you for real?

Now, I am willing to concede this conversation, as soon as you can prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever that this “ultimate” meaning is more than a chimera, more that just wishful thinking, more than a pie in the sky.

The act of creating such purposes actually defies reason and logic in a philosophical sense.

Actually it defies “reason” in the **theological **sense. Of course if you equate philosophy with theology…

Atheists have already accepted that their worldview is consistent with irrationality and illogic.

It can be. So what? Theism is also compatible with irrational and illogical behavior - actually in my eyes it is fully irrational and illogical.

Atheism is an amoral system. Atheists do, indeed, attack God (or even the concept of God) on moral grounds. That is what this thread is pointing to. But atheism destroys the moral foundation where any kind of rational attack can be built.

Well, first of all attacking “God” and attacking "the concept of God " are two, very different things. In and by itself, ateism is amoral, I give you that. But atheism does not destroy all possible moral foundations (only the theistic ones), it CAN build a non-religious, secular morality. Of course, not all atheists are alike. Different atheists can build different moral systems. But the same is true for theists (in general) and Catholics in particular. Don’t live in a dream world. The Catholic morality fully embraced the horrible torturing of witches, in the name of exorcising the devil - and when they evenutally could not endure the torture and “repented”, they were burned while they were in the state or “grace” - all this to save their “immortal souls”. I hope such a practise would be abhorrent to Catholicism today. But, what do I know? The fact that Church does not use the stakes to burn witches today may be just due to the secular pressure, which prevents this practise. Maybe, if the Church had a chance they would keep up their practise, though I hope they would not.

One is accepting as a first principle that the “particular manner” is ultimately meaningless and without an ultimate value.

You are banging on an open door. I already accepted that. Now, if you want to say: “One is accepting as a first principle that the “particular manner” is totally and utterly meaningless and without an ultimate value” - then your principle is incorrect. What will it be? Are you going to keep repeating what I did not contest?

So the condemnation from that perspective is equally meaningless when measured in terms of “what’s the point”? There is no point, ultimately.

I am asking you again: do you really say that a good, decent, helpful life without a hope for heavenly reward is meaningless?

The procedure is ultimately without meaning or value. If someone helps you kill Jews (and you hate Jews), you would praise him. If someone prevents you from robbing a bank, you could rightly condemn him. Or the opposite. It’s a violation of the principle of contradiction.

It does not violate anything. The law of non-contradiction says that the same propostion cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same context. Your examples do not fulfill this necessary criterion. You speak of diffferent contexts.

 

[reggieM]

So the aim and purpose to lead a good life - for its own sake - is meaningless? To be decent and helpful - without expecting a heavenly reward - is just a trivial little, meaningless endeavor? I am simply amazed. There is a good sign in some national parks: “take only pictures and leave only footprints”. I like it a lot. The second part describes my sentiment: “lead a good life, and leave good memories”.

I notice your sense of outrage as you confront the logical consequences of your own worldview … but I will try to help.

Let’s look at your response.
You fully accept that there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to human life or the universe.
You claim, however, that this fact does not have an impact in terms of overall importance or valuation of any of the actions you produce.
See, it’s not just that your decisions are trivial and meaningless – but you, yourself are ultimately without meaning or purpose. You are unnecessary and ultimately without any value at all. We look at the final purpose and value of your life and it is necessarily zero. You have no ultimate purpose. Your first cause was accidental, unintelligent, blind, purposeless natural causes which only confer an ultimate purposelessness to you, your life and whatever meanings you create.

So, you can create meanings, but they are ultimately without any value at all. They are trival and unnecessary and ultimately useless.

That’s how we measure the ultimate value of you. Since you have no ultimate value. You are ultimately unnecessary and useless – then whatever meanings you create are the same. They are trivial and ultimately without value. You could create exactly the opposite meanings and they would ultimately have the same value – namely, zero ultimate value.

So, that’s how the value of your life must be measured – against it’s ultimate purpose.
How can something that has no ultimate purpose or meaning be evaluated ultimately?

The starting point for your life is that it has no ultimate purpose.

You now claim to live “a good life”. You’ve already contradicted and refuted your own worldview since there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to your life. There is no way to evaluate or measure whether your life is good or bad, because we must measure against the end. In your case, the end is nothingness.

