The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Doug50]

Funny. I never watched that particular Bart Ehrman video before. There’s a Q&A at the end of the lecture, and a woman announces she is a atheist and revolutionary communist, and then gives kudos to Ehrman. Then I heard the words “emancipating humanity”. I have to admit I got a real **gut **reaction when I listened to that part.

So far I listen to the video up 52 minutes where the girl gets up and declares she is an athiest. Again if you listen for it you will not only hear, in her words, a belief in meta-ethcial moral realism but you will also hear that same belief in his response to her where he says - and I quote: “religions do a lot of good.” That very statement assumes “good” is an universal objective quality. As soon as you make that assumption (and athiests do it all the time) you bust your butt right out of materialism. There is no good or evil in nature if nature is all there is. What the physics of evil?

As G.L. Mackie pointed out good (and evil) are not definable and are therefore non-natural thingies. Oh, you can point to something and say "that is good or that is evil’ but that’s as far as you can get…hince Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self evident.” TJ knew he could not ground his Rights in nature.

 

[Shike]

strictly speaking I can arrive at “suffering is a bad thing for everyone” position from essentially selfish considerations.

In this case it’s not so much important how you arrived at it, the point is that you are making an objective moral claim. You’re the one saying suffering should be avoided, not me (although I would say that sometimes, yes, it should be avoided).

If you do not think that the deaths and suffering of millions of people in such events constitute suffering at all, there isn’t much we can say to each other.

Oh I agree, there is lots of suffering… what would give you the idea that I hold this claim?

 

[Doug50]

Please argue how murder could ever be okay.

Killing is objective but the moral implication of that act can be rationalized (you like rationalism) as OK or not Ok…Just ask the Taliban or Al Queda.

Once again you are begging yet another question: is murder objective or subjective? Is all killing murder or is some killings justified…objectively justified?

 

[Doug50]

How is it objective? I appeal to the sentiments of the individuals that are suffering. I know I do not enjoy suffering and would avoid it if I could. I also know that the majority of other people who suffer will make the same claim. I also know that in this Universe, materialistic as it is, there is no qualitative difference between me and other people. we are all “meat-machines” all with our individual desires and goals, and it is only logical to assume that if I want to avoid suffering I can only make such a claim valid by accepting the validity of the others’ claims. That is, I can expect to be left alone to live my life in peace if I leave others alone to leave their lives in peace. No objectivity of evil or moral principles in general is required; strictly speaking I can arrive at “suffering is a bad thing for everyone” position from essentially selfish considerations.

And by suffering I do not mean those events that it can be argued the individual brought upon herself, but the natural kind: famines, earthquakes, etc. If you do not think that the deaths and suffering of millions of people in such events constitute suffering at all, there isn’t much we can say to each other.

How 'bout this for a rational argument: the world is over populated. To feed it requires vast amounts of fossil fuels (which pumps CO2 into the air). Oil is required to till the soil, plant the grain, harvest, and then transport enough food around the world to try and feed everybody. What happens when these fuels (and they will) go into decline? Will a lot of people starve? Do we need to reduce the population today to avoid future suffering by everyone? Who should we begin killing of first…in a humaine way of course?

 

[Doug50]

I do no such thing.

Again, I do no such thing.

Sure it does. Why on earth would I need to assume the existence of objective moral facts, whatever that would mean?

This is just not true. My point is that a failure to recognize when a person is discussing morality from varying approaches (e.g. normative vs. meta) may result in misinterpretation. And indeed, it seems you have misinterpreted my statements just now–which is precisely what I have attempted to caution you against!

This sort of all-or-nothing approach is inappropriate. Morality lacks divine, permanent meaning, but it nevertheless retains temporary, human meaning.

So, I am making sure you understand that I am not attempting to defend every fool’s idea of what is morality.

On the contrary, I am not assuming any objective moral values at all. I am assuming that you’re interested in truth. If that is the case, then in order to satisfy your interest you must be careful not to judge a person’s language (note: not his morals) too harshly. For as we have seen, it is quite easy to misinterpret statements regarding morality.

Of course, if you’re not interested in truth, then feel free to disregard my suggestions.

In order to put a logical string together you must assume objectivity in the subject. That doesn’t mean the subject is actually real.

For example: we could make a logical argment based upon a flat earth but we first have to assume the earth is in fact flat. A flat earth has meaning to those who assume a flat earth.

Same with morality. We may not agree on what is or isn’t an evil but to make a rational, logical arugment about evil we must first assume evil is real.

To put it another way: How can you possible make a logical argument relative to aesthetics? Moral Subjectivism assumes morality is akin to aesthetics.

