Contemplating the Existence of God in the Face of Evil

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So you are asking me for my feelings about it? I find it abhorrent. (Just like I find some actions of biblegod abhorrent that you have been defending.).

But we have been there like a dozen times, haven´t we? My answers won´t change.
When you invited me of all to address the problem of evil for you, I thought you had some new questions.

You find it abhorrent but reject concepts like obligations, values, and morality? Is this just a matter of personal aesthetics or what precisely?

In a fully secular society, what do you think the basis of moral judgments should be? Can you condemn genocide if you refuse to admit that it's wrong except in extremely subjective terms? What would you say to someone who did not find genocide abhorrent?

(I do think this question can and should be handled without appeals to God, but it's one that non-theists should take seriously. And theists too, for that matter. Unsophisticated divine command theory is a thing of horror.)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
(I do think this question can and should be handled without appeals to God, but it's one that non-theists should take seriously. And theists too, for that matter. Unsophisticated divine command theory is a thing of horror.)
Rest assured, I take it very seriously - even though my approach is probably completely different from yours.
Also keep in mind that my previous posts were directed at "anonymous person" who in his current and all his previous incarnations has proven to just follow some disingenious WLC scripts that consist of leading questions serving the purpose of veiling his false equivocations. This is pure trickery, and the responses take that into consideration.

You find it abhorrent but reject concepts like obligations, values, and morality?
Depends on how they are defined. In any case, in my understanding employing such abstractions isn´t really helpful. They tend to be post hoc rationalizations, and they tend to keep us from getting to the core of the issue.
Is this just a matter of personal aesthetics or what precisely?
Feelings. Preferences. Needs.
Not really precise - but maybe it gives you a first idea?

In a fully secular society, what do you think the basis of moral judgments should be?
So are we talking now based on the premise that the purpose of morality is to help create a successful, prospering society? Or, more broadly, morality as a pragmatic, utilitarian concept?
Can you condemn genocide if you refuse to admit that it's wrong except in extremely subjective terms?
That´s what "condemning" means, to me. But then, I am not even sure that "condemnation" is the way to help creating a better society. IOW, even if we couldn´t call that "condemnation" I wouldn´t miss anything.
What would you say to someone who did not find genocide abhorrent?
In order to achieve what?
To express my feelings and/or explain myself?
To soften them and convince them?
Something else?
In any case, I doubt that adding an "objectively" to my feelings and opinions will help with anything.
After all, I wouldn´t be more impressed if a proponent of genocide would claim his view to be objective, either. In this context I find this word redundant at best and counterproductive at worst, for any purpose I can think of.
When faced with views that I can not at all relate to, I tend to start with asking questions that help me understand, rather than starting with immediate antagonizing.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Then please enlighten me about those concepts you envision so that I can contemplate on them appropriately.


How do "obligations" come into being?


How do "values" come into being?


So you are asking me for my feelings about it? I find it abhorrent. (Just like I find some actions of biblegod abhorrent that you have been defending.).

But we have been there like a dozen times, haven´t we? My answers won´t change.
When you invited me of all to address the problem of evil for you, I thought you had some new questions.

Does the sentence, "rape is abhorrent", contain a proposition capable of being true or false, or is the sentence propositionless, i.e. incapable of being true or false. For example, "ouch!", "look out!", and "eww, nasty!" are imcapable of being true or false.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Does the sentence, "rape is abhorrent", contain a proposition capable of being true or false, or is the sentence propositionless, i.e. incapable of being true or false.
I don´t know that it is capable of being true or false. If you have a way of conceptualizing it this way, I am all ears.
However, my sentence ("I find it abhorrent.") contains such a proposition.
For example, "ouch!", "look out!", and "eww, nasty!" are imcapable of being true or false.
Why?
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Rest assured, I take it very seriously - even though my approach is probably completely different from yours.

That depends. I'm (mostly) a naturalist, but not a relativist. If we're talking about where morality comes from, I think the answer lies in part in our evolution as a species--to put it very simply, there are certain ways of being that are beneficial to us psychologically and others that are not. Of course, there's both a light and a dark side to our herd animal instincts, and I think rationality and self-awareness play a role in identifying which is which.

Also keep in mind that my previous posts were directed at "anonymous person" who in his current and all his previous incarnations has proven to just follow some disingenious WLC scripts that consist of leading questions serving the purpose of veiling his false equivocations. This is pure trickery, and the responses take that into consideration.

Eh, I don't see anything disingenuous in his questions. I have a very different approach to metaethics than most evangelicals, but if you're going to have a conversation, you need to know where both people stand. So I don't see how it's helpful to just turn all the questions around again.

Depends on how they are defined. In any case, in my understanding employing such abstractions isn´t really helpful. They tend to be post hoc rationalizations, and they tend to keep us from getting to the core of the issue.

Tossing them out as concepts without any context isn't terribly helpful, I suppose, but I don't think they're rationalizations. They're just part of the language that we use to discuss morality. If you don't like these words, what language would you prefer? How would you define these words?

