Where are the atheists coming from?

[Hitetlen]

Neithan:

Firstly, as an atheist: what is your definition of ‘evil’? Likewise ‘good’?

That is a good question. The word “evil” is used in its most generic meaning: "anything that causes harm, anything that deviates from perfection (as I understand this term!). So “evil” is an Earthquake that causes millions to die, or a sociopath who goes on a shooting rampage.

Neithan:

Obviously you reject the ‘Free Will’ Theodicy. Why?

If you mean that the existence of free will is the cause of the evil in the world (or rather the improper exercise of free will) then indeed I reject that concept. Here is the reason:

Our freedom to “desire” something is really only limited by our imagination. Whatever we can think of, we can “wish” to do. However, there are physical restraints, which prevent us from doing certain things. Therefore our “free will” is already limited, if by nothing else, then our ability to imagine something. And of course our actions are limited by our physical capabilities.

Now these limitations are not considered “essential” as far as “free will” is concerned. We have free will, even if we are unable to fly just by flapping our arms. Therefore our free will would not be curtailed, if we could imagine murder (for example) but we had no desire (or capability) to commit one (I can speak for myself, I can imagine to torture someone, but would not wish to engage in such a practice).

Therefore, if no human would have the desire to commit anything we consider “evil”, even though they all would be able to imagine it, the concept of free will would be intact, but “human-caused-evil” would not exist in the world.

And of course the so-called natural “evils” (meteor strikes, tsunamis, Earthquakes, diseases, etc.) cannot be blamed on human free will at all.

Let me reiterate it: our free will is already not absolute. A miniscule further limitation would not invalidate it.

 

[thistle]

Hitetlen:

And how do you define a “true atheist”?

For the Catholic definition this is what the Catholic Encyclopedea says:

Traditionally there were three kinds of atheists: materialists, philosophical agnostics, and pantheists.
Philosophical agnostics consider the evidence invoked to justify belief in God insufficient to warrant affirming or denying the existence of God, and they believe that any assertions about the existence of God are rash.
Materialists are not strictly atheists because they do not believe that anything can exist outside the closed material system, but they are generally classified as atheists because their materialistic presuppositions exclude spiritual realities.
Logical positivists are most often material atheists, for they hold that assertions about God are meaningless and belief in God is not warranted.
Much of contemporary atheism is a practical and not a speculative atheism, with the exception of dialectical materialism, which is explicitly atheistic.
Atheism can be culpable when a person deliberately rejects persuasive proofs for the existence of God, but the Second Vatican Council asserted that there were circumstances when atheism was not subjectively culpable because of the humanity of the Church which inhibited belief in the true God.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

Therefore, if no human would have the desire to commit anything we consider “evil”, even though they all would be able to imagine it, the concept of free will would be intact, but “human-caused-evil” would not exist in the world.

We indeed can desire to commit acts which we consider evil. We also can be unaware of the immorality of the act, though of course we would then not be culpable. But yes, we can desire something we consider evil. I suspect your own definition of “evil” is different from ours in a way that excludes this possibility.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

We indeed can desire to commit acts which we consider evil. We also can be unaware of the immorality of the act, though of course we would then not be culpable. But yes, we can desire something we consider evil. I suspect your own definition of “evil” is different from ours in a way that excludes this possibility.

I am trying to understand you. Do you mean that a thought which pops up unbidden in our mind is already “evil”, even though we do not act on it? Many of our desires are not subject to volitional control, even though the act to carry them out - is.

If that is the case, then you are in a strange position, vis-a-vis the problem of homosexuality (just an example). Many posters stated that having a desire to have have sex with a same-sex partner is NOT the same as carrying out that desire. Which one will it be? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[Hitetlen]

thistle:

For the Catholic definition this is what the Catholic Encyclopedea says:

That sounds like conversion by redefinition. A theist is someone who believes in the existence of a supernatural or transcendent being. An atheist is someone who lacks that belief. The reason for this lack of belief can be multi-fold: maybe the person has never been exposed to such an idea, maybe the person’s mind is not sufficiently developed to conceptualize this idea, or maybe the person actively rejects this idea. The first two kinds are usually called “weak atheists”, the last one is called “strong atheists”. This definition is clear and simple, and grammatically correct.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

I am trying to understand you. Do you mean that a thought which pops up unbidden in our mind is already “evil”, even though we do not act on it? Many of our desires are not subject to volitional control, even though the act to carry them out - is.

