Necessity of evil

[jayem]

Whereas I am inclined to say that not all religious beliefs are faith-based, only Judeo-Christian ones.

That's not necessarily true. The traditional Chinese and southeast Asian religions are based on ancestor worship. They pray to their deceased ancestors whom they believe have power to watch over and protect them. The same applies to some Native Americans who still have ceremonies venerating their forefathers. There are thousands of gods in Hinduism. I sometimes go to estate sales where I've seen shrines to various gods in some Indian homes. Don't all these religious practices require faith? Devout Muslims pray 5 times a day to Allah. And we all know (unfortunately) that some Muslims--both men and women--are willing to sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks against perceived enemies. They believe that if they're killed in a holy war, Allah will immediately accept them into eternal paradise. You gotta admit, that takes a boatload of faith.

 

[Hans Blaster]

All beliefs are predicated upon faith, not just religious ones.

This sounds like an attempt to bring other propositions down a level or 5.

You first need to believe that you exist in order to have any following beliefs.

If I don't exist then why do you care, or why would I care? Believing oneself to not exist seems a rather silly thing to do. Even if I am the imaginings of some other being, these imaginings have enough awareness to recognize themself (or rather myself).

Then you need to believe that observation is able to determine facts, if you don't then the previous observation cannot be proven.

While I might be confused (or even delusional) in my own observations, I can consult with others to see if they agree with my observation (that rock is large, the sky is coudy, etc.)

Both of these beliefs are taken upon faith because they're unable to be justified yet predicate all belief.

Again, bringing things down to the level of "faith".

Regardless, if this line of thinking doesn't work then take your own dogma of Naturalism;

Naturalism isn't really a "dogma", but rather a conclusion. It's a conclusion that we all reach at least partially and instinctively. It is nothing more than the realization that the world around us has repeatable properties. We rely on it everyday, all day. If not we would not function. Think just of the process of walking. To walk you must extend one leg in front of you and push with the other, plant your forward foot and then switch them. It is not a matter of faith to understand walking, but an understanding of the regularity of the operations of you legs, the firmness of the ground, etc. that allows you to walk. When the surface rises in front of you, you know you have to lift your leg. When it drops out, as in a step, you know you must ease your forward foot down and you can not just step out on a stop (or from a ledge) as if their is solid, level ground in front of you. We all learn how to do this when we learn to walk and acquire an understanding of the naturalistic nature of walking. Faith will not make your leg move forward, or provide support when going down a stop or off a ledge.

on what basis do you claim that existence (including your own) can be explained through natural phenomena without it being entirely circular and/or assumed?

No system of reasoning is free of at least one or two "basal assumptions", but that does not make it "faith". All naturalistic explanations require is that:

1. There is a naturalistic basis for things
2. It can be discovered.

And these two properties can both be discovered themselves by making the observations and cross-checking them with others and finding the repeat behaviors and patterns. Finding them demonstrates that they exist, and that they can be discovered. Then you work to build upon them and see how much can be so explained. (Answer: virtually everything)

Edit: Even if this fails then do you not take your beliefs on what experts say about reality on faith? You don't know what an astrophysicist, doctor or biologist says is true nor do you even know why what they say is true. The basis for the claims you believe about reality are taken and believed in entirely upon faith.

Ah, but I *do* know what their "beliefs" are and how they know what we know, because I *do* have that training and knowledge.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Would you then say that salvific faith is no different from any other faith? Does salvation depend on the sincerity of the belief of the redeemed?

The thing (or in this case Being) you have faith in is what brings salvation, i.e Christ. Not the faith itself. There are distinctions what faith justifies (see James 2) and is therefore saving, however faith in an idol or some such other thing will not save you. It requires the accepting of Christ. Hope you get what I mean, I'm pretty tired :\.

re Q 2: Romans 10:9.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

No system of reasoning is free of at least one or two "basal assumptions", but that does not make it "faith". All naturalistic explanations require is that:

1. There is a naturalistic basis for things
2. It can be discovered.

And these two properties can both be discovered themselves by making the observations and cross-checking them with others and finding the repeat behaviors and patterns. Finding them demonstrates that they exist, and that they can be discovered. Then you work to build upon them and see how much can be so explained. (Answer: virtually everything)

Don't have time to respond to your whole post so I'll respond to the crux.

All claims about reality require justification. Including these two. How you determine things to have a naturalistic basis is based upon assumptions about existence and it requires assumptions about existence in order to establish propositions. All of these things require justification. One of those assumptions is the existence of immaterial laws of logic or natural laws, also, for lack of a better term which condenses the problem of induction, the uniformity of nature. You have to establish why your conception of what is naturalistic comports to mine and why it's true that x is a naturalistic basis for y.

