The epistomological weakness of the logical problem of evil

[Sair]

reggieM, you said,

*Since materialist-atheism denies an ultimate arbiter of human actions (or an ultimate judge), denies ultimate consequences for human actions, and must necessarily deny the supernatural freedom to choose various actions as well as any ultimate purpose (which is equivalent to “ultimate end” or “last end”), then there is no human action possible which can be considered “evil” in an ultimate sense. Every human action can be justified – simply because it “is”. Physical-matter (the sum total of all reality in the materialist view) just “is” – it does not command or forbid any human action. If there is no transcendent eternal law (or natural law) as atheism proposes, then there can be no good or evil.
Gosh. You make it sound like atheism warrants total nihilism and moral abandon. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, given where we are!

However, I think that it’s misleading to speak in terms of ‘ultimate’ ends and transcendent phenomena that have the power or otherwise to permit, command or forbid any human action. In the view of many atheists, including myself, natural and human ends and means are more than adequate for constructing an encompassing morality. Everything we do is contained and constrained within a vast network of interrelationships, and the effects of our actions can be far more widespread than we imagine - hence the need for considered ethical choices. What need for transcendent, divine order, when we have natural, temporal order - as well as chaos - to be going on with?

As far as I can see, the ends are the same - for an Epicurean and utilitarian like myself, the most desirable end is always happiness. It’s just that I tend to consider happiness in this life, since I don’t believe in any other.

To tie this in to the problem of evil, I don’t think it’s necessary to define good and evil in transcendent terms, nor indeed in terms of ultimate ends and the perfectibility of being. From my point of view, if any being is perfectible, it is so in this life - and that depends entirely upon how you define and delimit perfection. Good and evil, as concepts, have their source in human minds, but they are built upon the foundation of experience of the external world. We understand them in human terms, in relation to our own lived experience, because we can’t do it any other way.

Wow…that all came out kind of garbled. I’m sure there was a point in there somewhere. Oh, yeah - what I was trying to say was that in discussing the problem of evil with materialists, you need to keep in mind that materialism doesn’t preclude an appreciation of good and evil as shared human concepts based upon experience - it’s just that this is a profoundly different understanding to that expressed by supernaturalists.

 

[Sair]

Okay I’m beginning to think some of you didn’t read the article I posted since we’re having an argument about the nature of evil, and whether it even exists. Can we define it as “unnecessary suffering” and say that yes, it does it exist?

Hi, Locke,

I just wanted to say, from reading your first few posts to this thread, that your understanding and clarity are incredibly refreshing - I’ve enjoyed reading your perspective on this, and by the way, I definitely agree with your definition of evil here.

For centuries philosophers and theologians from St. Augustine to Albert Camus have attempted to answer this question. The problem of evil is, to many very intelligent people, the most effective, challenging, and fascinating philosophical and theological argument against the existence of an all powerful good God. Christian apologist William Craig called it “atheism’s killer argument.” So please don’t be patronizing and downplay the significance of this question; no one has invented an intellectually and emotionally satisfying answer and it is likely no one will.

I have seen at least one other thread here a while ago, regarding the problem of evil, and IIRC, it was essentially the same argument proposed to overcome it - that we have no way of understanding God’s intentions and motives, or of seeing the ultimate ends he’s working towards, so we can’t call anything evil, even if it seems so from our human perspective. To me, too, this seemed like simply sweeping the matter under the rug rather than making a serious attempt to address what is for many people - what was for me, when I was still a Catholic - at times a very distressing counterpoint to the joy and comfort they find in their faith.

 

[R_Daneel]

This is essential. Atheism is compatible with any irrational beliefs.

Why on Earth would it be important?

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.

Reductionism again?

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?

I did not say or even imply anything of that kind. If one tells a lie, and it is found out, there can be social repercussions. So what?

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.

I am really sick and tired of this nonsense “reductionism”. Yes, the thoughts are the movements of the electrons and chemicals in the brain. Nothing special follows from that.

 

[Sair]

RDaneel, you said,

*Same thing. The word “good” can mean different things. First, the concept of “good” cannot be defined in a universe without living beings. A pebble on the beach gets washed by the waves and it becomes nice and smooth. It is neither “good” nor “bad” for the pebble. For a living organism to “survive” is good, to die is bad. But a tree does not have a nervous system, it does not know if there is abundant rain and sunshine, it just exists. For living organism with a nervous system, well-being is good, pain is bad. It is the nervous system that decides what is “good” and what is “bad”. Living beings seek out pleasant existence, and avoid painful existence - without any philosophy. For a predator, to kill a prey is good, for the victim is bad - and this is true, without an appeal to God. There is no “universal, absolute, objective good”.
Thank you for articulating so succinctly what I feel is the problem with the view that good and evil must be absolute in order to exist or to be defined. To my mind, they don’t need to be defined so much in relation to each other as in relation to our experience as sentient beings.