Did you fulfill the purpose of nothingness?

Infallibly, you will fulfill it – just as every being will. Therefore, good or bad is irrelevant. You, yourself are irrelevant ultimately. You must be measured against the ultimate nothingness that you are.

When we measure you against your end and finality, which is zero, we know already that your life will achieve ultimately zero.

In the atheistic worldview we can’t even say if you did something good or bad because your ultimate purpose is nothingness. Every action is equalized against that measure. That measure (ultimate purposeless, meaninglessness) is permanent and essential to the nature of who you are.

That is the way we measure if you lead a “good life” – by matching it against your ultimate purpose and value. Since your ultimate value and purpose is zero, then “goodness” is irrelevant.

But you say this life (on its own right) is meaningless.

No, you’ve already agreed to this, and (as happens) you’re backing away and starting to deny what you must accept in your own worldview.
Again, *you *say that this life is has no ultimate purpose. In the end, it is meaningless. No matter what you do – the end result by which we measure the value of your life is that it is purposeless.

How do we know if you were successful (good) at fulfilling your purpose or the meaning of your life? You have no ultimate purpose. So, whatever meaning you create is trivial and ultimately meaningless as well. You could create one purpose or another – or no purpose. In the end, we know already that whatever you created had no ultimate purpose. It could not be right or wrong, a success or failure ultimately. It was unnecessary and valueless, ultimately.

Helping the needy, curing the sick - unless it is done in the name of some “ultimate reward” is a trivial, useless endeavor. Are you for real?

Here you’re changing the argument. First, you’re attacking religion instead of defending your own view. Second, you talk about “ultimate reward” when I mentioned “ultimate purpose”. The reward follows the purpose. So, the reward does not create the purpose necessarily. If there is ultimate meaning, then you can achieve the goal. Then you can measure good or bad against an ultimate fulfillment.
If there is no ultimate meaning, then curing the sick has the same ultimate value as making people get sick.
Both can be done for a “good” reason. Neither can be judged except against the standard of the ultimate purpose of your existence.

Now, I am willing to concede this conversation, as soon as you can prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever that this “ultimate” meaning is more than a chimera, more that just wishful thinking, more than a pie in the sky.

You’ve already conceded the discussion which was an evaluation of your view.
You cannot deny, and have not tried to deny, that your view renders your own life as ultimately meaningless and without purpose.

You’re now searching for proofs about my view (or the Catholic view). That’s a good start because you can’t defend your own view and you’d certainly need another one to replace it.

 

[reggieM]

I am asking you again: do you really say that a good, decent, helpful life without a hope for heavenly reward is meaningless?

You’re using words that your atheistic system has destroyed the meaning of.

A good, decent, *helpful *life – those must be measured against an ultimate purpose of life.

Your purpose is to utimately go into nothingness. Actually, you don’t have any ultimate purpose to fulfill.

Did you accomplish ultimate nothingness? Did you achieve zero purpose, ultimately? Were your actions “good” in fulfilling the ultimate meaning of your life (a meaning which does not exist)?

Did you “help” others fulfill a purposeless existence? We cannot measure if you helped or not. You cannot be helpful since nobody needed your help and ultimately, your help cannot change anything.

 

[R_Daneel]

You’re using words that your atheistic system has destroyed the meaning of.

You know, buddy, you are full of that proverbial substance. This is my last reply to you until you come clean on two questions, without evasion.

The first one: “what is your ‘ultimate’ purpose?”
The second one: “you said that the atheist might have some ‘trivial purposes’ and ‘irrelevant goals’. I asked you if ‘leading a good life for its own sake, without expecting a reward in afterlife’ is one of those ‘trivial, meaningless endeavors’?”.

Come clean, and we might continue. Avoid again, and I am not interested in your nonsense.

 

[_Locke]

Hi all I’ve been quietly watching this thread for a while and thought I’d pop back in with some (name removed by moderator)ut. At first I resisted because I was so frustrated at the turn of discourse, but I think it’s good that we tackle some of these fundamental questions. For the sake of easier reading and continuity I’ll traverse various themes I’ve seen in this thread, rather than respond to particular statements. In terms of citation, I list at the end of the post the sources I’ve read/paraphrased/plagiarized from.

