The problem of Evil, specifically suffering

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pieman333272
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JDaniel said:
Hello, Wan:

You’re not trying to see the bigger picture. I am not going to try to provide a rationale for God, or any of His supposed actions or, inactions. I am merely trying to look at things through bigger eyes, if that’s at all possible. In the scheme of things, our temporal lives, on this rock, are minutely shorter than the lives of mosquito larvae, in the thousands of square miles of waters in the Southeastern United States, compared to our eternity in the beatific vision. We are smaller than an electron in the universe compared to God’s Infinity. We are here, commanded to serve one another so that most of us will have a life of contentment. And, the vast majority of us do both.
Click to expand...
The thing is, the “bigger picture” you paint here is one that I don’t believe in. Why not? I see no convincing evidence. Yes - if what you believe is actually true, then my comments are meaningless and I’m utterly wrong. But in the absence of any evidence to support your belief, why should I attempt to see a “bigger picture” that is nothing more than conjecture?
 
Pieman333272 said:
If you don’t mind, I’ll return the question. If there’s no God, no afterlife, no meaning in life, why care what happens to the rapist? Why care who goes to jail? Why care if we catch the man who shot your wife? It’s all just the result of a random process, and that same random process will destroy us, forget our meaningless lives on this meaningless planet in the accident of the Universe, in a meaningless method. Why care, with no ultimate truth, no God, especially no free will?
Click to expand...
Well, this is a misrepresentation of atheist belief and morality that is common in theists. I assume, from the ubiquity of this misrepresentation, that a belief in God gives one a mindset that leaves one unable to comprehend temporal morality, temporal justice, temporal value of life.
Before you object that this is an excessively negative portrayal of atheism, let me tell you, no matter what, in a Universe with no meaning, no designer, no sustainer, and no immaterial, justice is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Despite attempting to caveat your earlier comment, you still miss the point. Of course justice isn’t meaningless, not to us as sentient, emotional beings. It’s absolutely meaningful to us in the context in which it exists, which is to serve our societal and emotional needs.

If we are the only sentient species in the Universe (which seems extremely unlikely but that’s a different conversation), then when we become extinct, so does the concept and practice of justice. Any actions perpetrated in the name of justice will cease to have any relevance, because there’ll be nobody left for it to have relevance for.

That doesn’t make it meaningless or irrelevant while we’re here.

This is just a recognition that a sense of justice evolved right alongside our increased intellect, as a necessary element of our survival as social animals; and that there’s nothing more to it than that. Theists undoubtedly see this as a bleak and nihilistic point of view, but that’s because their whole worldview is tainted by the belief, without evidence, that there’s some ultimate purpose to their existence.
 
JDaniel said:
And that ‘logical fallacy’ is?
Click to expand...
Tony’s comments are not in themselves logical fallacies, they’re just assertion without evidence, typical of religious apologists. It’s when pressed to substantiate such assertions that the logical fallacies start to show themselves. Common are informal fallacies such “Appeal to ignorance,” “Straw Man” (a pitfall for theists and atheists alike!), “Equivocation,” “Appeal to Misleading Authority,” “Appeal to Consequences,” various forms of “Non Causa Pro Causa,” “Wishful Thinking,” and “Quoting out of Context.” Formal fallacies include the various Syllogistic Fallacies, and the Quantificational Fallacies.

None of these are the exclusive preserve of the theist, but are probabilistically more likely to come from those who argue vehemently for a phenomenen that cannot be empirically demonstrated.

But also in many cases, we encounter nested assertions, each without evidence but nevertheless used to support the theist’s desired conclusion.

In all cases, the theist appears blissfully unaware of the invalidity of the argument he/she is making, which is odd because in a context other than religion it would be all too obvious.

I’ve just read that back and it comes across as incredibly condescending. I apologise, but I’m not sure how I can change it - it’s my honest view. I’ve never had a discussion with a theist that didn’t involve at least a few of the tactics I’ve mentioned. I’m by no means squeaky clean myself, but I try to be as honest and open-minded as possible, believe it or not.

However, this is becoming OT.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Code: 
				[
](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7321765#post7321765)
*Justice is not meaningless for the non theist.

Because, here in the USA the Justice system is not based on a specific religion’s interpretation of Justice.*
Click to expand...
Code: 
		 		 	 	 It presupposes the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which are based on the belief that we are all created by God,** not accidental byproducts of purposeless events.
**
A non believer can care about social order and realize it preserves social harmony but also benefits the group at large, if not all of humanity. No God needed there, or eternal hell. Our lives are as filled with meaning as we allow them to be. Again, no God needed there.
Click to expand...
“can” is the keyword. A non-believer has **no rational basis **for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity but a conscience - which has no natural explanation!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top