If morality is Subjectivism/Relativism all you can rationally do is talk about different moral beliefs but you can never say you believe in Human Rights.

If materialism is all there is the following statement is blantly false:
ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx

What are human rights?
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law , general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.

 

[Doug50]

Please argue how murder could ever be okay.

Let me put this another way, Shike. If you or anyone could prove evil you could also paradoxically prove God is real too. If you could prove evil (or murder a moral truth) Faith would have no virtue.

That’s why the true nature of morality is unresolvable by debate.

What I can do, using epistimiology, is argue to the consistence or inconsistency between metaphysical beliefs and a meta-ethical belief.

If materialism is true then it logically follows the nature of ethics is subjectivism/relativism and that a belief in the Universalism of such things as Human Rights is nothing more than more human myth-making. The only way you could talk about morals are within the context of cultural beliefs about good and evil, right and wrong. You could never honestly claim humans moral progress since there could never be anything objective to measure that progress against. Anything attempted to measure that progress against will have to be based upon some that is arbitrary.

That little statement will take a person right up to the point were a leap of faith can only be made.

That is, if a person subscribes to Human Rights that person has made a leap of faith from the monistic nature of materialism to an inherent dualistic nature required for human rights to be viable. The theology of that leap is a whole other debate but what isn’t disputable is the person must give up the belief in materialsim.

Whenever you debate an atheist insist they subscibe to their materialistic beliefs and how that materialism is incompatible to any statement which (by its nature) assume moral realism.

 

[hatsoff]

In order to put a logical string together you must assume objectivity in the subject.

I’m sorry, but that is simply not true. There is nothing in either premise nor the conclusion whereby objective morals are assumed. Rather, we speak of “suffering” and “omnibenevolence.” Notice that omnibenevolence will have varying definitions depending on your point of view. We are concerned with Christian definitions.

If morality is Subjectivism/Relativism all you can rationally do is talk about different moral beliefs but you can never say you believe in Human Rights.

Sure you can–and in fact I do. What we cannot speak of are God-given rights. But we can and do discuss rights given to humans by humans.

 

[redhen]

the girl gets up and declares she is an athiest. Again if you listen for it you will not only hear, in her words, a belief in meta-ethcial moral realism

Right, that’s her belief in Marxism (which I despise).You can substitute almost anything as the highest good, religion, political ideology, race.

but you will also hear that same belief in his response to her where he says - and I quote: “religions do a lot of good.” That very statement assumes “good” is an universal objective quality.

Ehrman said he was a utilitarian. I think you can do the right thing, without reference to a deity or objective morality. It’s sounds like a plausible hypothesis for evolutionary psychology; you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours, empathy, etc. There are those who say they can observe these kinds of behaviour in other species, especially non-human apes.

As soon as you make that assumption (and athiests do it all the time) you bust your butt right out of materialism. There is no good or evil in nature if nature is all there is. What the physics of evil?

Natural evil I mean to understand as pain and suffering caused not by perpetrators (as in moral evil), but by natural agents. I think the theological term natural evil throws people off track. We’re talking about pain and suffering, not only of homo sapiens, but of all sentient beings, throughout the timeline of planet earth.

As G.L. Mackie pointed out good (and evil) are not definable and are therefore non-natural thingies…

see above; replace natural evil with pain and suffering caused by natural agents. I don’t understand those on this thread who deny natural evil. Much of the Bible is allocated to this specific problem. The Bart Ehrman video I posted summarizes the different approaches to this problem, and how they are not satisfactory.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t have any definitive evidence now. You act as though it matters that others know Antarctica exists, but I can’t be certain that they aren’t simply lying. How can I know that others possess knowledge or that they have experienced something?

you also said this.

**I believe that there are seven continents because **it would be odd **for the media, geographers, and historians throughout recorded history **to lie about **the existence of other continents. **

so which is it, you believe they have physical evidence and you trust them, or you think they might be lying? you cant have it both ways.

in this case they can gather all the relevant information to conclude that antartica exists simply by going there to see if it does or not. in the problem of G-ds morality all the observation in the world cant exclude the possiblity of unknown information invalidating your conclusions.

this is a false analogy or, colloquially, apples and oranges.

you also said this.

It would have to be an elaborate scheme to bring about some unimaginable, convoluted end. Because** I see no reason why professionals and a good deal of the human population would lie about such a thing**, I assume they are being honest when they say they’ve explored other continents, though I have not.

if this is your standard of evidence then ehy are you not a theist? most of the world is theist in one form or another, do you think they are making it up? it seems that your standard of evidence varies by the position you wish to hold, would it be fair for me to call you a hypocrite?