Again, you need to establish why observations can be trusted or why they even have the ability to determine what is and is not fact. All of these require the real existence of a modus operandi to existence (natural laws) and they (natural laws) need to be proven that they exist and will continue to exist and function the same way in the future as they do now. All systems of reasoning are inherently circular as you rely on reason to say why reason is authoritative or justifiable. Hence the faith required in order to establish basic propositions like existence.

You make very confident assertions for somebody who takes base assumptions about his existence around him, assumes they're true/assumes their inherent justification in order to establish whether they're natural or not and then assume that all is explainable through these "basal assumptions/presuppositions".

Also naturalism has dogma, all worldviews/paradigms do. They're the guiding assumed things on which the basis for the paradigm is established.

Feel free to have the last say, I probably won't respond to you any further. God bless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Don't have time to respond to your whole post so I'll respond to the crux.

All claims about reality require justification. Including these two. How you determine things to have a naturalistic basis is based upon assumptions about existence and it requires assumptions about existence in order to establish propositions. All of these things require justification. One of those assumptions is the existence of immaterial laws of logic or natural laws, also, for lack of a better term which condenses the problem of induction, the uniformity of nature. You have to establish why your conception of what is naturalistic comports to mine and why it's true that x is a naturalistic basis for y.

Would you prefer "repeatable and predictable" instead of "natural"? (They are effectively the same thing.) Whether you know it or not you have demonstrated those things to yourself or you would not be able to function. (Same as any learning creature, including all mammals.)

Again, you need to establish why observations can be trusted or why they even have the ability to determine what is and is not fact.

Again, this comes from cross checking with others and seeing if the patterns that appear are broken. In 2500 years no one has ever found a violation of A=A or (not A) = A, two of the fundamental laws of logic. Discovered by probing the nature of reality and considering the alternatives.

If we all agree that rain falls not only from the sky but from clouds we have made progress in understanding part of the natural world around us and its regularity. (What will eventually become "naturalism".) That is how it works. When your parents explained that rain comes from clouds they were imparting not only what had been passed to them by authority, but their own generation of experience that rain only falls from clouds.

All of these require the real existence of a modus operandi to existence (natural laws) and they (natural laws) need to be proven that they exist and will continue to exist and function the same way in the future as they do now.

We can't *prove* the natural laws will remain in the future as they have in the past and in the present because knowledge, observation, and science don't work that way. But, so far, they have not changed in 13 billion years, so I feel pretty safe about them.

All systems of reasoning are inherently circular as you rely on reason to say why reason is authoritative or justifiable. Hence the faith required in order to establish basic propositions like existence.

I'm not going to get into some stupid philosophical argument (as they all are). As for "existence", if you want to believe you don't exist, that's up to you.

You make very confident assertions for somebody who takes base assumptions about his existence around him, assumes they're true/assumes their inherent justification in order to establish whether they're natural or not and then assume that all is explainable through these "basal assumptions/presuppositions".

Like I said before, I've done the work. I've repeated the experiments. I've worked through the theoretical frameworks. I've made predictions.

Also naturalism has dogma, all worldviews/paradigms do. They're the guiding assumed things on which the basis for the paradigm is established.

It's not "dogma". Un"prove"able base assumptions, sure, dogma no.

Feel free to have the last say, I probably won't respond to you any further. God bless.

Fine, but I didn't sneeze. And "evil" still isn't necessary.

 

[jayem]

No system of reasoning is free of at least one or two "basal assumptions", but that does not make it "faith". All naturalistic explanations require is that:

1. There is a naturalistic basis for things
2. It can be discovered.

And these two properties can both be discovered themselves by making the observations and cross-checking them with others and finding the repeat behaviors and patterns. Finding them demonstrates that they exist, and that they can be discovered. Then you work to build upon them and see how much can be so explained. (Answer: virtually everything)

Exactly right. You mentioned repeatability. Which is a critical aspect of the naturalistic perspective. It states that the exact same set of circumstances, will always result in exactly the same outcome. What we might call the laws of nature are fixed. There is no capriciousness in the universe. OTOH, a supernatural perspective implies that the laws of nature can be suspended at anytime, anywhere, for unknown and unknowable reasons. From a practical standpoint, the naturalist viewpoint has utility. When we know the underlying conditions, we can make predictions with a high degree of confidence. Not so with a supernatural point of view. Anything can happen.