I don’t want to violate this forum’s policy on atheism (please let me know if I am), but as the discussion has turned to, shall we say, refusing to argue the problem of evil on the grounds that those whose pose it are meaningless purposeless groups of atoms (thank you reggieM and MindOverMatter2 for that misdirection), I think this is necessary.

**On Atheism – **
Atheism is not a religion, ideology, or philosophy. It is not a belief system or a world view. It is a-theism – not theism. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not posit or state anything; as stated by someone earlier, you can assume nothing of an atheist beyond the fact he is not a theist. An atheist can be a communist, capitalist, nihilist, existentialist, murderer, saint, Buddhist or even Hindu. The only thing he cannot be is a theist. We can’t discuss atheism as a philosophy for this reason,

**On the Problem of Atheistic Morality – **
First I’d like to point out that it is in no way a contradiction for an atheist to lay claim to an objective moral code, and by that I mean a moral code that is the same for all people, that applies equally to all people at all places and all times. This code does not exist independently of humans, it exists because we exist. If I say “Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness.” BLAMMO! Objective moral code. Applies to everyone always, but does not exist without us.

Secondly, a humanist’s morality is not in any way derived from theistic morality, because it is based on the fundamentally *human *trait of empathy. It proposes that we should help others not because a higher authority commands it, not because we will be rewarded if we do and punished if we do not, but because we all know what it is like to be happy and to suffer, and we should want to increase the happiness and decrease the suffering of others just as we want that for ourselves.

Lack of reliance on a deity’s will is precisely the thing that allows atheists to unambiguously condemn wrongs committed in the name of God. Why do theists reject them? Is it not commonly said that no human being can know the will of God or fully understand the reasons why he allows evil to occur? Is it not the case, in the Bible and other holy books, that God frequently allows evil to happen to human beings to punish them for their sins? What grounds does a religious believer have for pronouncing these things immoral? (EbonMusings)

**On the Problem of Theistic Morality - **
Euthyphro’s dilemma: Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

If we choose the first option, then we are saying that there is a moral standard external to God, and that is this standard, and not God himself, that determines what is good; God would simply be relaying this information to us. Needless to say, this presents problems for theists. What is this standard, where did it come from, and how does it get its power over God? If God is constrained by a standard external to himself, then he cannot be said to be omnipotent. And if such a standard exists, could not atheists bypass God and appeal to the standard directly?

However, the second option is potentially even worse. This scenario is essentially moral relativism writ large; it says that morality is determined solely by God’s whims. Some believers might say that God would not command such things. But why would he not, under this view? If there is no external standard, then there is no reason why God would declare one thing good and not another. Whatever God willed would by definition be good. Under this scenario, theistic morality is completely arbitrary, and would have no objective basis.

There is another problem with the second solution to the Euthyphro dilemma: namely, it would make it a meaningless tautology to say that God is good. If goodness is defined as whatever God does, then to say “God is good” would reduce to “God does whatever he does”, or more succinctly, “God is God”. To say that God is good and have that statement mean something - for that proposition to impart any additional information - there must be an *independent *standard, one not determined by God, against which God can be compared and contrasted, and we return to the first fork of the Euthyphro dilemma. (EbonMusings)

On The Problem of Evil –
We’ve agreed on
omniscience – “possessed of universal or complete knowledge” (Merriam-Webster)
omnipotence – “having virtually unlimited authority or influence” (Merriam-Webster)
and omnibenevolence – “unlimited or infinite benevolence” (Oxford English Dictionary)
But unfortunately we’re really getting hung up on what evil is and I don’t think we need to be. I think that with some cooperation we can come up with something to almost everyone’s satisfaction.

Sources:
atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/AtheismReligion.htm
atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistReligion.htm
ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html
newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

 

[_Locke]

Here’s a start - “Evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among humans beings at least, the sufferings in which life abounds. Thus evil, from the point of view of human welfare, is what ought not to exist. Nevertheless, there is no department of human life in which its presence is not felt; and the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be has always called for explanation in the account which mankind has sought to give of itself and its surroundings.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

**On Atheism – **
Atheism is not a religion, ideology, or philosophy.

An atheist may not have a philosophy. But it is quite evident that “Atheism”, ontologically speaking, necessarily infers an objective philosophical world view (nihilism), regardless of whether the “atheist” agrees with it or not. If there is no Christian God, there are certain consequences to that view of the world.