So are we talking now based on the premise that the purpose of morality is to help create a successful, prospering society? Or, more broadly, morality as a pragmatic, utilitarian concept?

Well, that would actually be part of the question. What is the purpose of morality? I subscribe to an existentialist virtue ethics. I think personal authenticity is more important than a prospering society and I find utilitarianism downright repugnant. Better ethics do tend to lead to greater prosperity, but I think that serves to showcase that they work rather than being a justification for them in and of itself.

That´s what "condemning" means, to me. But then, I am not even sure that "condemnation" is the way to help creating a better society. IOW, even if we couldn´t call that "condemnation" I wouldn´t miss anything.

What are the alternatives to condemning genocide? I certainly don't think excusing it is an option! Nor would I say that a society that draws no lines and stands for nothing is a better society.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
That depends. I'm (mostly) a naturalist, but not a relativist. If we're talking about where morality comes from, I think the answer lies in part in our evolution as a species--to put it very simply, there are certain ways of being that are beneficial to us psychologically and others that are not. Of course, there's both a light and a dark side to our herd animal instincts, and I think rationality and self-awareness play a role in identifying which is which.
Yeah, sure - from a naturalist perspective everything we are and do is the result of evolution.



Eh, I don't see anything disingenuous in his questions. I have a very different approach to metaethics than most evangelicals, but if you're going to have a conversation, you need to know where both people stand. So I don't see how it's helpful to just turn all the questions around again.
Feel free to have a conversation with him, then.
I´ve had dozens with him.



Tossing them out as concepts without any context isn't terribly helpful, I suppose, but I don't think they're rationalizations. They're just part of the language that we use to discuss morality. If you don't like these words, what language would you prefer? How would you define these words?
Actually, I do think that tossing out concepts that create an unhelpful context is helpful. I did define those words that are meaningful to me. I can´t be expected to define other people´s words and concepts for them.
In regards to improving interactions between humans, I prefer a need- and feeling-oriented language.



Well, that would actually be part of the question. What is the purpose of morality?
You tell me. You are the moralist.
Once I know what purpose the use of this concept is supposed to serve, I can tell how I would pursue that purpose.
I subscribe to an existentialist virtue ethics. I think personal authenticity is more important than a prospering society and I find utilitarianism downright repugnant. Better ethics do tend to lead to greater prosperity, but I think that serves to showcase that they work rather than being a justification for them in and of itself.
Cool - if that works for you... :)

Personally, I feel that all this isn´t rocket science. We are forming systems (friendship, couples, families,...,nations); and the well-being of the individual depends also on the well-being of the system, and the well-being of the system depends also on the well-being of the individuals. So it´s all a matter of weighing up these things that are both in my own best interest.



What are the alternatives to condemning genocide?
I think I tried to give you an idea, in my previous post.
I certainly don't think excusing it is an option!
And you can´t think of anything else than these two options?
Nor would I say that a society that draws no lines and stands for nothing is a better society.
Yes, I agree: a society can draw lines quite fine (and so can I, personally) - what the result of this drawing of lines is in each given case, is another question.
Then again, genocide is a way of drawing lines.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yeah, sure - from a naturalist perspective everything we are and do is the result of evolution.

Not necessarily. Some naturalists obsess over evolutionary psychology, others stress cultural tendencies instead. I suspect that rationality is what tranforms biological instincts and cultural prejudices into something different.

In regards to improving interactions between humans, I prefer a need- and feeling-oriented language.

I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain more?

You tell me. You are the moralist.
Once I know what purpose the use of this concept is supposed to serve, I can tell how I would pursue that purpose.

Morality is distinguishing between those actions that are good and those that are not. Ethics as a field is the study of what is and is not moral; metaethics involves questioning what exactly morality itself is.

Given that you find genocide abhorrent, I imagine that you must consider it to be bad. You are assigning moral value to it. You have an approach to questions concerning morality, even if you dislike the word "moral." It appears that you value improving interactions between people?

Personally, I feel that all this isn´t rocket science. We are forming systems (friendship, couples, families,...,nations); and the well-being of the individual depends also on the well-being of the system, and the well-being of the system depends also on the well-being of the individuals. So it´s all a matter of weighing up these things that are both in my own best interest.

Alright. How would you go about weighing these things?

And you can´t think of anything else than these two options?

Nope. If you can't come out and say that genocide is wrong, you're implicitly excusing it.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Not necessarily. Some naturalists obsess over evolutionary psychology, others stress cultural tendencies instead. I suspect that rationality is what tranforms biological instincts and cultural prejudices into something different.
...and rationality hasn´t come about by evolution?



I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain more?
Which word - feeling or need - do you want me to explain?



Morality is distinguishing between those actions that are good and those that are not.
Maybe my question was unclear. I didn´t mean to ask what it does. I meant to ask for the purpose of what it does.
Ethics as a field is the study of what is and is not moral; metaethics involves questioning what exactly morality itself is.
So at this point we are on the meta-ethical level.