From my perspective, it seems you would believe the claim that there are seven continents is unfounded, since I haven’t experienced the continents firsthand and have no way of knowing if others are lying about their experiences. I’m sorry, but the skepticism you are preaching demands that we either experience something firsthand or place our trust in nothing. So much for schooling.

the skepticism that is demanded in the OP is that one cannot draw valid conclusions when lacking evidence, you dont lack evidence for the existence of antartica, you may not have seen it, but others have, in the case of G-ds morality all people are equally information insufficient when they attempt to draw conclusions about G-ds morality solely fron observation.

How does one determine what information is relevant? Isn’t this a matter of opinion?

no, its not a matter of opinion, because no matter what your opinion may be a factor either impacts a conclusion or it doesnt. there are nearly infinite possible relevant reasons for a particular event in regards to G-ds morality.

To me, the fact that God could prevent suffering (because he is omnipotent) but doesn’t proves he is evil. As I stated on the last post a page ago (I think you might have missed it, since we posted at nearly the same time), the only time that it would be necessary for God to cause suffering is when causing suffering was his goal. That’s all the info I need to consider him evil.

first let me point out that you have to agree with the existence of G-d and of one of the maximal qualities, omnipotence, while excluding another maximal quality, omnibenevolence. that alone is contradictory and fatal to the argument.

and thats the exact premise that i am attacking with the argument in the OP. any event about which you draw conclusions on the morality of G-d. is done so on insufficient information. if you simply say the suffering of that event could be avoided then you are drawing an invalid conclusion on insufficient information. there may be information that shows it is just.

No offense, but I think Aquinas’ writings are either unintelligible or filled with too many assumptions to count. I’m not a Christian, so it is difficult for me to wade through the Christian lingo. If you could present the argument in layman’s terms for me sometime, that would be excellent.

it can be difficult to decipher, but i am interseted how you found assumptions in a text you admit to not understanding? you can find several resources like the summa of the summa online that are more modern in tone. but again, im not going to lay it out on this thread.

Because I don’t think you know anything more about God than I do.

as you admit to not reading the summa or being a Christian in general, how do you conclude that we dont know more about G-d than you do? does a mechanic know more about a car than a doctor? probably.

This is to be expected when the human race has yet to prove the existence of a deity. Christians can define their deity and enumerate his qualities 'til the cows come home, but until you’ve discovered him, I will regard it as mere speculation.

we know He is there because thousands saw Him for centuries when He traveled with the Israelites all the way to when He manifested with Jesus Moses, and Elijah, they saw His works and His physical manifestations, according to the standard of evidence you set, then you dont have a basis to reject that testimony. if your saying you physically want to see G-d yourself before you believe, then you must not believe in electrons either, after all the power companies have huge motivations to tell you they exist. maybe its all just a big conspiracy.

 

[Ignatius]

i assume everyone knows the Problem of Evil. but your right. which terms do you need a definition of?

All related terms should be defined. You might also use a methodological approach beginning with data, not theory. Do not compromise the data. Think logically. Do not try to be original, try to be precise and accurate.

You might also address the following issues:

1. Characteristics of

• It is universal
• It is a practical problem

1. The levels of the problem of evil

• Emotional
• Intellectual
• Intuitive
• Argumentative
• Dramatic

1. Logical formulations of the problem of evil

• Aquinas
• Augustine
• C.S. Lewis

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The Problem of Evil for the Atheist/Materialist:

The Problem of Evil makes the assumption that evil does in fact exist. However, if evil is true then it logically follows that a True morality exists in the meta-ethical relm; Moral Truth is real. It means morality must be Objective and Moral Relativism/Subjectivism must be false.

Your metaphysical beliefs must be compatible with your meta-ethical beliefs. But that is the very mistake that athiests (secular humanists) make. If evil is a fact of reality, of human interaction, then it rationally follows that materialism is factually false.

Here’s why: Secularism holds to the metaphysical belief that the nature of reality is materialism/naturalism and the only way to understand this nature is through science. What is the science for factual evils? There isn’t any. In this world view moral codes are not universal (god given) moral laws but artifacts of culturals - cultural relativism. What’s unethical in one culture can be ethcial in another. Moral codes can change within a culture as time passes (the acceptence of slavery to the unacceptence of slavery). Since materialism is only compatible with moral relativism/subjectivism the notion of moral progress is meaningless since there could not be even one objective moral fact by which to measure any progress against - cultural moral codes are deemed arbitrary because life/existence deemed to have no True meaning or purpose. The meta-ethical term for this is moral anti-realism.