**On the Problem of Atheistic Morality – **
First I’d like to point out that it is in no way a contradiction for an atheist to lay claim to an objective moral code, and by that I mean a moral code that is the same for all people, that applies equally to all people at all places and all times.

There is no objective moral code if there is no God.

This code does not exist independently of humans, it exists because we exist.

Then it is not objective and your talk of a moral code is meaningless.

Locke[/I];6730849]If I say “Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness.

” BLAMMO! Objective moral code. Applies to everyone always, but does not exist without us.

Objective morality is not defined by happiness or pleasure. True happiness is merely consequential given the fulfillment of morality. Otherwise, if i find it pleasurable to rape women, stab children, and bomb buses, i am morally justified because it makes me happy or gives me pleasure. Plus, it is not evident to me that moral good is always to my temporal benefit or happiness. I may find it good not to give money to the poor or i may feel that good is only conditional upon certain risk factors. Why should i risk my life and pleasure - which for all i know ends permanently at death - for a screaming child or a black man that is being beaten up by Nazis? I should do it because it is truly objectively good to help those in need, regardless of how i feel about it. But rationally speaking, there is no objective good if there is no God. Good is defined by God nature, which is Eternal Love.

**Secondly, a humanist’s morality is not in any way derived from theistic morality, because it is based on the fundamentally *human ***

trait of empathy. It proposes that we should help others not because a higher authority commands it, not because we will be rewarded if we do and punished if we do not, but because we all know what it is like to be happy and to suffer, and we should want to increase the happiness and decrease the suffering of others just as we want that for ourselves.

Its meaningless, and amounts to nothing more than an irrational attempt to compel or shame people into following an objective moral standard which does not exist. It is not true good. The humanist contradicts themselves by saying that there is such thing as good, by the mere fact that they have identified the “moral ought”. They have identified that human empathy is not just a likable trait but it is so objectively good that we should express empathy without reward; thus there is such a thing as God, and the humanist is irrational to think otherwise. In the end they are merely attempting to control and condition human animals by manipulating there human sense of empathy, guilt and moral good, because they know that humans are naturally compelled to an objective standard through these experiences. If they can guilt trip people into moral behavior, all the good for their survival, since survival and security is the real reason they propose their ethic, and it is not because they love good. If they could be happy in an evil world, they would not have proposed it in the first place, but rather they propose their ethic because they are subject to experiences that does not fulfill their personal happiness and threatens their security. Some of them might truly love goodness and believe in good, but then they should believe in God if they are rational enough that they can identify the existence of good! A naive person, influenced by humanism, has been fooled into thinking that there is a good but not a God.

**Lack of reliance on a deity’s will is precisely the thing that allows atheists to unambiguously condemn wrongs committed in the name of God. **

You have to identify the existence of good before you can rationally judge God according to that objective standard.

****On the Problem of Theistic Morality - ****

Euthyphro’s dilemma: Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

God is objective good. Good is an expression of what God is. You cannot believe in an objective Good that is not an objective nature. Humans merely participate in the nature of good analogously by mimicking the unity and expression of God existential being. Human actions, by themselves, have no objective moral meaning or value. If God was merely an act of will, like a human, Gods actions would be meaningless to. Gods act is good because Gods nature is eternal love, and everything else is defined in virtue of Gods nature.

 

[R_Daneel]

There is no objective moral code if there is no God.

This is the kind of remark that removes you from rational consideration.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is the kind of remark that removes you from rational consideration.

You have removed yourself from any meaning whatsoever, because you refuse to see the irrationality of believing in an objective good with out admitting the existence of God.

 

[_Locke]

MindOverMatter2:

But it is quite evident that “Atheism”, ontologically speaking, necessarily infers an objective philosophical world view (nihilism), regardless of whether the “atheist” agrees with it or not.

