The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Sair]

And if you are so arrogant as to think that if you aren’t given an answer, there isn’t one, then clearly you don’t deserve one.

Wow. First you make a baseless assertion, then tack on an insult which you apparently think justifies your position. Then you follow it up with a chaser that repeats the insult. Fine argumentative form there, sir!

For the record, the accusation of arrogance is unfounded (and ironic, coming from someone who presumably believes he was specially created in the image of god…) - I don’t assume I have all the answers, and that’s why I ask questions. Seriously, if you have rigorously investigated, empirical data in support of Old-Testament miracles or the mysteries of Catholic doctrine, I’d love to see it. In fact, such findings would no doubt turn the scientific community on its head. If you don’t offer the answers, that’s fine - I’ll just go look for them myself. But your approach is hardly going to give me a high opinion of your claims to knowledge.

And another thing - bringing this post back to the actual topic of the thread - is that I need to clear up a misunderstanding of my words that has now happened a few times. When I say that there is no problem of evil if there is no god, that does not mean I am saying evil doesn’t exist. Clearly it does - or at least there are events and actions that we humans comprehend as evil; we still have the problem of how we can prevent, avoid, or otherwise deal with it. However, we are no longer faced with the philosophical problem of how to account for the presence of evil in a world supposed to have been created, and to be watched over, by an all-powerful and benevolent god.

 

[Sair]

Are you referring to persons as animals? If so it reveals to what extent your materialism has devalued the life you claim to cherish… Your concept of free will is utterly at odds with the truth. You take it for granted that you are free to choose what to think and how to live yet you regard this gift as being solely for “egotistical reasons?” In point of fact the exact opposite is the case. Power-sharing entails sacrifice and the possibility of rejection by those you love - as we see only too well in our society in which parents are often ignored and discarded by their children. Filial ingratitude!

Different understanding doth not equal debasement! That is evidence of how firmly wedded you are to the notion of humans as divinely created, essentially spiritual beings. There is value in subjective experience. If our self-awareness is a conglomerate of physical processes, that doesn’t change the way we experience it, only the way we understand it - the difference being whether we believe it to be scientifically intelligible or completely mysterious.

Since the subject of free will appears, from this thread alone (and I haven’t read all the others yet) to be open to debate in terms of whether it even exists, let alone how free it is or what causes us to experience it - I think it’s a little premature to claim that we cannot exist as persons without it. What matters, again, is our subjective experience. What you refer to as ‘the illusion’ of evil is nothing more nor less than our subjective response to events and actions in our world. Personally, I tend to classify any action intended to cause unwarranted harm as ‘evil’ - that is my comprehension of it, and I’m sure there are those who might disagree.

Humans are animals - there’s no getting away from that fact. We aren’t vegetables, we aren’t minerals - we are African apes with highly-evolved cognitive processing power. Knowing this and understanding its implications does not make my life, or the lives of those near and dear to me (including my ageing parents, who are currently staying with me), or any life, for that matter, less valuable to me than it would be if I believed in divine creation, immaterial souls, or an afterlife.

 

[tonyrey]

Why does a benevolent god create animals capable of evil, if not for egotistical reasons? It seems to me that free will serves no purpose other than to validate reverence for a creator god - if a person freely chooses to worship, that’s far more valuable to the object of said worship than enforced or necessary reverence.

Are you referring to persons as animals? If so it reveals to what extent your materialism has devalued the life you claim to cherish… Your concept of free will is utterly at odds with the truth. You take it for granted that you are free to choose what to think and how to live yet you regard this gift as being solely for “egotistical reasons?” In point of fact the exact opposite is the case. Power-sharing entails sacrifice and the possibility of rejection by those you love - as we see only too well in our society in which parents are often ignored and discarded by their children. Filial ingratitude!Different understanding doth not equal debasement! That is evidence of how firmly wedded you are to the notion of humans as divinely created, essentially spiritual beings. I am certainly not wedded to the notion of humans as accidentally evolved African apes, essentially material beings which exist for no reason or purpose…

There is value in subjective experience.

There is also value in objective reality, e.g. the ability to think, feel, move and enjoy life in so many different ways…

If our self-awareness is a conglomerate of physical processes, that doesn’t change the way we experience it, only the way we understand it - the difference being whether we believe it to be scientifically intelligible or completely mysterious.