Humanism, OTOH, assumes that there is a universal morality - Human Rights - by which all cultures moral codes are subordinate to. Each culture is obligated to discover these moral facts and then adjust their codes to reflect these Moral Truths or Rights. The discovery of thiese rights is how moral progress is factually made. Ergo all humans posses unalienable human rights. Humanism simply stops short of trying to define the source of these right. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “We hold these truths to be self evident.” The meta-ethical term for humanism is moral realism.

That’s a long winded way to getting to the the following: Secular humanism is an ethical oxymoran simply because the nature of morality can NOT be both moral realism and moral anti-realism at the same time. Your metaphysical beliefs must be compatible with your meta-ethical beliefs. Materialism (the metaphysic) is not compatible with humanism (the meta-ethic).

So for the athiest, if human rights are real (meta ethically), and not some new madeup methology, it logically follows that his materialism is false (metaphysically).

If you can internalize the above phylosophical arguments (better yet teach it to your kids), you can beat the c___p out of any liberal college professon in an ethical debate, Richard Dawkins being only one of those profs. You only need to hold their feet to the fire and make them stick within the problems created by moral relativism…ie. if moral relativism is true then the “Problem of Evil” cannot exist since Evil cannot exist in any factual since.

Most people confuse relativism with Situtational Ethics. Relativism is subjective. Situational ethics is dictated by the objective facts created by the situtation in question.

For the Christian the paradox is: without God and His moral Truths Evil could not exist.

an excellent exposition, thank you for joining the thread

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What a nice and roundabout way to commit the flallacy of appealing to ignorance!

/thread

if i said that a lack of information proved G-d was not evil, that would be an appeal to ignorance, im not saying that at all, rather the OP makes the argument that one cannot draw valid conclusions about the morality of G-d on the basis of observation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I cannot let this idiocy pass. Calling you a hypocrite and an idiot is NOT an ad hominem argument. Claiming that you are a hypocrite and an idiot and using that as a basis to prove that you are incorrect is. Nobody is doing that, however. Your hypocrisy is a separate beast from your lack of logical consistency and overuse of informal fallacies, but should be noted nevertheless.

it was an attempt a tu quoque argument, when i pointed it out, there was a retreat. though i find it hilarious that you dont attack the premise of the OP, instead you spout random insults. yeah…im the idiot.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. An omnibenevolent being with omnipotence and omniscience would not allow suffering in the world.

how do you know this?

i suggest this is just an assumption.

 

[hatsoff]

how do you know this?

i suggest this is just an assumption.

That depends on your definition of “omnibenevolent.”

But please note I have merely summarized the argument in order to clear up a misconception about it. I am not myself making it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I disagree with the OP, the “Problem of Evil” does exist in the sense that it does trip up a lot of people

maybe the only problem of evil is the Problem of Evil.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nope. We have to agree that suffering should be avoided. And we agree on that only because the majority of sufferers feel this way (excluding masochists) there is no need to assume the objectivity of morals.

Granted, in a sense, the PoE only makes sense if we assume the reality of both suffering and of God. That is called a hypothetical proposition. What part of “if” is so unclear?

should all suffering be avoided? given that in any specific situation of suffering there is always possible information that justifies it, i dont think that simply because we would like to avoid suffering that it follows that suffering is evil.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

All related terms should be defined. You might also use a methodological approach beginning with data, not theory. Do not compromise the data. Think logically. Do not try to be original, try to be precise and accurate.

i dont really understand what youre getting at, im not trying to be obtuse, but which terms arent commonly understood in the OP? and what data are you refering to? im happy to explain the argument. but im not sure what your getting at. maybe you can help me.

You might also address the following issues:

1. Characteristics of

• It is universal
• It is a practical problem

1. The levels of the problem of evil

• Emotional
• Intellectual
• Intuitive
• Argumentative

• Dramatic

1. Logical formulations of the problem of evil

• Aquinas
• Augustine
• C.S. Lewis

sorry, not my bag. once i can disprove the POE from an information standpoint where the arguments about sub/objective, natural/moral evil can be suppressed and the refutation can be demonstrated on a rational basis, the purpose is served. im just trying to add to our toolbox.

 

[Oreoracle]

The Problem of Evil for the Atheist/Materialist:

The Problem of Evil makes the assumption that evil does in fact exist. However, if evil is true then it logically follows that a True morality exists in the meta-ethical relm; Moral Truth is real. It means morality must be Objective and Moral Relativism/Subjectivism must be false.