If that is the case, then you are in a strange position, vis-a-vis the problem of homosexuality (just an example). Many posters stated that having a desire to have have sex with a same-sex partner is NOT the same as carrying out that desire. Which one will it be? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

I am not saying that the person is evil, or is committing a sin, because he/she experiences a desire to engage in some act which is evil. I’m saying that the act toward which the desire is directed is evil, and if the person, knowing this, acts on the desire (physically or through deliberately indulging in fantasy) he/she chooses to do evil.
The desire is disordered. It is objectively evil, but the person experiencing it is not responsible for that evil; it is, in the Christian worldview, one of the many effects of original sin, which afflicts all of humanity. He is only responsible for his deliberate choice to act upon that desire or not.

 

[Neithan]

Hitetlen:

That is a good question. The word “evil” is used in its most generic meaning: "anything that causes harm, anything that deviates from perfection (as I understand this term!). So “evil” is an Earthquake that causes millions to die, or a sociopath who goes on a shooting rampage.

Ok I’ll take the bait: how do you understand the term ‘perfection’?

Therefore, if no human would have the desire to commit anything we consider “evil”, even though they all would be able to imagine it, the concept of free will would be intact, but “human-caused-evil” would not exist in the world.

You are equating free* will *with free wish? The Free Will Theodicy differentiates. In order to for us to *will *an action, it must be objectively possible. The end of will is action, and without a possible action the will is likewise impossible. You cannot will to grow wings and fly because this is impossible. You can *wish *it, but that is different. Sin is in the will and requires sinful action as an end.
Therefore, in order for us to have free will the consequent actions must be really possible. Humanity necessarily possesses the objective capability to commit all the actions of our free will.

*And of course the so-called natural “evils” (meteor strikes, tsunamis, Earthquakes, diseases, etc.) cannot be blamed on human free will at all. *

Judging from your definition of evil as ‘deviation from perfection,’ by pointing out natural evil you are implicitly stating that nature is not perfect?
So returning to my above question: what is perfection?

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

I am not saying that the person is evil, or is committing a sin, because he/she experiences a desire to engage in some act which is evil. I’m saying that the act toward which the desire is directed is evil, and if the person, knowing this, acts on the desire (physically or through deliberately indulging in fantasy) he/she chooses to do evil.
The desire is disordered. It is objectively evil, but the person experiencing it is not responsible for that evil; it is, in the Christian worldview, one of the many effects of original sin, which afflicts all of humanity. He is only responsible for his deliberate choice to act upon that desire or not.

Then we are in agreement. My point was that free will cannot be blamed for the “evil” in the world, and what you say does not contradict it.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

Then we are in agreement. My point was that free will cannot be blamed for the “evil” in the world, and what you say does not contradict it.

Not really. I attributed it to original sin, which is caused by an exercise of free will.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

Not really. I attributed it to original sin, which is caused by an exercise of free will.

The concept of the original sin is a very interesting subject. I have my views on it, and willing to share if you are interested. Just a small remark: The idea that one small piece of disobedience has the power to destroy the perfect creation of God is simply nonsense. If a creation can be destroyed by anything, it cannot be called perfect. I am afraid we use a different vocabulary, and that is partially the reason we cannot understand each other.

There is one thing that I would like to add: if there is a “desk” where God would sit and exercise his powers, it would have the sign: “The buck stops here”. If one has perfect knowledge and total power, those come with total responsibility. If you say that God gave us “free will” and knew that this gift will be used to destroy his creation, then he is responsible for giving it.

If you are a father or mother, who gives a loaded gun to a five years old child, and that child uses the gun to kill his sister, then no sane jury will accept your defense, if you say: “But I told him not to use it!”. It just don’t wash. It is not a surprise that parents are held responsible for the actions of their children. It comes with the territory.

 

[Hitetlen]

Neithan:

Ok I’ll take the bait: how do you understand the term ‘perfection’?