A false dilemma! Self-awareness is not scientifically intelligible. The atheist believes matter is the ultimate mystery and cannot explain how matter has become self-aware. The theist believes the mind is the ultimate mystery and knows self-awareness is an attribute of the mind.

Since the subject of free will appears, from this thread alone (and I haven’t read all the others yet) to be open to debate in terms of whether it even exists, let alone how free it is or what causes us to experience it - I think it’s a little premature to claim that we cannot exist as persons without it.

You **can **exist without free will but not as a responsible person. Ought implies can…

What matters, again, is our subjective experience. What you refer to as ‘the illusion’ of evil is nothing more nor less than our subjective response to events and actions in our world. Personally, I tend to classify any action intended to cause unwarranted harm as ‘evil’ - that is my comprehension of it, and I’m sure there are those who might disagree.

“harm” is an objective fact. It is objectively evil because it interferes with the development and fulfilment of living beings - regardless of whether we recognise or classify it or not.

Humans are animals - there’s no getting away from that fact.

Dogmatism unbound! Why do only human “animals” appear in court?

We aren’t vegetables, we aren’t minerals - we are African apes with highly-evolved cognitive processing power.

Would you say that to your loved ones? Is the only significant way in which we differ from apes our highly-evolved cognitive processing power, i.e. computing ability? Is reasoning no more than a mechanical process?

Knowing this and understanding its implications does not make my life, or the lives of those near and dear to me (including my aging parents, who are currently staying with me), or any life, for that matter, less valuable to me than it would be if I believed in divine creation, immaterial souls, or an afterlife.

It does not follow that your feelings are rational. There must be reasons why you value life so much… A life which is ultimately fortuitous, valueless and purposeless is obviously less valuable than a life which is intended, designed and fulfilled after death.

Really, the value of free will (even the existence of free will) is vastly open to debate - you can believe in a god who created beings with free will, or you can suppose that what we think of as free will is a conglomerate of physical processes happening in our brains. Either way, the results are the same.

The results are the same if free will is not rejected as an illusion. It does not alter the absurdity of attempts to derive free will from a “conglomerate of physical processes”.

The problem of evil only exists if one believes in a god who intervenes in human lives and decisions - otherwise, what we think of as evil just happens as a result of the complexity of human cognitive processes.

This seems inconsistent with your view that what causes harm is evil…

 

[Sair]

Sair;6147883:

I am certainly not wedded to the notion of humans as accidentally evolved African apes, essentially material beings which exist for no reason or purpose…
There is also value in objective reality, e.g. the ability to think, feel, move and enjoy life in so many different ways…

Enjoyment is subjective experience.

A false dilemma! Self-awareness is not scientifically intelligible. The atheist believes matter is the ultimate mystery and cannot explain how matter has become self-aware. The theist believes the mind is the ultimate mystery and knows self-awareness is an attribute of the mind.

The scientist believes matter, and the origin of matter, are intelligible. That the ultimate causes have not yet been determined does not change the belief that they are determinable. Certainly scientists don’t give up and assume that the origin of matter is an unsolvable mystery. Hence the mind, as a material entity, is intelligible in scientific terms, until demonstrated to be otherwise.

You can exist without free will but not as a responsible person. Ought implies can… “harm” is an objective fact. It is objectively evil because it interferes with the development and fulfilment of living beings - regardless of whether we recognise or classify it or not.

Certainly harm is an objective fact - but whether we qualify it as evil is a matter of subjective appreciation. And that depends upon circumstances. The achievement of ultimate power for the Nazis, for example, may well have interfered with the development and fulfilment of living beings - but by the same token, the development and fulfilment of the Nazis may have required the destruction of other living beings. Who is the arbiter in this case? You and I understand the Nazis actions as evil, and many others besides - but what are we to do about those who understand them differently?

Dogmatism unbound! Why do only human “animals” appear in court?

Because only humans have established systems in which guilt or innocence can be established from empirical evidence of intent. It’s worth noting also that up until the end of the Middle Ages, at least, animals other than humans were brought to trial for witchcraft…

Would you say that to your loved ones? Is the only significant way in which we differ from apes our highly-evolved cognitive processing power, i.e. computing ability? Is reasoning no more than a mechanical process?

