Not the problem of evil

[Euler]

Euler.

Look...I know you're a smart guy, but Paradoxum has to establish that not only can be clearly identified as 'perfect,' but also understandable as 'perfect,' by whatever form of measurement it might entail, whether ontological or ethical, etc.

She can't establish what would be perfect, although she might be able to claim (assert) that some way of thinking morally is better, or good, or intuitively compelling. Needless to say, none of these kinds of attempt at playing with moral concepts can, or will, clearly and 'perfectly' demonstrate (show) that her sense of morality is indeed "superior" to that of a Divine Being. All she can do is evince a preference for a moral form. Even the 'founders' of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights knew they couldn't 'establish' an irrefutably solid foundation for their work. So, where's the perfect moral measuring rod? Not to be found anywhere on a human level.

I would assert that the 'human measuring rod' is the ONLY measurement of morality we have. And it seems to have served us well, as we have evolved our communities into more healthy, harmonious and safer institutions. Not always a smooth ascendancy by any means, but the trends are in the right direction.

The complications occur for those of faith who would wish to assert that there is some form of superior, overriding system of morality. But it never quite seems to work does it? It certainly doesn't work when we measure it with the only measuring rod we have. The apologist then has to retreat behind meaningless excuses like "God moves in mysterious ways", "We cannot know the mind of God" or "God has a plan which humans are unable to fathom". What good are any of these as explanations? How do they improve our understanding of what is morally acceptable?

I don't know about you, but I moved beyond "Just accept what I say and don't argue!" about the time I started wearing long pants.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would assert that the 'human measuring rod' is the ONLY measurement of morality we have. And it seems to have served us well, as we have evolved our communities into more healthy, harmonious and safer institutions. Not always a smooth ascendancy by any means, but the trends are in the right direction.

The complications occur for those of faith who would wish to assert that there is some form of superior, overriding system of morality. But it never quite seems to work does it? It certainly doesn't work when we measure it with the only measuring rod we have. The apologist then has to retreat behind meaningless excuses like "God moves in mysterious ways", "We cannot know the mind of God" or "God has a plan which humans are unable to fathom". What good are any of these as explanations? How do they improve our understanding of what is morally acceptable?

I don't know about you, but I moved beyond "Just accept what I say and don't argue!" about the time I started wearing long pants.

When did the "human measuring rod" start serving us "well"? Cuz...I'm not seeing it. Your use of the term "well" seems to be a bit obscure, Euler.

Do you mean, after World War II? Or after Civil Rights in '64? After Korea, Vietnam? After 9/11? (And I don't mean just for the U.S.) When?

 

[Euler]

When did the "human measuring rod" start serving us "well"? Cuz...I'm not seeing it. Your use of the term "well" seems to be a bit obscure, Euler.

Do you mean, after World War II? Or after Civil Rights in '64? After Korea, Vietnam? After 9/11? (And I don't mean just for the U.S.) When?

Throughout the course of human history. Study it. As I said above, while it hasn't been an unbroken path towards better societies, the trend is clear. Despite the many challenges and threats which exist, we now live in a world that is more peaceful and harmonious than at any time in our past. I would assert that it is the use of that 'human measuring rod' (let's call it what it is - secular morality) that has achieved that change. In fact, if we look around the world and try to identify the 'speed humps' that hamper that process, they are frequently caused by groups who, like you, would argue that there is some 'higher order' form of moral guidance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Throughout the course of human history. Study it. As I said above, while it hasn't been an unbroken path towards better societies, the trend is clear. Despite the many challenges and threats which exist, we now live in a world that is more peaceful and harmonious than at any time in our past. I would assert that it is the use of that 'human measuring rod' (let's call it what it is - secular morality) that has achieved that change. In fact, if we look around the world and try to identify the 'speed humps' that hamper that process, they are frequently caused by groups who, like you, would argue that there is some 'higher order' form of moral guidance.