Well, there is no such thing a absolute perfection. One can create a “perfect” killing machine, and the criteria are different than creating a “perfect” caretaker machine. There is one attribute which can be said: the prefect something cannot be destroyed.

Neithan:

You are equating free* will *with free wish? The Free Will Theodicy differentiates. In order to for us to *will *an action, it must be objectively possible. The end of will is action, and without a possible action the will is likewise impossible. You cannot will to grow wings and fly because this is impossible. You can *wish *it, but that is different. Sin is in the will and requires sinful action as an end.

Therefore, in order for us to have free will the consequent actions must be really possible. Humanity necessarily possesses the objective capability to commit all the actions of our free will.

That does not invalidate what I said. If there is the possibility to commit “evil” and the person is able to “imagine” it, then there is an instance of free will. The lack of desire to commit it does not imply a physical barrier. If God had created people with a lack of desire to commit “evil” acts, then there would be free will and no “human evil”. It seems to me that people view the choice as a black-and-white matter: either one chooses “good” or one chooses “evil”. That is simply incorrect. There are many possible “good” acts to choose from, and having the freedom to do that does give the amount of free will necessary.

Neithan:

Judging from your definition of evil as ‘deviation from perfection,’ by pointing out natural evil you are implicitly stating that nature is not perfect?

Indeed it is not, since there is no common goal to use as a criterion.

 

[Mijoy2]

Hitetlen:

What is the “P” word??? I have no idea. But rest assured, I am an atheist, an abominable heathen. Moreover, I am a staunch libertarian, a firm believer of personal rights and responsibilities.

What / whose rights and responsibilities?

 

[Hitetlen]

Mijoy2:

What / whose rights and responsibilities?

That would be a long conversation. To put into a short phrase: “The righ of my fist ends where your nose begins”. And responsibility is accepting the outcome of one’s actions.

 

[Mijoy2]

Hitetlen:

That would be a long conversation. To put into a short phrase: “The righ of my fist ends where your nose begins”. And responsibility is accepting the outcome of one’s actions.

In other words, your definition of rights and responsibilities. Not to be confused, of course, with the next guys definition of rights and responsibilities.

 

[Hitetlen]

Mijoy2:

In other words, your definition of rights and responsibilities. Not to be confused, of course, with the next guys definition of rights and responsibilities.

Assuredly. If these definitions differ, there can be a negotiation. I can’t think about another definition of rights which is more tolerant to both parties (I leave him alone and he leaves me alone). Naturally, it can happen that someone subscribes to the concept that “might makes right”, whoever has the power to enforce his wish is “right”. I just don’t accept this concept as a good, working definition of “rights”.

 

[Neithan]

Hitletlen:

Well, there is no such thing a absolute perfection. One can create a “perfect” killing machine, and the criteria are different than creating a “perfect” caretaker machine. There is one attribute which can be said: the prefect something cannot be destroyed

Isn’t the adjective ‘perfect’ completely meaningless if it has no absolute, no true definition? What differentiates the statement ‘perfect machine’ from simply ‘machine’ if the word ‘perfect’ has no meaning on its own?

If ‘perfection’ does not exist, and yet your definition of good and evil is based on adherence to it: doesn’t this mean that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ do not exist?

Are you a relativist, then?

That does not invalidate what I said. If there is the possibility to commit “evil” and the person is able to “imagine” it, then there is an instance of free will. The lack of desire to commit it does not imply a physical barrier. If God had created people with a lack of desire to commit “evil” acts, then there would be free will and no “human evil”. It seems to me that people view the choice as a black-and-white matter: either one chooses “good” or one chooses “evil”. That is simply incorrect. There are many possible “good” acts to choose from, and having the freedom to do that does give the amount of free will necessary.

You still aren’t agreeing with the definition of free will as posited by the Theodicy:

Free will requires the ability to act contrary to the good, to act contrary to our nature as God wills it, so choosing among numerous good options is not free will, since they would all be according to our nature. The point of free will is the ability to choose evil. If we could only choose good, if we could only act according to God’s will for us, then we would be like animals and incapable of evil. We would not have free will.
If God created us with absolutely no desire to commit evil, then evil would be existentially impossible, and thus we would not have free will. Free will requires temptation for it to have any meaning. Will is moved *toward *and *away *from an object of thought. Without any ability to move *away *from an evil thought (without desire), then there is no true free will. If we cannot will *against *evil, then neither can we will *toward *it, and there would be no such thing as evil! It would not really exist.
Will is motivated by desire. Free will by definition requires desire for both good and evil, otherwise the exercise of the will is entirely one sided (not ‘free’).