Absolutely. Why do we need to differ in any other way, in order to matter?

It does not follow that your feelings are rational. There must be reasons why you value life so much… A life which is ultimately fortuitous, valueless and purposeless is obviously less valuable than a life which is intended, designed and fulfilled after death.
The results are the same if

free will is not rejected as an illusion. It does not alter the absurdity of attempts to derive free will from a “conglomerate of physical processes”.
This seems inconsistent with your view that what causes harm is evil…

Why do my feelings need to be rational?

Certainly, a life which has no preordained purpose is less valuable to those who assume life must have a preordained purpose in order to be valuable. Clearly, you reject the notion of self-ordained purpose, and the fact that humans have the cognitive ability to act purposely. Tell any creature at all that their life is valueless without intention and post-death fulfilment and their actions would be likely to contradict your pronouncement. Life itself is valuable, because it is life, and each living thing experiences life and acts as though it wishes to continue experiencing life - even plants, according to recent research.

Furthermore, you misunderstand my interpretation of evil - ‘unwarranted harm’ excludes harm that serves a valid purpose, such as self-defence, survival, deterrence, or other objectively justifiable criteria; and because what constitute objectively justifiable criteria are almost always open to debate, then the definition of evil must also remain subjective.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Life itself is valuable, because it is life, and each living thing experiences life and acts as though it wishes to continue experiencing life - even plants, according to recent research

Life is valuable because it is life? What is life that it should compel you, animals, or plants, to value it or desire it?

 

[Shike]

Certainly harm is an objective fact - but whether we qualify it as evil is a matter of subjective appreciation. And that depends upon circumstances. The achievement of ultimate power for the Nazis, for example, may well have interfered with the development and fulfilment of living beings - but by the same token, the development and fulfilment of the Nazis may have required the destruction of other living beings. Who is the arbiter in this case? You and I understand the Nazis actions as evil, and many others besides - but what are we to do about those who understand them differently?

Burn them. I mean, why not; it doesn’t seem how you’re arguing will lead to any foundation that human rights can sit upon.

peace,
Michael

 

[tonyrey]

There is also value in objective reality, e.g. the ability to think, feel, move and enjoy life in so many different ways…

It has an objective physical basis and is the result of the satisfaction of both mental and physical needs. And what about the ability to think, feel, move and other activities? Aren’t they valuable regardless of whether their value is recognised?

Certainly scientists don’t give up and assume that the origin of matter is an unsolvable mystery. Hence the mind, as a material entity, is intelligible in scientific terms, until demonstrated to be otherwise.

This is wishful thinking! It does not follow from the fact that **some **scientists assume the mind is a material entity that it is intelligible in scientific terms. Since mankind has always regarded mind and matter as distinct realities the onus is on the materialist to prove otherwise. Until self-awareness is explained scientifically it is not scientifically intelligible.

You can exist without free will but not as a responsible person. Ought implies can… “harm” is an objective fact. It is objectively evil because it interferes with the development and fulfilment of living beings - regardless of whether we recognise or classify it or not.

Certainly harm is an objective fact - but whether we qualify it as evil is a matter of subjective appreciation.

Harm is negative, destructive and opposed to the purpose of life regardless of our opinion. You might as well say the fact that life itself, development and success are matters of subjective appreciation but that does not alter their positive nature.

And that depends upon circumstances. The achievement of ultimate power for the Nazis, for example, may well have interfered with the development and fulfilment of living beings - but by the same token, the development and fulfilment of the Nazis may have required the destruction of other living beings. Who is the arbiter in this case? You and I understand the Nazis’ actions as evil, and many others besides - but what are we to do about those who understand them differently?

What has happened to the role of empathy in your interpretation of morality? Are you seriously suggesting that genocide may be reasonable and justifiable in certain circumstances? Significantly you ask what we are to **do **about those who understand them differently - because you know perfectly well that such callousness and cruelty are evil in any conceivable situation. Why? Because they are opposed to the principle of equality and the immense value of life.

Why do only human “animals” appear in court?

Because only humans have established systems in which guilt or innocence can be established from empirical evidence of intent.