So, in your estimation, Secular/Humanistic political voices have brought real change into the world? And they've done this based on.....what?

Do you really think the Hard-Core Communists, let alone the Islamic states, or the various Mafias (here, there, and everywhere) are going to discontinue their programs because a bunch of Democratic, seemingly morally sensitive atheists eventually ascend to the helm of the Democratic nations?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to laugh at you, but....if you want to believe that the future will "Progress" into perpetual political roses and sunshine due to non-religious influences in Democracy, then be my guest.

 

[Euler]

So, in your estimation, Secular/Humanistic political voices have brought real change into the world? And they've done this based on.....what?

Do you really think the Hard-Core Communists, let alone the Islamic states, or the various Mafias (here, there, and everywhere) are going to discontinue their programs because a bunch of Democratic, morally sensitive atheists eventually ascend to the helm of the Democratic nations?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to laugh at you, but....if you want to believe that the future will "Progress" into perpetual political roses and sunshine due to non-religious influences in Democracy, then be my guest.

By all means, laugh as loudly as you please. But, when the giggles have subsided, go and do what a rational person would do - actually research the issue.

You will find that what I am saying bears fruit. Choose your preferred metric - frequency of warfare, deaths in warfare, violent crime, abuses of human rights, humanitarian assistance, care of the young and elderly, care of the sick and disabled, concern for the environment. In every single instance, the stats bear out what I am saying. This is a better world than last century, which was a better one than the century before, and so on back through history.

Please, if you think my rose-colored, lefty, atheistic glasses are fogging my view, go do some homework for yourself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By all means, laugh as loudly as you please. But, when the giggles have subsided, go and do what a rational person would do - actually research the issue.

You will find that what I am saying bears fruit. Choose your preferred metric - frequency of warfare, deaths in warfare, violent crime, abuses of human rights, humanitarian assistance, care of the young and elderly, care of the sick and disabled, concern for the environment. In every single instance, the stats bear out what I am saying. This is a better world than last century, which was a better one than the century before, and so on back through history.

Please, if you think my rose-colored, lefty, atheistic glasses are fogging my view, go do some homework for yourself.

This century is still "young," so there isn't much to compare against the previous century. Additionally, a hundred years ago, Progressives were assured of the same thing....and then World War 1 broke out, as you know. Although I'd like to see peace, there's no guarantee that atheists will do that much in bringing about Utopia.

 

[Paradoxum]

So, may we assume that with your level of commitment to healing people you'll be entering the medical profession?

Nope, why would you assume that? I'm not saying I'm massively committed to it, just more than this God concept (which doesn't seem to be alot).

Euler.

Look...I know you're a smart guy, but Paradoxum has to establish that not only that she can clearly identify what is morally 'perfect,' but also what would be understandably as 'perfect' as well, by whatever form of measurement it might entail, whether ontological or ethical, etc.

She can't establish what would be perfect, although she might be able to claim (assert) that some way of thinking morally is better, or good, or intuitively compelling. Needless to say, none of these kinds of attempt at playing with moral concepts can, or will, clearly and 'perfectly' demonstrate (show) that her sense of morality is indeed "superior" to that of a Divine Being. All she can do is evince a preference for a moral form. Even the 'founders' of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights knew they couldn't 'establish' an irrefutably solid foundation for their work. So, where's the perfect moral measuring rod? Not to be found anywhere on a human level.

I'm not exactly trying to put together a full philosophical argument.

Of course it's possible I'm wrong, and God has some mysterious reason for not healing people, and in that uncertainty theists can avoid the issue.

But for someone like me, who doesn't already believe, brushing the problem under the carpet might not be so appealing.

Maybe God has a reason, and maybe terrorists do too... at least I know terrorists exist. I see no reason to let God off with 'maybe he has a reason', any more than terrorists.

 

[Euler]

This century is still "young," so there isn't much to compare against the previous century. Additionally, a hundred years ago, Progressives were assured of the same thing....and then World War 1 broke out, as you know. Although I'd like to see peace, there's no guarantee that atheists will do that much in bringing about Utopia.