Anway, you mentioned above that free will is not the cause of evil in the world: so what is?

 

[Hitetlen]

Neithan:

Isn’t the adjective ‘perfect’ completely meaningless if it has no absolute, no true definition? What differentiates the statement ‘perfect machine’ from simply ‘machine’ if the word ‘perfect’ has no meaning on its own?

It has a meaning, but its meaning differs, depending on what are you talking about. The perfect weather for a cactus differs from the perfect weather for an impatient.

Neithan:

If ‘perfection’ does not exist, and yet your definition of good and evil is based on adherence to it: doesn’t this mean that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ do not exist? Are you a relativist, then?

Indeed I am a relativist, and I am sure you are, too. Consider two people in a remote area, where one is bitten by a poisonous snake. If the other has an antidote, but still insists on amputation as a “cure”, his act would be valued differently, than if he had no other method to save the life of his partner. The action must be considered not alone, but in its context.

Neithan:

You still aren’t agreeing with the definition of free will as posited by the Theodicy:

Free will requires the ability to act contrary to the good, to act contrary to our nature as God wills it, so choosing among numerous good options is not free will, since they would all be according to our nature. The point of free will is the ability to choose evil. If we could only choose good, if we could only act according to God’s will for us, then we would be like animals and incapable of evil. We would not have free will.

I am sure you did not think this through. Based upon your definitoin you just denied the free will of all the very good people, the “saints” and of course the free will of God. (Not that I would disagree with the last one, but for a totally different reason.)

Neithan:

If God created us with absolutely no desire to commit evil, then evil would be existentially impossible, and thus we would not have free will. Free will requires temptation for it to have any meaning. Will is moved *toward *and *away *from an object of thought. Without any ability to move *away *from an evil thought (without desire), then there is no true free will. If we cannot will *against *evil, then neither can we will *toward *it, and there would be no such thing as evil! It would not really exist.

Will is motivated by desire. Free will by definition requires desire for both good and evil, otherwise the exercise of the will is entirely one sided (not ‘free’).

So, if one sees a homeless person, and chooses to
a) give him a dollar,
b) give him a million dollars
c) give him a hug
d) give him the correct time
then he did not exercise his free will? I am sure you agree that this would be absurd. Free will means nothing else but two options to act, and the freedom to choose one or the other, without coersion.

Neithan:

Anway, you mentioned above that free will is not the cause of evil in the world: so what is?

Since I am an atheist, I think that there is no “generic” cause. If I were a believer, I would say that God is the cause for all the good AND all the evil. As I said before, the sign on his desk desk says: “The buck stops here!”

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Hitetlen:

I am a staunch libertarian, a firm believer of personal rights and responsibilities.

I used to be a libertarian, but as the culture becomes increasingly toxic to charitable living, I begin to think that an emphasis on personal liberties needs to give way to an emphasis on the needs of the many.

We are all children in a sense constantly soaking up our environment, so effort to forge a positive environment, defining what that is needs to be discussed in a free speech society asnd then promoted by those who belkieve in it.

 

[Hitetlen]

MichaelTDoyle:

I used to be a libertarian, but as the culture becomes increasingly toxic to charitable living, I begin to think that an emphasis on personal liberties needs to give way to an emphasis on the needs of the many.

Being a libertarian is not antithetical to being charitable. It just emphasises that giving should be a personal decision, not something that is enforced by a majority. And of course I deny that need automatically creates a “right” over someone else’s work or property. This is not an absolute statement, however; I accept that sometimes - in a life and death situation - it is justified to value life over property.

It is probably true that this value system of mine has been heavily influenced by being born and raised in a communist society. That is why I value freedom so much.

 

[thechrismyster]

i think it’s a great thing when an atheist comes to CA.

15And it happened that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were dining with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him.

16When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” 17And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

-Mark 2:15-17