The problem of evil

[Achilles6129]

God couldn't stop it?

I gave you what he said earlier.

Actually, humans say that.

No, God says it.

Secondly, what is heaven supposed to be like? Is it going to be full of evil?

Why would it be?

How do you know God doesn't wait for the incorrect moment?

Because God's perception of reality is the true perception of reality and God is infallible.

My ability to use empathy, reason, and logic.

Your perception of reality could be totally wrong, and then you'd be wrong about what's moral or immoral.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I was asking a general question - whether you consider morality to be objective or subjective. We can use your morality as an example if that helps. Is your morality objective or subjective?

But if you don't want to reply, that's an answer of sorts as well.

Let me reiterate:

The Euthyphro Dilemma has nothing to do with my morality.

It's not moving the goalposts or arbitrary to pursue root cause. Suppose someone designs a machine they know will be damaged if it falls off a cliff. If they warn users of that machine not to throw it off a cliff, their instructions are not arbitrary, but based on their knowledge of the machine. They have a reason for their instructions. What would be arbitrary is for the designer to flip a coin as to whether to instruct users to throw the machine off a cliff when the consequences are known.

Saying nothing would be negligent.

Now, maybe the designer could make a machine that is not damaged when thrown off a cliff. In that case, instructions regarding throwing the machine off the cliff become somewhat irrelevant. Maybe the designer could inform users the machine will survive, but saying nothing is no longer negligent. It does become a rather arbitrary choice whether to say something because of the irrelevance of throwing the machine off the cliff.

You could say the decision to design the machine as cliff-proof or not is arbitrary, and I would agree. But it doesn't follow that because the design is arbitrary, the morality is necessarily arbitrary.

Even then, if one drives to root cause, I'm not sure if even design remains arbitrary. Not being an infinite being that is a question I can't answer. I do find interesting, however, discussions about mathematical first principles and whether they are self-evident or not. Mathematicians are always in search of such things. It is interesting that in geometry the Cartesian idea of an origin was challenged as arbitrary. The result was the origin used in affine geometry. Maybe you could argue the affine origin is still arbitrary, but the solution is so elegant that it begs to be accepted. It seems the arbitrary choice would be not to use it.

None of this actually addresses the issue.

If a god says "X=good", and the statement is correct, then X is either:

1. Good independent of this god
2. Defined as good by this god

If a god says "X=good (because Y)" nothing changes. X is either:

1. Good independent of this god (and independent of Y)
2. Defined as good by this god (using Y as criteria)

In both cases, #2 is arbitrary. A god could use another arbitrary criteria to say "X=evil (because Z) or just decide that X=evil for no reason at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is forcing a 2 year old to suffer a painful death due to cancer immoral or moral?

In post #274 you use the phrase "unnecessary pain". Do you think there is such a thing as necessary pain? Answering that question is important to the discussion.

However, I'll answer you by saying there is nothing God has commanded that prevents us from doing everything we can to relieve the child's pain and prevent his death. The fact remains that this world has pain, but God has overcome it (John 16:33). So, whatever pain may come, it can also be removed. That sounds trite ... and it is trite. The healing doesn't come from an Internet board but from those who love you. I know because I'm a cancer survivor. So, I know the pain I experienced and I know it's now gone.

 

[Resha Caner]

Let me reiterate:

The Euthyphro Dilemma has nothing to do with my morality.

Let me reiterate: I didn't ask you a question about the Euthyphro Dilemma. As I indicated, a non-answer says a lot.

In both cases, #2 is arbitrary.

You did nothing to establish the criteria as arbitrary. So, help me out here. Give me an example of criteria that are and are not arbitrary.

 

[bhsmte]

Umm. I thought this would be obvious. If some guy is a gun collector and has guns hanging on his wall, it would be wrong for the police to break into his home without cause and take his guns. If they find a note from that same guy saying he intends to shoot up a movie theater, the conditions have changed. They have cause, and they should take the guns away.