No, and I haven't said as much here. I've been talking about the role of secular morality, not atheism per se. Secular morality is not confined to the outlooks of atheists only. I would claim that ALL of us are guided through secular morals, atheists and theists alike.

But, like I said, do your own research. I would suggest a good starting point to be Steven Pinker's book "Better Angels of our Nature". You may not agree with the conclusions he draws - they may be too lefty and heretic for you - but it is a convenient place to find all of the references to relevant statistics about warfare, violence, etc in the one text.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, and I haven't said as much here. I've been talking about the role of secular morality, not atheism per se. Secular morality is not confined to the outlooks of atheists only. I would claim that ALL of us are guided through secular morals, atheists and theists alike.

But, like I said, do your own research. I would suggest a good starting point to be Steven Pinker's book "Better Angels of our Nature". You may not agree with the conclusions he draws - they may be too lefty and heretic for you - but it is a convenient place to find all of the references to relevant statistics about warfare, violence, etc in the one text.

Sure, I'll take a look at Steven Pinker's book. Sounds interesting. That's one I've been meaning to get to at some point.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nope, why would you assume that? I'm not saying I'm massively committed to it, just more than this God concept (which doesn't seem to be alot).



I'm not exactly trying to put together a full philosophical argument.

Of course it's possible I'm wrong, and God has some mysterious reason for not healing people, and in that uncertainty theists can avoid the issue.

But for someone like me, who doesn't already believe, brushing the problem under the carpet might not be so appealing.

Maybe God has a reason, and maybe terrorists do too... at least I know terrorists exist. I see no reason to let God off with 'maybe he has a reason', any more than terrorists.

Fair enough, Para. So...basically you're just disappointed in the results of theology (or the apparent lack thereof), as you understand them to be? How much of your present position on 'god' comes as a result of your own ruminations, alone in a dark corner, and how much was brought about by critical family members and/or skeptical friends?

Just wondering. (As one philosopher to another.)

 

[brotherChristian]

"Good" as I see it is a purely human construct which is subjective, malleable and ultimately unreliable as a descriptive adjective. But I'm a high school drop-out, what do I know?

Well I see why you think that.

Just curious, why is that? My lack of education or my combat experience or...?

 

[brotherChristian]

Do you really think the Hard-Core Communists, let alone the Islamic states, or the various Mafias (here, there, and everywhere) are going to discontinue their programs because a bunch of Democratic, seemingly morally sensitive atheists eventually ascend to the helm of the Democratic nations?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to laugh at you, but....if you want to believe that the future will "Progress" into perpetual political roses and sunshine due to non-religious influences in Democracy, then be my guest.

You are kidding, of course. Notwithstanding the idea of "progress" being subjective, it has and can only happen through secular morality. The examples you offer express that better than any I could have thought of. No progress occurs solely from within such rigidly religious systems as communism, mafias or Islam; their very natures resist change.

This century is still "young," so there isn't much to compare against the previous century. Additionally, a hundred years ago, Progressives were assured of the same thing....and then World War 1 broke out, as you know. Although I'd like to see peace, there's no guarantee that atheists will do that much in bringing about Utopia.

A century is a century regardless what calendar you use. Every day is the beginning, middle and end of a century. One can hardly say, "well, this was the beginning and this was the end and nothing outside these times is pertinent". Progress is a fluid substance, ever in flux and seldomly *truely* quantifiable. And while I'm on a rant, who ever said 'secular' means 'atheist'?

In the interest of staying on topic:

She can't establish what would be perfect...
... none of these kinds of attempt at playing with moral concepts can, or will, clearly and 'perfectly' demonstrate (show) that her sense of morality is indeed "superior" to that of a Divine Being...

I don't remember the OP referring to the notion of perfection at all; nor even the notion of superior. It is a simple question of level of morality through one's desire to help others. In this instance our (human) understanding of morality, goodness, divine providence, whatever, is all that matters. And in this instance, she wins.