Do you think human systems of justice are unreasonable and arbitrary in their exclusion of animals from law courts? Since there is never any evidence of intent on the part of animals there is no reason to regard them as morally responsible for their behaviour - even though this conflicts with your belief that we are no more than animals…

It’s worth noting also that up until the end of the Middle Ages, at least, animals other than humans were brought to trial for witchcraft…

Do that mean they were justified in doing so? Or what it because they were misguided?

Is the only significant way in which we differ from apes our highly-evolved cognitive processing power, i.e. computing ability? Is reasoning no more than a mechanical process?

Absolutely.

So you reject the reality of creative thought, intuition and inspiration?

Why do we need to differ in any other way, in order to matter?

If you are content to be an animal there’s no point in answering that question… I shall simply quote J.S.Mill: It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied…

It does not follow that your feelings are rational. There must be reasons why you value life so much… A life which is ultimately fortuitous, valueless and purposeless is obviously less valuable than a life which is intended, designed and fulfilled after death.
The results are the same if free will is not rejected as an illusion. It does not alter the absurdity of attempts to derive free will from a “conglomerate of physical processes”.
This seems inconsistent with your view that what causes harm is evil…
Why do my feelings need to be rational?

Feelings do not always need to be rational but if they are rarely rational our sanity is suspect… We can choose to be irrational whenever we like but then what is the point of discussing philosophical questions? Do we never have to justify our feelings?

Certainly, a life which has no preordained purpose is less valuable to those who assume life must have a preordained purpose in order to be valuable.

You are distorting my views. I do notassume that life must have a preordained purpose in order to be valuable. I specifically stated that a life which is ultimately fortuitous, valueless and purposeless is obviously less valuable than a life which is intended, designed and fulfilled after death.

Clearly, you reject the notion of self-ordained purpose, and the fact that humans have the cognitive ability to act purposely.

That is sheer nonsense! How could I possibly reject the notion of self-ordained purpose and the fact that we have the cognitive ability to act purposely when I believe that is the very purpose for which we are created?! Our power of self-determination is at the heart of the theist’s belief that we are created in the image of God…

 

[tonyrey]

There is also value in objective reality, e.g. the ability to think, feel, move and enjoy life in so many different ways…

It has an objective physical basis and is the result of the satisfaction of both mental and physical needs. And what about the ability to think, feel, move and other activities? Aren’t they valuable regardless of whether their value is recognised?

Certainly scientists don’t give up and assume that the origin of matter is an unsolvable mystery. Hence the mind, as a material entity, is intelligible in scientific terms, until demonstrated to be otherwise.

This is wishful thinking! It does not follow from the fact that **some **scientists assume the mind is a material entity that it is intelligible in scientific terms. Since mankind has always regarded mind and matter as distinct realities the onus is on the materialist to prove otherwise. Until self-awareness is explained scientifically it is not scientifically intelligible.

You can exist without free will but not as a responsible person. Ought implies can… “harm” is an objective fact. It is objectively evil because it interferes with the development and fulfilment of living beings - regardless of whether we recognise or classify it or not.

Certainly harm is an objective fact - but whether we qualify it as evil is a matter of subjective appreciation.

Harm is negative, destructive and opposed to the purpose of life regardless of our opinion. You might as well say the fact that life itself, development and success are matters of subjective appreciation but that does not alter their positive nature.

And that depends upon circumstances. The achievement of ultimate power for the Nazis, for example, may well have interfered with the development and fulfilment of living beings - but by the same token, the development and fulfilment of the Nazis may have required the destruction of other living beings. Who is the arbiter in this case? You and I understand the Nazis’ actions as evil, and many others besides - but what are we to do about those who understand them differently?

What has happened to the role of empathy in your interpretation of morality? Are you seriously suggesting that genocide may be reasonable and justifiable in certain circumstances? Significantly you ask what we are to **do **about those who understand them differently - because you know perfectly well that such callousness and cruelty are evil in any conceivable situation. Why? Because they are opposed to the principle of equality and the immense value of life.

Why do only human “animals” appear in court?

Because only humans have established systems in which guilt or innocence can be established from empirical evidence of intent.

Do you think human systems of justice are unreasonable and arbitrary in their exclusion of animals from law courts? Since there is never any evidence of intent on the part of animals there is no reason to regard them as morally responsible for their behaviour - even though this conflicts with your belief that we are no more than animals…

It’s worth noting also that up until the end of the Middle Ages, at least, animals other than humans were brought to trial for witchcraft…

Do that mean they were justified in doing so? Or was it because they were misguided?