For we finite beings it is often very subjective. Are you proposing throwing out all conditions for judging what is acceptable and unacceptable?

If determining conditions have changed enough to change whether something is moral or not, how can this morality, be objective?

If one link in the chain is subjective, the whole thing depends on that subjectivity.

 

[FireDragon76]

So, whatever pain may come, it can also be removed. That sounds trite ... and it is trite. The healing doesn't come from an Internet board but from those who love you. I know because I'm a cancer survivor. So, I know the pain I experienced and I know it's now gone.

I guess the problem of evil is something there is no good answer to, and you are right, it's not something an internet discussion board can fix. But, I've still found reasons to keep on believing. I've learned to appreciate the people around me that take care of me. I suppose I am afraid that one day all that will be taken away from me and that bothers me too, but it's not an immediate problem.

I will say its hard to believe God will fix everything that has gone wrong. I don't have a lot of faith in that area, more like hope. I guess the faith or hope comes from acknowledging that there are some areas of life I have limited understanding, quite obviously. Maybe a bit like Job in that regard.

And it also seems like the atheist response is not compelling either. There's a lot of assumptions about how antelope suffering, etc. etc., full of anthropomorphisms and speculation about animal cognition. I'm more interested in the reality that the human race seems rather callous and indifferent on the whole to suffering that could be easily remedied. People choose evil. And that in itself seems to point to the solution- live the best life you can, be a superior person, don't fall into the trap of being or thinking like everybody else to fit in, etc.

 

[Locutus]

The fact remains that this world has pain, but God has overcome it (John 16:33). So, whatever pain may come, it can also be removed. That sounds trite ... and it is trite. The healing doesn't come from an Internet board but from those who love you. I know because I'm a cancer survivor. So, I know the pain I experienced and I know it's now gone.

Yes, it sounds horrifically trite. And could only be said by someone who did actually survive.

Now tell us if it's moral or immoral for a child to die from cancer after years of profound suffering. I just watched it happen, and had I managed to convince myself (to ease my own suffering ... which is always the motivation) that that terrible event was somehow okay, I would consider myself irretrievably selfish and corrupt.

 

[Locutus]

I'm more interested in the reality that the human race seems rather callous and indifferent on the whole to suffering

Not so much so that we're willing to say suffering is okay because doing so means we win a golden ticket.

 

[quatona]

Those standards have been decided? I must have missed that.

That´s an odd statement coming from an moral objectivist.

 

[quatona]

Question: How do you decide what is and what isn't the behavior of a benevolent being?

That´s an immensely important question. How do you suggest we go about collecting criteria and standards?

 

[Picky Picky]

[...]
And it also seems like the atheist response is not compelling either. There's a lot of assumptions about how antelope suffering, etc. etc., full of anthropomorphisms and speculation about animal cognition. I'm more interested in the reality that the human race seems rather callous and indifferent on the whole to suffering that could be easily remedied. People choose evil. And that in itself seems to point to the solution- live the best life you can, be a superior person, don't fall into the trap of being or thinking like everybody else to fit in, etc.

Your last sentence gets a "hear, hear" from me, and, I wouldn't be surprised, from every atheist in this thread. But where do you get that stuff that enables you to brush aside the suffering of the antelope? Do you believe an antelope torn apart by a lion doesn't suffer? Because seeing the suffering in the eyes of a damaged animal seems to me a sight of reality, not what you may have persuaded yourself to think is just "anthropomorphisms and speculation about animal cognition".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Recent video that briefly discusses the problem of evil:

 

[Resha Caner]

If determining conditions have changed enough to change whether something is moral or not, how can this morality, be objective?

"Objective" is not a synonym for "unresponsive".

 

[Resha Caner]

I guess the problem of evil is something there is no good answer to, and you are right, it's not something an internet discussion board can fix.