Interesting view, as nihilism as a philosophy has only been around since the early 19th century, while lack of belief in a deity or deities has been around since, well, forever.

MindOverMatter2:

If there is no Christian God, there are certain consequences to that view of the world.

I think you reveal yourself here. Perhaps the problem is your definition of atheism; are Judaism and Islam atheist religions?

MindOverMatter2:

Then it is not objective and your talk of a moral code is meaningless.

objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Merriam-Webster)
What do *you *think it means?

MindOverMatter2:

Otherwise, if i find it pleasurable to rape women, stab children, and bomb buses, i am morally justified because it makes me happy or gives me pleasure.

Excellent argument from outrage. But I was just giving that code as an example. Furthermore, you’ll find all those options impossible if you “Always minimize both actual and potential suffering”

MindOverMatter2:

Plus, it is not evident to me that moral good is always to my temporal benefit or happiness.

See the prisoner’s dilemma for the game theoretical approach to why pursuing self-interest does not always result in maximum payoff.

MindOverMatter2:

Its meaningless, and amounts to nothing more than an irrational attempt to compel or shame people into following an objective moral standard which does not exist. It is not true good. The humanist contradicts themselves by saying that there is such thing as good, by the mere fact that they have identified the “moral ought”. They have identified that human empathy is not just a likable trait but it is so objectively good that we should express empathy without reward; thus there is such a thing as God, and the humanist is irrational to think otherwise. In the end they are merely attempting to control and condition human animals by manipulating there human sense of empathy, guilt and moral good, because they know that humans are naturally compelled to an objective standard through these experiences. If they can guilt trip people into moral behavior, all the good for their survival, since survival and security is the real reason they propose their ethic, and it is not because they love good. If they could be happy in an evil world, they would not have proposed it in the first place, but rather they propose their ethic because they are subject to experiences that does not fulfill their personal happiness and threatens their security. Some of them might truly love goodness and believe in good, but then they should believe in God if they are rational enough that they can identify the existence of good! A naive person, influenced by humanism, has been fooled into thinking that there is a good but not a God.

I cannot help but note that you provide support for none of this. Also, God is not self-evident. I provide for you all of human history, in which mankind has believed in good, but on countless occasions failed to believe in God.

MindOverMatter2:

You have to identify the existence of good before you can rationally judge God according to that objective standard…God is objective good. Good is an expression of what God is.

First you say good is an objective standard, then you say God is the objective standard of good, which is it?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well Locke, I find it interesting that you call yourself Catholic, yet seem to be arguing as an atheist. Doubting Catholic, perhaps?

At any rate, why should I try to minimize suffering if I don’t want to? What reason do I have to do that?

 

[reggieM]

An atheist may not have a philosophy. But it is quite evident that “Atheism”, ontologically speaking, necessarily infers an objective philosophical world view (nihilism), regardless of whether the “atheist” agrees with it or not. If there is no Christian God, there are certain consequences to that view of the world.

That is right. Atheism is a philosophical position in that it describes a worldview or an organizing structure. It gives meaning in a universal sense – in this case by claiming that there is no ultimate meaning.
One of the first principles of atheism is “there is no ultimate purpose”.
That is clearly and powerfully a philosophical position.
It has a huge impact on everything.
Philosophy is about the discovery of meaning. When we start with the first principle that there is no ultimate meaning – then that says a lot about what philosophy can or cannot do.

 

[R_Daneel]

At any rate, why should I try to minimize suffering if I don’t want to? What reason do I have to do that?

I am pretty sure that you try to minimize your own suffering and try to maximize your own happiness. As for others, the priniciples of the golden rule (both in direct and indirect form) are a very good reason. Combined with the principle of “what goes around, comes around” here is your excellent reason to minimize other people’s suffering, and maximize other people’s happiness. Observe, no reference to deities, only simple interactions between rational humans.

Now, there are sociopaths who want to maximize their own happiness by hurting others. Since the decent people don’t like this, they create institutions to deal with these deviants. The solution is not perfect, but it usually does the job. Most of the deviants get caught, put into prisons, and thus their freedom to maximize their own happiness is curtailed.

So there. To maximize your own happiness does not logically lead to do that at other people’s expense. Aberrations do occur, but those do not invalidate the principle.