Is the only significant way in which we differ from apes our highly-evolved cognitive processing power, i.e. computing ability? Is reasoning no more than a mechanical process?

Absolutely.

So you reject the reality of creative thought, intuition and inspiration?

Why do we need to differ in any other way, in order to matter?

If you are content to be an animal there’s no point in answering that question… I shall simply quote J.S.Mill: It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied…

It does not follow that your feelings are rational. There must be reasons why you value life so much… A life which is ultimately fortuitous, valueless and purposeless is obviously less valuable than a life which is intended, designed and fulfilled after death. The results are the same if

free will is not rejected as an illusion. It does not alter the absurdity of attempts to derive free will from a “conglomerate of physical processes”. This seems inconsistent with your view that what causes harm is evil… Why do my feelings need to be rational?

Feelings do not always need to be rational but if they are often irrational our sanity is suspect… We can choose to be irrational whenever we like but then what is the point of discussing philosophical questions? Do we never have to justify our feelings?

Certainly, a life which has no preordained purpose is less valuable to those who assume life must have a preordained purpose in order to be valuable.

You are distorting my views. I do **not **assume that life must have a preordained purpose in order to be valuable. I specifically stated that a life which is ultimately fortuitous, valueless and purposeless is obviously less valuable than a life which is intended, designed and fulfilled after death.

Clearly, you reject the notion of self-ordained purpose, and the fact that humans have the cognitive ability to act purposely.

That is sheer nonsense! How could I possibly reject the notion of self-ordained purpose and the fact that we have the cognitive ability to act purposely when I believe that is the very purpose for which we are created?! Our power of self-determination is at the heart of the theist’s belief that we are created in the image of God

 

[Sair]

It has an objective physical basis and is the result of the satisfaction of both mental and physical needs. And what about the ability to think, feel, move and other activities? Aren’t they valuable regardless of whether their value is recognised?

They have the potential to be valued, but until there is someone to experience value for them, they are simply abilities.

This is wishful thinking! It does not follow from the fact that **some **scientists assume the mind is a material entity that it is intelligible in scientific terms. Since mankind has always regarded mind and matter as distinct realities the onus is on the materialist to prove otherwise. Until self-awareness is explained scientifically it is not scientifically intelligible.

So what do you suggest? Continued research, or resort to unfounded supposition regarding the nature of the mind? I was simply describing a difference in attitude towards understanding the mind (and the rest of the world, for that matter). The scientific attitude sees that so much of what was once regarded as mysterious has yielded to rigorous empirical investigation, and finds no reason to suppose that the mind should be different in that regard. The mystical attitude to the mind draws conclusions based entirely upon subjective experience (and asks questions like, “Who am I if my mind is just the molecular interactions in my brain?” and other such nonsense) and presumes that the mind is inexplicable in physical terms.

Harm is negative, destructive and opposed to the purpose of life regardless of our opinion. You might as well say the fact that life itself, development and success are matters of subjective appreciation but that does not alter their positive nature.

Harm is not an entity with purpose - it is simply a word ascribed to the physical reality of damage, generally to a living thing. ‘Harm’ cannot be opposed to the purpose of life, but the being inflicting it might be. Life, development and success are biological positives, simply because they allow for living things to continue living and produce more living things. Death is also necessary for this to happen, so in that sense, death can also be a biological positive. What was your point again?

What has happened to the role of empathy in your interpretation of morality? Are you seriously suggesting that genocide may be reasonable and justifiable in certain circumstances?

Now you’re twisting my words - most disingenuous of you! Of course I wasn’t saying any such thing, only pointing out that there are those who do and have thought so (including the Old-Testament god, if I recall correctly…) When I speak of life as subjectively valuable, it means that each living thing, generally speaking, exhibits a preference for staying alive as long as possible. And if I feel it’s a bad thing for someone to harm or kill me without some justification (for example, if I were in the act of harming them), then it is reasonable to suppose - and the evidence to which I have access supports the supposition - that others feel the same way. Unfortunately (as I see it) there are those who have goals that they see as more important than the subjective value of individuals’ lives. Whether or not such goals are rational remains open to debate.