BTW, predictability holds true even accounting for quantum uncertainty. Particles have wave-like properties and we cannot know exactly about a particle's position and speed (AKA, it's history.) But we can assign probabilities to each of it's possible pathways. And there is always one history that is much, much more likely than the others. So, on the macro scale, predictability is possible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The thing (or in this case Being) you have faith in is what brings salvation, i.e Christ. Not the faith itself. There are distinctions what faith justifies (see James 2) and is therefore saving, however faith in an idol or some such other thing will not save you. It requires the accepting of Christ. Hope you get what I mean, I'm pretty tired :\.

re Q 2: Romans 10:9.

Yeah, I get you. The thing is that this faith is different from all others. The amount of faith is not what is relevant to its ability to save. Or, maybe I should say, the quality of the believer's faith is not what makes it "salvific faith". This faith is not even generated by the believer. It is CAUSED within him, not by choice, but generated by the Spirit of God within. THUS its quality/amount is not at issue, but its source —its reality.

 

[zippy2006]

That's not necessarily true. The traditional Chinese and southeast Asian religions are based on ancestor worship. They pray to their deceased ancestors whom they believe have power to watch over and protect them. The same applies to some Native Americans who still have ceremonies venerating their forefathers. There are thousands of gods in Hinduism. I sometimes go to estate sales where I've seen shrines to various gods in some Indian homes. Don't all these religious practices require faith?

No, they do not. I'm not sure why you would think so.

Devout Muslims pray 5 times a day to Allah. And we all know (unfortunately) that some Muslims--both men and women--are willing to sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks against perceived enemies. They believe that if they're killed in a holy war, Allah will immediately accept them into eternal paradise. You gotta admit, that takes a boatload of faith.

What is your definition of 'faith'? Earlier you defined it as something like a divine gift.

 

[jayem]

What is your definition of 'faith'? Earlier you defined it as something like a divine gift.

Faith is a firmly held belief. In the context of this thread, I was referring specifically to religious faith. Which the Bible says is a gift from God. And I quoted Ephesians 2:8-9 as confirmation. I'm just being honest when say I haven't been given this gift.

But I do have faith in other areas. I believe matter/energy, and the fundamental forces of nature are absolutely real. If I jumped off the roof of my house, I have complete faith that I will experience gravity. The fact that the atoms compromising my body don't fly apart confirms my faith in the strong nuclear force. I also have faith in other laws of nature. When I remove a bowl of very hot soup from the microwave, I know its temperature will cool down and eventually equilibrate with the ambient room temperature. That's because I have faith in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[zippy2006]

Faith is a firmly held belief. In the context of this thread, I was referring specifically to religious faith. Which the Bible says is a gift from God. And I quoted Ephesians 2:8-9 as confirmation. I'm just being honest when say I haven't been given this gift.

But I do have faith in other areas. I believe matter/energy, and the fundamental forces of nature are absolutely real. If I jumped off the roof of my house, I have complete faith that I will experience gravity. The fact that the atoms compromising my body don't fly apart confirms my faith in the strong nuclear force. I also have faith in other laws of nature. When I remove a bowl of very hot soup from the microwave, I know its temperature will cool down and eventually equilibrate with the ambient room temperature. That's because I have faith in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Sure, but on that definition science involves faith as much as religion does. Your statement, "All religious belief ultimately comes down to faith," is then a bit like the statement, "All Fords are made of metal," where metal is in no way the unique possession of Fords.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In which case theists still lose. Most scientists will readily admit that there are things that are knowable and there are things that aren't. And much of what science deals with ultimately hinges on the things that aren't. However most scientists are perfectly willing to admit this, and it's no big deal for them to do so. Theists on the other hand... simply can't... ever.

Unless you'd like to take this opportunity to prove me wrong and admit that you really don't know whether the God you pray to, the God that you've dedicated your life to... is anything more than an elaborate human self-delusion.

You do understand that that's possible... right? But are you willing to admit it? Admit that your faith in the existence of God may be completely and totally wrong.

If you can't do that then the scientists will always be one giant leap ahead of you. They can admit when they might be wrong, whereas you can't

But go ahead... prove me wrong... admit that your God may be nothing more than a delusion.

That would be impossible for me to do. To me it simply makes perfect sense that God should exist; it makes more sense than that I should exist. But here I am.

On top of that, to suppose that there is no God leaves nothing but vacancy. Hello, Ecclesiastes!