Given that you find genocide abhorrent, I imagine that you must consider it to be bad.
If in your use of words "I find X abhorrent" and "I consider it to be bad" are synonyms, then yes. In this case we can simply go with the wording I used.
If, in your use of words, your wording communicates something else or something additional, your imagination doesn´t follow.
You are assigning moral value to it. You have an approach to questions concerning morality, even if you dislike the word "moral." It appears that you value improving interactions between people?
Yes, of course I hold personal values and preferences. What were you thinking?



Alright. How would you go about weighing these things?
Seeing how human interactions have multiple causes and and multiple short and long term effects - IOW seeing the incalculability in these matters -, and also seeing that I am part of a lot of systems...probably more intuitively than anything.


Nope. If you can't come out and say that genocide is wrong, you're implicitly excusing it.
Well, if you a priori lump all other options together under "excusing" (which requires you to have a very unusual definition of "excusing"), then there are only two options in your way of looking at it. Black and white in - black and white out.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Does the sentence, "rape is abhorrent", contain a proposition capable of being true or false, or is the sentence propositionless, i.e. incapable of being true or false. For example, "ouch!", "look out!", and "eww, nasty!" are imcapable of being true or false.
Yes. BUT only if we assume the unspoken parts for which the sentence is a shorthand.

The expanded version would be "rape is abhorrent to me" or "to us" or "to God".

Strictly speaking your sentence as written doesnt even make sense.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
...and rationality hasn´t come about by evolution?

Yes and no. I'm intrigued by the idea that rationality evolves from simpler instances of intentionality, but I don't think you can account for intentionality at all without introducing a pretty strong form of teleology back into evolutionary theory.

So while I think it evolved, in this case that means something completely different to me than it would to a naturalist. As far as I'm concerned, the Argument from Reason is one of the strongest arguments against naturalism.

Which word - feeling or need - do you want me to explain?

How they tie into moral questions. Or are you just saying that you approach the problem intuitively?

Well, if you a priori lump all other options together under "excusing" (which requires you to have a very unusual definition of "excusing"), then there are only two options in your way of looking at it. Black and white in - black and white out.

In this case, yes. I do think the choice is binary--one can either come out and say that a certain action is wrong or one can refuse to do so. This doesn't mean ignoring underlying factors or rejecting creative solutions to social problems; it does, however, mean not looking the other way when things get complicated.

For a slightly dated example, cultural relativity, colonialism, and widow burning in India. If someone is not willing to condemn sati, I am going to assume that they ultimately do not take the welfare of women seriously. Or at least not as seriously as whatever ideological position they're wedded to.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
How they tie into moral questions. Or are you just saying that you approach the problem intuitively?
No, I´m saying that I approach differences in opinions, needs, feelings, ideas and proposed solutions among people differently than you. I´m not utilizing those concepts that you start from. Thus, when you ask me to address this topic and insist that I do that by utilizing your concepts, you create a mixed message that makes it impossible for me to humour you.



In this case, yes. I do think the choice is binary--one can either come out and say that a certain action is wrong or one can refuse to do so. This doesn't mean ignoring underlying factors or rejecting creative solutions to social problems; it does, however, mean not looking the other way when things get complicated.
Nobody advocated to look the other way when things get complicated (unless, of course, you call everything but saying "this/you/your ways is/are wrong" "looking the other way when things get complicated".)

For a slightly dated example, cultural relativity, colonialism, and widow burning in India. If someone is not willing to condemn sati, I am going to assume that they ultimately do not take the welfare of women seriously. Or at least not as seriously as whatever ideological position they're wedded to.
Well, it´s you who has to deal with your assumptions.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
No, I´m saying that I approach differences in opinions, needs, feelings, ideas and proposed solutions among people differently than you. I´m not utilizing those concepts that you start from. Thus, when you ask me to address this topic and insist that I do that by utilizing your concepts, you create a mixed message that makes it impossible for me to humour you.




Nobody advocated to look the other way when things get complicated (unless, of course, you call everything but saying "this/you/your ways is/are wrong" "looking the other way when things get complicated".)


Well, it´s you who has to deal with your assumptions.
What concepts should we use then?

Let me ask you this.

Do you know of anyone who has beliefs or views that you know do not correspond to reality?

The question of course assumes that reality can be known, i.e. that we can know things as they really are.

Do you believe that there exists a physical world, independent of humans, i.e. that a physical world exists, and would exist, even if there were no humans in it, and say only dinosaurs?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
What concepts should we use then?
In order to achieve what exactly? Communicating our preferences, needs and feelings effectively?

Let me ask you this.

Do you know of anyone who has beliefs or views that you know do not correspond to reality?

The question of course assumes that reality can be known, i.e. that we can know things as they really are.


Do you believe that there exists a physical world, independent of humans, i.e. that a physical world exists, and would exist, even if there were no humans in it, and say only dinosaurs?
Let´s not get to far off topic, ok? Epistemology is a huge and complex field...
IIRC this thread and your request to me weren´t about exploring physical reality, but about human values and value judgements ("good"/"bad"/"evil"...).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0