If you mean that evil exists in the sense that I am repulsed by certain actions, then I agree. However, every ethical system equates goodness and badness with certain objects (for Christians, union/separation with/from God; for utilitarians, happiness/suffering, etc.). Obviously, an object is not good in the same way that it is round, or that it consists of iron, etc. Goodness and badness describe our emotional reactions to the perceptions of these objects, and are not qualities of the objects themselves.

Your metaphysical beliefs must be compatible with your meta-ethical beliefs. But that is the very mistake that athiests (secular humanists) make. If evil is a fact of reality, of human interaction, then it rationally follows that materialism is factually false.

In order for a statement to be a fact, every term within the statement must pertain to something in reality (and the terms must cooperate to describe the real state of things). Words such as “should” and “ought” describe nothing in reality. They are words used to express how the world–if I may be circular, for a moment–ought to be, not how it is. This is, by definition, a disconnect, since most theories of ethics beg for reality to be a certain way when it is not, so it seems that ethics also fail to describe the real state of things. The only way to prevent this would be to say that everything that happens is moral, but then we still have the problem of what “should” and “ought” pertain to.

Here’s why: Secularism holds to the metaphysical belief that the nature of reality is materialism/naturalism and the only way to understand this nature is through science.

You’ve seen an actual definition of “secularism” that said this? Where?

 

[Oreoracle]

so which is it, you believe they have physical evidence and you trust them, or you think they might be lying? you cant have it both ways.

It doesn’t matter what I believe. All that matters is that it’s conceivable that they’re lying and I have no way of knowing definitively if that’s the case. The reason that I believe people aren’t lying about the continents is basically derived, as you’ve read, from psychoanalysis (and because I doubt such a variety and quantity of resources could be accumulated within this one continent, but it’s still possible that they’re lying about certain continents).

in this case they can gather all the relevant information to conclude that antartica exists simply by going there to see if it does or not.

But is it reasonable for me, a person who hasn’t experienced Antarctica and probably won’t visit it, to trust the authorities and assume it exists? It’s not enough to be able to validate something–if I don’t seek to validate my claims by visiting other continents and by subjecting my medications to chemical analysis, am I justified in my assumptions?

this is a false analogy or, colloquially, apples and oranges.

Nonsense, you’re simply refusing to see the similarities.

if this is your standard of evidence then ehy are you not a theist? most of the world is theist in one form or another, do you think they are making it up?

Yes, I think they’re making it up. Unlike the proposal of other continents, they have reasons to lie about their religious experiences; usually they’re attempting to make you subordinate to some sort of religious institution or they persist to maintain the delusion that the world is a happy place (or, rather, that it will be a happy place) watched over by a loving god who wouldn’t allow for death to cause eternal slumber (a lack of consciousness). No, that reality would be too harsh to accept as even a possibility to many Christians.

it seems that your standard of evidence varies by the position you wish to hold, would it be fair for me to call you a hypocrite?

If I believed whatever I wanted to believe, I would be a very happy person. Luckily, I derive my happiness by rigorously questioning beliefs of all kinds, even my own.

the skepticism that is demanded in the OP is that one cannot draw valid conclusions when lacking evidence, you dont lack evidence for the existence of antartica, you may not have seen it, but others have

They may not lack evidence, but I still do, since another person’s allegation that something is true is never sufficient evidence. Just ask any judge what happens when someone expects to win a case in court with their own testimony as their only defense. They’d be lucky not to be the laughingstock of the town.

Again: is it acceptable for me to use my trust of another as a justification for a belief?

and thats the exact premise that i am attacking with the argument in the OP. any event about which you draw conclusions on the morality of G-d. is done so on insufficient information. if you simply say the suffering of that event could be avoided then you are drawing an invalid conclusion on insufficient information. there may be information that shows it is just.

One more time, Pete: if God is omnipotent, he does not need to produce any undesired effects, by definition. If suffering is an effect that displeases God, yet he doesn’t eliminate it, it would seem that he’s not omnipotent or that he possesses conflicting desires. If he can remove suffering, but doesn’t, he is (a) sadistic, (b) he doesn’t care about our suffering, or (c) possesses conflicting desires. Every possibility excludes him from being praiseworthy, in my opinion.

it can be difficult to decipher, but i am interseted how you found assumptions in a text you admit to not understanding?

The Summa (I’ve read some of it, but not all) offers five “proofs” of God. Obviously, if we can’t prove that God exists, everything that is derived from that “fact” is an assumption. But most people admit that Aquinas’ proofs are not airtight (which actually would exclude them from being considered proofs) and that they only cushion the belief of those who already believe in God. They are not meant to be persuasive or irrefutable. They are meant only for reinforcement.