Furthermore, one may be justified in saying that ultimately, one’s suffering or pleasure in this life will disappear, and that it is therefore meaningless in the grand scheme of things. That might well be true. But we don’t live to see how the grand scheme will unfold - we live for the finite span of our lives, and on that scale, good and evil, as we perceive each according to our experience, mean a great deal. To anyone who would argue with this view, I ask, do you remember how long a minute feels when you’re in pain?

 

[R_Daneel]

Thank you for articulating so succinctly what I feel is the problem with the view that good and evil must be absolute in order to exist or to be defined. To my mind, they don’t need to be defined so much in relation to each other as in relation to our experience as sentient beings.

Furthermore, one may be justified in saying that ultimately, one’s suffering or pleasure in this life will disappear, and that it is therefore meaningless in the grand scheme of things. That might well be true. But we don’t live to see how the grand scheme will unfold - we live for the finite span of our lives, and on that scale, good and evil, as we perceive each according to our experience, mean a great deal. To anyone who would argue with this view, I ask, do you remember how long a minute feels when you’re in pain?

Thank you for your words. I think this whole “problem” is just a tempest in a teacup. The solution is simple and straightforward. Any being with a nervous system experiences pleasure and plain, and strives for the former, while avoids the latter. Sentient beings can experience even non-physical pleasure and pain, expectations of good, sorrow for bad.

If there is a “greater scheme of things”, a huge tapestry where our life is just a minor thread, we don’t know about it - as you correctly said. Maybe there is, maybe there is not. But our lack of that knowledge does not make our happiness and pain insignificant.

 

[Slowlearner]

But our lack of that knowledge does not make our happiness and pain insignificant.

That statement fits what you previously defined as blind faith.

Significant means important in effect or meaning – or signifying something else. Happiness and pain in the world you have defined are purely phenomena. In a world where there is no meaning, events can have no meaning or importance.

 

[kingal86]

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.

It could be argued that considering genocide and aggressive wars evil is still fairly recent. One secular, and admittedly cynical, interpretation of the Torah (e.g. Num 31, Moses ordering prisoners murdered) and the Book of Joshua (e.g. killing all the inhabitants of Jericho except one harlot) would be a retrospective justification for what would now be considered a genocidal, aggressive conquest of Canaan on the grounds that God ordered it. Though I recognise tribal warfare was usually conducted like that back them, but if murdering prisoners and civilians is always wrong, that must have been wrong then too (if it happened as it said there), even in a very different civilisation.

Though I still do have a feeling there are certain things that are evil no matter what, or in what society they are committed, so I’m not relativistic–though I wonder if they are from natural law or from how I was brought up. E.g., I am fearful that if the Nazis had conquered Britain and still ran it, the way I was brought up might have convinced me of a completely different, and horrifying, system of morality. After all, most people in most of history would now be considered racist and intolerant, but back then conformed to prevailing social norms.

So I’m still unsure about the morality argument for God’s existence (though I think or hope there is a God), esp. since (apart from more basic principles common to most societies–though not sure where they come from or if those principles can be agreed on) there have been quite different interpretations of Christian morality over the ages, e.g. execution or punishment of heretics which would now be considered unacceptable, justifying slavery or apartheid with Scripture, etc. Though I do recognise Christian/Western morality also did some good things too, e.g. arguably contributing to the Enlightenment in Christendom (which never happened in the Ottoman Empire), idea of human rights for all etc., suppressing Aztec human sacrifice and sati in India.

 

[kingal86]

In a world where there is no meaning, events can have no meaning or importance.

Couldn’t they have meaning or importance because a person, or a large number (or even critical mass) of people, think they do? Or does that just lead to the question of why those people think they do? Sorry, I’m not used to philosophical debate

 

[R_Daneel]

That statement fits what you previously defined as blind faith.

Significant means important in effect or meaning – or signifying something else. Happiness and pain in the world you have defined are purely phenomena. In a world where there is no meaning, events can have no meaning or importance.

Ugh, how can you say something this irrational? There is no intninsic meaning - that does not mean that there is no meaning for us.

 

[Slowlearner]

Ugh, how can you say something this irrational? There is no intninsic meaning - that does not mean that there is no meaning for us.

Well it’s not just me. My statement is rational, logical and is consistent writings of many writers. Can you offer, or cite to, a proof that without intrinsic meaning there can be individual or collective meaning? By proof, I mean something more than your own declaration of feeling (that would be blind faith again), a proof would be a logical consistent argument. Or you could reference some thinker who has set forth such a proof. Do any exist?