Do you think human systems of justice are unreasonable and arbitrary in their exclusion of animals from law courts? Since there is never any evidence of intent on the part of animals there is no reason to regard them as morally responsible for their behaviour - even though this conflicts with your belief that we are no more than animals…

It isn’t arbitrary to exclude other animals from law courts - it’s practical, because whilst other animals can act with intent, we have no practical means of establishing their intent to the required standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Putting other animals on trial (at least in our Western legal systems) was discarded around the same time as other archaic practices such as trial by ordeal.

You are distorting my views. I do **not **assume that life must have a preordained purpose in order to be valuable. I specifically stated that a life which is ultimately fortuitous, valueless and purposeless is obviously less valuable than a life which is intended, designed and fulfilled after death.

That isn’t obvious at all, unless you implicitly believe that there is something beyond our own subjective experience and that of others which provides our lives with value, and our own cognitive abilities and social proclivities to provide us with purpose. You say you don’t reject the notion of self-ordained purpose, but you clearly see it as something that acquires its importance from divine ordinance.

 

[tonyrey]

…1…

Enjoyment has an objective physical basis and is the result of the satisfaction of both mental and physical needs. And what about the ability to think, feel, move and other activities? Aren’t they valuable regardless of whether their value is recognised?

Does “someone” mean a person? Do you believe the humblest forms of life are not valuable or were not valuable until more advanced organisms existed?

This is wishful thinking! It does not follow from the fact that some scientists assume the mind is a material entity that it is intelligible in scientific terms. Since mankind has always regarded mind and matter as distinct realities the onus is on the materialist to prove otherwise. Until self-awareness is explained scientifically it is not scientifically intelligible.

So what do you suggest? Continued research, or resort to unfounded supposition regarding the nature of the mind?

Continued research is carried out by many scientists who are not materialists because there remains much to be known about the nature of the mind. Your all-or-nothing attitude is both unscientific and unreasonable.

I was simply describing a difference in attitude towards understanding the mind (and the rest of the world, for that matter).

That is to say mechanistic and analytic rather than teleological and synthetic…

The scientific attitude sees that so much of what was once regarded as mysterious has yielded to rigorous empirical investigation, and finds no reason to suppose that the mind should be different in that regard.

You are misrepresenting the attitude of many scientists who realise that the mind is distinct from matter. It does not follow that empiricism is the sole means of discovering the truth. Any reputable neuroscientist knows that subjective experience is clearly not identical with physiological processes and should be considered a reality of which we are more directly and immediately aware - and certain - than anything else…

The mystical attitude to the mind draws conclusions based entirely upon subjective experience…

You falsely equate belief in the independence of the mind with mysticism… I could equally well say you have a mystical attitude to matter. After all, you believe matter is the mysterious source of everything else and therefore the supreme reality - the existence of which is unfathomable…

…(and asks questions like, “Who am I if my mind is just the molecular interactions in my brain?” and other such nonsense) and presumes that the mind is inexplicable in physical terms.

Don’t you ask questions like “Who am I if my mind is just the molecular interactions in my brain?” and other such nonsense? Or do you simply reject the existence of the self outright - and regard self-control as a myth?

Harm is negative, destructive and opposed to the purpose of life regardless of our opinion. You might as well say the fact that life itself, development and success are matters of subjective appreciation but that does not alter their positive nature.

Harm is not an entity with purpose - it is simply a word ascribed to the physical reality of damage, generally to a living thing.

Harm is not simply damage but includes the consequences of damage, both mental and physical.

‘Harm’ cannot be opposed to the purpose of life, but the being inflicting it might be.

‘Harm’ is opposed to the purpose of life in the sense that it interferes with, and frustrates, the development and success of living organisms.

Life, development and success are biological positives, simply because they allow for living things to continue living and produce more living things. Death is also necessary for this to happen, so in that sense, death can also be a biological positive.

Death in itself is a biological **negative **even though it has positive consequences.
Its essential negativity is clear from the fact that the deaths of the last living beings on this planet will have no positive consequences. Albert Camus called it “le supreme abûs”… which reinforced his view that life is absurd.

What was your point again?

That evil is objectively negative…

What has happened to the role of empathy in your interpretation of morality? Are you seriously suggesting that genocide may be reasonable and justifiable in certain circumstances?