Look, sorry to pick on you. I like you, I really do; I just hate to read an intelligent person using fallible arguments so haphazardly. I also tried Christianity for a time, and I used many of the hollow arguments you do while scrambling to defend my faith in the face of logic. War and death finally pushed me back out of the fantasy world I was using (also to fill a void in my life). I hope you will "see the light" without as much suffering.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

brotherChristian

You are kidding, of course. Notwithstanding the idea of "progress" being subjective, it has and can only happen through secular morality. The examples you offer express that better than any I could have thought of. No progress occurs solely from within such rigidly religious systems as communism, mafias or Islam; their very natures resist change.

I don't think you understood what I was getting at there, brother. You're off on a tangent I wasn't addressing (or perhaps one for which I need to make clarification.)

A century is a century regardless what calendar you use. Every day is the beginning, middle and end of a century. One can hardly say, "well, this was the beginning and this was the end and nothing outside these times is pertinent". Progress is a fluid substance, ever in flux and seldomly *truely* quantifiable. And while I'm on a rant, who ever said 'secular' means 'atheist'?

Secular isn't the church anymore; and for all practical purposes, it might as well be atheist.

In the interest of staying on topic:
I don't remember the OP referring to the notion of perfection at all; nor even the notion of superior. It is a simple question of level of morality through one's desire to help others. In this instance our (human) understanding of morality, goodness, divine providence, whatever, is all that matters. And in this instance, she wins.

Not really. That is reductionist and a refusal to come to terms with the fact that there is a bevy of ethical frameworks from which we can all choose, not all of which are compatible, however. For instance, you may intend to "help" people, but what this means for one who subscribes to Utilitarianism can very well be different in outcome than it might be for one who proffers Deontology, or even Ethics of Care, or Prima Facie values, or Virtue Ethics, etc.

Look, sorry to pick on you. I like you, I really do; I just hate to read an intelligent person using fallible arguments so haphazardly. I also tried Christianity for a time, and I used many of the hollow arguments you do while scrambling to defend my faith in the face of logic. War and death finally pushed me back out of the fantasy world I was using (also to fill a void in my life). I hope you will "see the light" without as much suffering.

brother Christian,

While I greatly appreciate your service to our country, I'm going to have to ask you to see the development of the discussion, which was mainly transpiring between me and Euler. And if you feel that you must pick on me, ...then have a field day.

From what you've cut and pasted, I'm not sure how much of my discussion with Euler you might have read, or if you missed some of the context in which I presented my ideas, some of which was of course also addressing Paradoxum's evaluations of the concept of the Divine.

 

[brotherChristian]

From what you've cut and pasted, I'm not sure how much of my discussion with Euler you might have read, or if you missed some of the context in which I presented my ideas, some of which was of course also addressing Paradoxum's evaluations of the concept of the Divine.

I did read it all and it was mostly on topic, I was referring to myself being off-topic. Cutting and pasting snippets of a conversation has the unfortunate side effect of context reduction; I assure you that was not my intent.

If you read any of my other posts you will see that I also believe terms like "help", "progress", "good", etc. are subjective terms that don't paint the same picture in everyone's head. We have what we have to work with: terms and notions that we hope reasonably convey our thoughts. Statements that, boiled down, amount to, "fallible humans can never really know what God thinks and ergo cannot judge him," are basically conversation enders that summarily discount another's ability to reason and gain understanding, thereby halting discourse.

But... I retract my personal aside at the end of my post, that was kind of stupid of me.

bC

 

[FireDragon76]

You will find that what I am saying bears fruit. Choose your preferred metric - frequency of warfare, deaths in warfare, violent crime, abuses of human rights, humanitarian assistance, care of the young and elderly, care of the sick and disabled, concern for the environment.