 

[R_Daneel]

Well it’s not just me. My statement is rational, logical and is consistent writings of many writers.

It is not consistent with the facts. What some other people might say about it is of no consequence. If you say that your pain and happiness is insignificant if there is no “greater scheme of things”, you are welcome to lead your life according to this principle.

 

[Slowlearner]

It is not consistent with the facts. What some other people might say about it is of no consequence. If you say that your pain and happiness is insignificant if there is no “greater scheme of things”, you are welcome to lead your life according to this principle.

Are you unwilling or unable to put together a reasoned explanation for your position?

 

[R_Daneel]

Are you unwilling or unable to put together a reasoned explanation for your position?

There is nothing to explain. Everyone seeks pleasure, and attempts to avoid pain (though there are a few perverts, who act otherwise). For each individual is it important to do both. Both pain and pleasure are significant on the individual level. Animals are the same, they seek pleasure and avoid pain. Many people also consider other people’s pain and pleasure important - and act accordingly. Doctors, for example. I really cannot understand what do you find necessary to explain. Just look at your own behavior.

 

[Slowlearner]

There is nothing to explain. Everyone seeks pleasure, and attempts to avoid pain (though there are a few perverts, who act otherwise). For each individual is it important to do both. Both pain and pleasure are significant on the individual level. Animals are the same, they seek pleasure and avoid pain. Many people also consider other people’s pain and pleasure important - and act accordingly. Doctors, for example. I really cannot understand what do you find necessary to explain. Just look at your own behavior.

The fact that individuals seek pleasure and seek to avoid pain does not demonstrate any significance, importance, or meaning to those individual endeavors.

Why do the carbon atoms in your body, which happen to have landed in a living animal, have significance when similar atoms on the surface of mars do not have significance?

 

[R_Daneel]

The fact that individuals seek pleasure and seek to avoid pain does not demonstrate any significance, importance, or meaning to those individual endeavors.

It does not? I have simply no idea what are you talking about. My pleasure, my pain are both significant and important to me. So is the pain and pleasure of those whom I know. The pain and pleasure of those whom I do not know, would elicit some minor feeleings in me, and if I could help their pain, I would.

Why do the carbon atoms in your body, which happen to have landed in a living animal, have significance when similar atoms on the surface of mars do not have significance?

They do not. And they have nothing to do with the question you presented. Please do not resort to the dumb reductionist argument, because I will be rude. You have been warned. I am sick and tired of reductionism and those people who do not understand that the whole is not the simple sum of its parts, who do not wish to understand the concept of emerging attributes.

 

[reggieM]

It does not? I have simply no idea what are you talking about. My pleasure, my pain are both significant and important to me. So is the pain and pleasure of those whom I know. The pain and pleasure of those whom I do not know, would elicit some minor feeleings in me, and if I could help their pain, I would.

You’re moving the discussion from the philosophical to the personal.
Your pleasure or pain is not significant within the atheistic worldview, since the first principle of atheism is that there is no ultimate significance.

So, no matter what you claim your significance is, in the atheistic view it is already determined that there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to pain and pleasure. The ultimate philosophical, metaphysical structure for atheism is that “there is no ultimate purpose or meaning”. If you establish meaning in that system, then the source of meaning is “you”. But atheism has already concluded that “you” are ultimately meaningless.

So, whatever “you” come up with, it has no ultimate meaning or purpose (since you have none).

That is a great equalizer. No matter what anyone invents or feels, it is all of equal value, that is - of no ultimate meaning or value at all.

 

[reggieM]

The fact that individuals seek pleasure and seek to avoid pain does not demonstrate any significance, importance, or meaning to those individual endeavors.

That is right because in the atheistic system, individuals could seek pain and avoid pleasure and it would have exactly the same significance (that is, none).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The fact that individuals seek pleasure and seek to avoid pain does not demonstrate any significance, importance, or meaning to those individual endeavors.

Why do the carbon atoms in your body, which happen to have landed in a living animal, have significance when similar atoms on the surface of mars do not have significance?

Are you saying that pain has no objective meaning?

 

[R_Daneel]

Your pleasure or pain is not significant within the atheistic worldview, since the first principle of atheism is that there is no ultimate significance.

You can’t even define what “ultimate significance” might be. Then you have no idea what atheism is all about. And then you have the audacity to declare that nothing is significant for me. Well, I advise you not to assume that you are qualified to speak for me, and what I consider significant or not. I have rarely seen such arrogant nonsense.

 

[redhen]

This thread (like many others) has gone off on a tangent. The OP noted that there is nothing contradictory in the logical problem of evil, and I agree. It is possible that an omnimax God has a sufficient reason that justifies hundreds of millions of years of pain and suffering.

But I have yet to hear an explanation of what this greater good actually is.