Of course I wasn’t saying any such thing, only pointing out that there are those who do and have thought so…

Your exact words:
“The achievement of ultimate power for the Nazis, for example, may well have interfered with the development and fulfilment of living beings - but by the same token, the development and fulfilment of the Nazis may have required the destruction of other living beings. Who is the arbiter in this case? You and I understand the Nazis’ actions as evil, and many others besides - but what are we to do about those who understand them differently?”
You give the impression that there is no objective means of determining what is evil…

 

[tonyrey]

…2…

When I speak of life as subjectively valuable, it means that each living thing, generally speaking, exhibits a preference for staying alive as long as possible.

You are confounding a preference with a physical urge. Does an amoeba have a preference? If so there is no difference between subjective and objective!

And if I feel it’s a bad thing for someone to harm or kill me without some justification (for example, if I were in the act of harming them), then it is reasonable to suppose - and the evidence to which I have access supports the supposition - that others feel the same way. Unfortunately (as I see it) there are those who have goals that they see as more important than the subjective value of individuals’ lives. Whether or not such goals are rational remains open to debate.

Again you are implying that there is doubt about whether genocide, for example, is evil.
Your moral standpoint seems very precarious.

Do you think human systems of justice are unreasonable and arbitrary in their exclusion of animals from law courts? Since there is never any evidence of intent on the part of animals there is no reason to regard them as morally responsible for their behaviour - even though this conflicts with your belief that we are no more than animals…

It isn’t arbitrary to exclude other animals from law courts - it’s practical, because whilst other animals can act with intent, we have no practical means of establishing their intent to the required standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
The onus is on you to prove that animals can act with intent in the legal sense of the term…

Putting other animals on trial (at least in our Western legal systems) was discarded around the same time as other archaic practices such as trial by ordeal.

Because animals satisfy none of the legal requirements for culpability.

I specifically stated that a life which is ultimately fortuitous, valueless and purposeless is obviously less valuable than a life which is intended, designed and fulfilled after death.

That isn’t obvious at all, unless you implicitly believe that there is something beyond our own subjective experience and that of others which provides our lives with value, and our own cognitive abilities and social proclivities to provide us with purpose.

You stake everything on the primacy of particles and the power of chance whereas I stake everything on the primacy of persons and the power of reason.

You say you don’t reject the notion of self-ordained purpose, but you clearly see it as something that acquires its importance from divine ordinance.

Which do you think is more important: animals which exist for a few years by chance for no reason whatsoever or persons who are intended to exist forever in order to fulfil their capacity for creativity, insight, enjoyment and love?

BTW The Problem of Evil does not exist if evil is merely a human concept.

 

[Sair]

BTW The Problem of Evil does not exist if evil is merely a human concept.

Sure it does - because your supposedly all-powerful and benevolent god created humans with the capacity to experience and comprehend evil - to what purpose? Yucks?

On the other hand, the problem of evil actually doesn’t exist if there’s no god - if we’re not required to account for the presence of evil *in spite of *the existence of an all-powerful and all-good god, who intervenes in human existence.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Sure it does - because your supposedly all-powerful and benevolent god created humans with the capacity to experience and comprehend evil - to what purpose? Yucks?

The capacity to conceive of a problem is not the same as having a problem. You can conceive of a unicorn, that doesn’t mean that one exists.

On the other hand, the problem of evil actually doesn’t exist if there’s no god

If that is so, then by your beliefs, there is no problem of evil. So what’s the problem?

But then, you declare that evil is whatever you think to be very bad. Are you saying that with no god, nothing bad would happen to anyone - ever?

 

[Sair]

The capacity to conceive of a problem is not the same as having a problem. You can conceive of a unicorn, that doesn’t mean that one exists.

If that is so, then by your beliefs, there is no problem of evil. So what’s the problem?

But then, you declare that evil is whatever you think to be very bad. Are you saying that with no god, nothing bad would happen to anyone - ever?

If there’s a god who created humans, this god created humans with the capacity to suffer and to inflict harm upon each other (not to mention other living creatures). Whether we comprehend the deliberate infliction of harm as evil or not, this does not change the capacity to suffer. We can define certain actions as evil, but that is a subjective definition. It doesn’t mean that the existence of suffering goes away.