Many of those things you see as good things occurred in societies where Christian values have been in dialogue with the greater society. You are completely dismissing the Christian contribution and only crediting the non-believer, when in reality the non-believing contribution has been relatively minor, historically.

 

[Euler]

Many of those things you see as good things occurred in societies where Christian values have been in dialogue with the greater society. You are completely dismissing the Christian contribution and only crediting the non-believer, when in reality the non-believing contribution has been relatively minor, historically.

I have done no such thing. Read again. As I reminded 2Phil, I'm talking about secular morality, not atheism. Secular morality is a means of developing behaviors which embrace BOTH people of faith and non-believers. It leaves whatever religious position you hold at the door.

As societies have moved closer to a values system NOT based upon religious dogma, they have prospered and become more peaceful and harmonious. In those that have attempted to maintain a strong religious influence in their affairs,..........well, the evidence is there for all to see.

 

[FireDragon76]

As societies have moved closer to a values system NOT based upon religious dogma, they have prospered and become more peaceful and harmonious. In those that have attempted to maintain a strong religious influence in their affairs,..........well, the evidence is there for all to see.

Yes, but secularism only came about because people were religious in the first place. In many ways, secularism betrays many Christian values (especially Western Christian values), such as respect for the dignity of the individual. It was a common set of shared values that most Christians could agree to.

 

[brotherChristian]

Yes, but secularism only came about because people were religious in the first place. In many ways, secularism betrays many Christian values (especially Western Christian values), such as respect for the dignity of the individual. It was a common set of shared values that most Christians could agree to.

What aspect of secularism specificaly betrays the dignity of the individual? Further, would Christian values not betray individual dignity? The 10 commandments of the OT (both Exodus and Deuteronomy sets) state in pretty specific terms that the individual must worship only the god of Abraham as god, mustn't say anything nasty about the god of Abraham and must take the seventh day off to, uh... oh yea, glorify the god of Abraham. And these were so important that they topped the list. I am aware of Jesus' statement that there are really two commandments to worry about, but that doesn't stop many Christians from saying that they get their values and mores from "The 10 Commandments".

:edit:
Almost forgot the important part. Isn't the punishment for breaking these commandments also prescribed somewhere in the OT? Said punishment is perhaps the ultimate betrayal of human dignity.

 

[FireDragon76]

What aspect of secularism specificaly betrays the dignity of the individual?

I meant to say that it reveals Christian values (I used the word "betray" metaphorically, not literally). Respect for individual rights, for instance, something you claim as something a secularist alone values, is also valued by most Christians, because it is a Christian value, not in spite of it. But the Christian worldview is broader in that it not only includes individual rights but also individual responsibilities.

As for your other rants... who do you think really crusaded to end slavery, child labor, give women greater franchise, fight for the rights of minorities, or protect the environment? People motivated by religious conviction.

Almost forgot the important part. Isn't the punishment for breaking these commandments also prescribed somewhere in the OT? Said punishment is perhaps the ultimate betrayal of human dignity.

What are you talking about? Breaking the 600+ Old Testament commandments had different punishments, sanctions, and ritual ablutions and sacrifices applied to them depending on the infraction of Torah, determined by a long Jewish legal tradition of interpretation. This is the basis for such works as the various Talmudic writings. Death was only a punishment in certain cases, not all.

 

[FireDragon76]

As societies have moved closer to a values system NOT based upon religious dogma, they have prospered and become more peaceful and harmonious. In those that have attempted to maintain a strong religious influence in their affairs,..........well, the evidence is there for all to see.

Western societies are still shaped by Christian values, but its not always clear to atheists how this is so because they have become subconscious, taken for granted, for many Europeans and Americans.

When I think of Christian values, I think of values such as, respect for human life, respect for the dignity of the individual, compassion towards the less fortunate, justice in human affairs, honesty and integrity, the dignity of work and vocation, self-restraint, personal responsibility, and so on. I am not sure what you think Christian values are, but chances are they are not the ones that would come to my mind as obvious.