 

[TheTorturedSoul]

Ok interesting question. I do not agree ever that people need evil to become good or understand life better. People say "we need satan to tempt us to understand life and things like this." However, I don't agree. You need to understand that when I say this it's not to argue however, I want to discuss. When I discuss I ask questions that I will answer and also have you answer as well. So all of the questions I ask are to help and not to annoy you.
So, when God is good why would a good man let people die? When? Never right? Think of hercules, he is good because he saved someone in the end and many people all the time. He didn't let that woman suffer and die in HELL FOREVER because Hades took her and said "she's mine forever!" God is GOOD. So that means that he would save people from hunger, from destruction, from evil and from disease and terrible situations. Why is he not doing that then? Is a good question to ask after understanding that he is not kind of good, he's actually good. Hercules always fought the devil too. Some people wonder "well can't God just get rid of the devil? Doesn't that make sense?" and yes, that would make sense for a good man to do. Why is it not happening? What do you think? Because God is bad? because God is evil? Or letting things slide? Good men don't let people suffer due to letting things slide, or agency or anything like this. People seem to think that God is somehow in control of everything and if he was then what if and why is this happening right? What if God is not all powerful? What if God created earths but has an amount of power but not so much power that he can defeat the devil always forever and always give people what they need? What if? Like superman cannot create a world, but he can shoot lasers at evil men and fight in a way that makes sense. If God was all powerful then why does he make moves like he is human somehow? If God were good then why is he not all powerful like scriptures say? What if there were something missing in the scriptures in general about things about God? I mean honestly people are trying to put together an idea about why God is the way he is with such little information that it creates uncertain ideas and feelings of anger towards God. So I'll clarify a few areas.

God is good always. He's like a superhero and he doesn't have all power in my opinion. Meaning, he doesn't hear all your thoughts all day long and lead you all day long. He doesn't know everything about everyone because he is not able to do so. His power is powerful but limited in certain areas. This makes so much more sense because people don't get revelation every step of the way like they want. They also don't get healed sometimes, but God I think would help everyone heal if he could. Something is wrong then about something, and it's NOT GOD. Someone or something is stopping this from happening. What if it were the Devil? What if he were actually powerful?

I mean God has him destroying this planet. That doesn't make sense right? Why ALLOW someone to harm people? EVER? FAITH? Testing? NO. No good man would ever test people with an evil man like hitler. Who in their right mind would do that if they were good? Testing can happen without a devil in my opinion but honestly I think there's something else going on with people that makes it hard for them to understand that there is not an evil God in charge of this earth. People need to understand this GOD IS GOOD.

If a God went around and said "suffer little children with disease" then what does that mean? HE WOULD BE EVIL. EVIL MEN ARE NOT GOOD. This God of christianity is either evil or good and it doesn't make sense for either side at this point to some people because How can people not be blessed but sometimes be blessed? How is this happening? Why is this happening? I do know some answers but not everything yet but I will know most of it soon. God is good. He is like a superhero with his strength however, he can create worlds and stars and galaxies but he is superhuman not infinitely powerful forever and ever and ever for a reason. I do not know that reason but this is why he lets people handle their own problems usually. They have agency in people's opinions but why would God not help?
Honestly why would God allow children to deal with disease and torture and rape and evil things? He is a good man what happened? What is going on?

I will say this, there is something else making all of this happen that is not GOD. and there might be something going on that is more powerful in certain areas and that is why the Devil is winning somehow in certain areas. But I do not know everything yet. However I will say this, God is good, people are wicked and don't deserve blessings, but would that stop God from helping somehow? NO. He is sending some prophet person again and this person is going to help all disease and all sickness that's all I know right now.


I am sure that people are trying to understand this and why are they suffering and things like this because it's hard to suffer, but also it's hard to not have help. Why does God leave you alone then? Why? It's not God. Right? Why then? It's good to wonder these questions because people are scared of the answers. But GOD IS GOOD ALWAYS SO DON'T WORRY.

I will learn more about the answers soon. But those questions are for discussion. If you would like to answer any that would be great. Thank you for reading.

 

[pc_76]

I mean God has him destroying this planet. That doesn't make sense right? Why ALLOW someone to harm people? EVER? FAITH? Testing? NO. No good man would ever test people with an evil man like hitler. Who in their right mind would do that if they were good? Testing can happen without a devil in my opinion but honestly I think there's something else going on with people that makes it hard for them to understand that there is not an evil God in charge of this earth. People need to understand this GOD IS GOOD.

I agree with the question of why God will let him destroy His planet either metaphorically or literally, especially if God was going to dispose of it afterward. It's as if God had said "Okay, go ahead and attempt to destroy mankind. When everything there has finally been ruined beyond all repair, I'll intervene and end the life there. It's like a cop-out ending. I don't understand it.

I can't really imagine anything else God can use besides the devil to test humanity, but then that can be because that's the only way he chose for us so I can't have a reference point for anything else.