It does mean, however, that if we believe in the Judeo-Christian god, we are faced with the problem of reconciling the omnipotence and benevolence of this god with the reality of the suffering of his creations - suffering which this god apparently does nothing to prevent or alleviate, despite having the ability to do so (necessarily, because he is all-powerful). The suffering itself doesn’t go away if there is no such god, but the philosophical problem of evil becomes an irrelevancy.

(Not to mention, by the way, the difference between “evil is whatever I think to be very bad” and " my understanding is that evil consists in the deliberate infliction of unwarranted harm" - did you even read my last few posts?)

 

[James_S_Saint]

If there’s a god who created humans, this god created humans with the capacity to suffer and to inflict harm upon each other (not to mention other living creatures). Whether we comprehend the deliberate infliction of harm as evil or not, this does not change the capacity to suffer. We can define certain actions as evil, but that is a subjective definition. It doesn’t mean that the existence of suffering goes away.

So by that, you are defining “evil” as suffering? Why else bring it up?

But as you say, “if God created humans that can suffer…”, then God created evil. Is that the crux of your position?

It does mean, however, that if we believe in the Judeo-Christian god, we are faced with the problem of reconciling the omnipotence and benevolence of this god with the reality of the suffering of his creations - suffering which this god apparently does nothing to prevent or alleviate, despite having the ability to do so (necessarily, because he is all-powerful).

Only in YOUR mind. It isn’t a “problem” for me (and many others).

The suffering itself doesn’t go away if there is no such god, but the philosophical problem of evil becomes an irrelevancy.

Only the issue of God’s benevolence is at hand. According to you, suffering, and hence evil (deliberate harm), is there either way.

 

[tonyrey]

The Problem of Evil does not exist if evil is merely a human concept.

A one-sided view… Your supposedly all-powerful combination of time, matter and chance created human beings with the capacity to experience and comprehend good and evil for no reason or purpose whatsoever! God did so because of the immense value of a personal existence which you cherish even though you deny its objective value. Yucks! Filial ingratitude…

On the other hand, the problem of evil actually doesn’t exist if there’s no god - if we’re not required to account for the presence of evil *in spite of *the existence of an all-powerful and all-good god, who intervenes in human existence.

That is precisely the point I made!

 

[Sair]

So by that, you are defining “evil” as suffering? Why else bring it up?

Suffering and evil have a definite association, even though they aren’t precisely the same thing. Furthermore, suffering is what we’d like to prevent ourselves and our loved ones from experiencing - hence its existence is also a problem from the point of view of belief in an all-powerful and benevolent god. There’s another thread on this particular subject - quite an interesting read so far.

But as you say, “if God created humans that can suffer…”, then God created evil. Is that the crux of your position?

Or if not directly, is still responsible for its existence - if there is in fact any god at all who created the universe.

Only in YOUR mind. It isn’t a “problem” for me (and many others).

Let me repeat myself again…and say that as far as I’m concerned, there is no philosophical problem of evil, because I don’t believe there is an omnimax god who could prevent it but doesn’t. You can wave it away with as much apologetic gymnastics as you like, but it doesn’t make any difference to my contention.

Only the issue of God’s benevolence is at hand. According to you, suffering, and hence evil (deliberate harm), is there either way.

Quite. And so far, no-one I’ve read on this forum has offered a satisfactory explanation for why this should be the case, if there’s an all-powerful and benevolent god.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And so far, no-one I’ve read on this forum has offered a satisfactory explanation for why this should be the case, if there’s an all-powerful and benevolent god.

what would constitute a satisfactory answer? what are the standards youre looking to meet?

 

[tonyrey]

Suffering and evil have a definite association, even though they aren’t precisely the same thing.

If they have a definite association how do you account for your belief that evil is not objectively real?

And so far, no-one I’ve read on this forum has offered a satisfactory explanation for why this should be the case, if there’s an all-powerful and benevolent god.

What you mean is that no one you have read on this forum has offered an explanation which satisfies you… Can you produce a blueprint of a world without any frustration, pain or suffering whatsoever, i.e. a paradise on earth? In its absence you are not entitled to state categorically that suffering is unnecessary…

 

[Oreoracle]

If they have a definite association how do you account for your belief that evil is not objectively real?

Suffering is to evil as art is to beauty. Would you say that beauty is “objectively real” just because it’s associated with objects?