I think there is a theological answer to the problem of evil, but I was trying to say that the answer does nothing to relieve someone's suffering.

I will say its hard to believe God will fix everything that has gone wrong.

It is hard to believe. Yet even if someone believes God will fix everything (as I do), that does nothing for the suffering of the moment. I'm not sure anything can relieve the suffering of the moment. Even the drugs that were supposed to help me didn't help at all. I stopped taking them.

The blessing is when those who were with you through the suffering are still there to aid your healing.

 

[Resha Caner]

Now tell us if it's moral or immoral for a child to die from cancer after years of profound suffering.

I'm sorry you had to watch something like that happen. I watched it as well. There was a group of us who went through treatment together. Some lived. Some didn't. It's an experience that forever changes you, but I don't know that this is the place to share war stories.

I am willing to talk to you in a PM.

A public board like this can only go in circles regarding questions for which some will never be satistifed. Personally, I think the discussion is more useful than supposed answers.

With that said, I think your demand may be a false dichotomy. I'm not settled on that yet, but I am leaning in that direction. Still, my initial feel is that trying to argue with you would be counter productive. So, for the sake of this discussion, I'll ask this: If it were immoral, then what?

 

[FireDragon76]

Because seeing the suffering in the eyes of a damaged animal seems to me a sight of reality, not what you may have persuaded yourself to think is just "anthropomorphisms and speculation about animal cognition".

A certain component of suffering seems to be more than pain. I'm sure an antelope feels pain, but merely feeling pain doesn't easily quantify into a certain degree of suffering. Human beings are capable of suffering for instance, when feeling no physical pain at all. Depression is a good example.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Let me reiterate: I didn't ask you a question about the Euthyphro Dilemma. As I indicated, a non-answer says a lot.

As the Euthyphro Dilemma has nothing to do with my ideas about morality, it seems to be a swerve on your part in asking about them. What does my non answer say about the fact that my views have nothing to do with what we're discussing?

You did nothing to establish the criteria as arbitrary.

Uh... of course I did. I specifically said that in statement number 2, Y was the arbitrary case, and therefore establishes X as arbitrary (X=Y is as valid as X=Z). In statement number 1, Y is non arbitrary, which makes it tantamount to a tautology (X=Y) and therefore its truth value is independent of the claimant.

 

[Resha Caner]

What does my non answer say about the fact that my views have nothing to do with what we're discussing?

Since you refuse to share your views, I can't answer that.

Uh... of course I did. I specifically said that in statement number 2, Y was the arbitrary case, and therefore establishes X as arbitrary (X=Y is as valid as X=Z). In statement number 1, Y is non arbitrary, which makes it tantamount to a tautology (X=Y) and therefore its truth value is independent of the claimant.

Sorry, but no. It doesn't make your claims suddenly valid to simply repeat them by substituting a capital letter for your claim.

So are you also now refusing to give me examples?

 

[Picky Picky]

A certain component of suffering seems to be more than pain. I'm sure an antelope feels pain, but merely feeling pain doesn't easily quantify into a certain degree of suffering. Human beings are capable of suffering for instance, when feeling no physical pain at all. Depression is a good example.

Yes, of course one can suffer without feeling pain, and it may be that human consciousness makes pain worse, but surely you cannot be maintaining that animals do not suffer pain? That if you beat a dog it is not hurt? That if you tread by mistake on your cat's foot it does not screech? That if you rip the belly from a deer it does not suffer agony? Come now!

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, of course one can suffer without feeling pain, and it may be that human consciousness makes pain worse, but surely you cannot be maintaining that animals do not suffer pain? That if you beat a dog it is not hurt? That if you tread by mistake on your cat's foot it does not screech? That if you rip the belly from a deer it does not suffer agony? Come now!

No, I believe animals feel pain. Basic organisms with only a rudimentary nervous system also respond to pain, but I doubt they suffer to any meaningful degree. And that's my point. Pain doesn't necessarily equal suffering.