The Problem of Evil

[abacabb3]

In a world of seemingly gratuitous evil, for instance, children dying of cancer, believing in an all-loving God is far from obvious unless you willfully blind yourself to suffering.

All you did was restate your initial objection, but ignore my contention: your morality is anthropocentric and thus invalid.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All you did was restate your initial objection, but ignore my contention: your morality is anthropocentric and thus invalid.

Your morality is theocentric and thus invalid. There. Now that that's done, what next?

 

[abacabb3]

Yes, there are other things, like rocks, but morality does not concern them. It concerns us.

Who says? Isn't that sentient-beingcentric? Further, how about lower order sentient beings, or potential higher order ones? Why are humans the measure?

Which is why it holds us back.

If it is the truth, whether or not you like it is besides the point. We don't decide matters.

 

[abacabb3]

We aren't talking about home runs, we are talking about murder. If all you can come back with are red herrings, I think I've proven my point enough.

You did not prove a point at all. You put forward an arbitrary standard, and have changed it within the conversation. So what is the proportion of good versus bad that makes someone good? 50.1% good vs. 49.9% bad? 95% to 5%? If it is so objective, please let us know.

Objective consequences. We can examine exactly what harm has been done, or we can examine what good has been done.

But you just said the objective value of saving a life is not equivalent to the objective value of taking away one life. That sounds awfully subjective to me.

All religions are made up by man.

Precisely, including secularism. The Truth is not a religion, it is a fact.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But then it would not be true morality, it would be distorted by people.

In that case, all religious truths, even if they are actually revealed, are also distorted by people. The discussion taking place in this thread is also distorted by people.

This sort of epistemological objection is empty. All one can conclude is that no one can know anything. It is the Black Hole of arguments that leaves everyone in spiraling down into epistemological nihilism.

Just because people can distort truths, that doesn't mean that they are distorting them in any particular case. That's why we discuss ideas, to find out if we are seeing clearly or not. Otherwise, discussion would be pointless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Who says? Isn't that sentient-beingcentric.

I suppose it is.

Further, how about lower order sentient beings, or potential higher order ones? Why are humans the measure?

I didn't say that humans alone were the measure.

If it is the truth, whether or not you like it is besides the point. We don't decide matters.

If? You've yet to establish that 'if'. I see no reason to merely assume your conclusion (that morality is theocentric).

 

[abacabb3]

In that case, all religious truths, even if they are actually revealed, are also distorted by people. The discussion taking place in this thread is also distorted by people.

I would agree with this statement, as I don't think the human mind can actually comprehend anything in its completeness.

This sort of epistemological objection is empty...It is the Black Hole of arguments that leaves everyone in spiraling down into epistemological nihilism.

Does not mean it isn't true, you don't have to like the truth.

Just because people can distort truths, that doesn't mean that they are distorting them in any particular case. That's why we discuss ideas, to find out if we are seeing clearly or not. Otherwise, discussion would be pointless.

Discussion has to be within the bounds of our limitations. Hence, it has to be much more qualified.

So, if I have a theological discussion to other people who have drank the Kool-AId, we have to be frank, we reach X conclusion predicated upon the presupposition that the revelation we have received is true.

If I have a philosophical conversation with someone who does not share that presupposition, then I think it is only responsible that they lay bare their presuppositions. So, if you want to argue a Creator would be evil by an anthropocentric understanding of morality, I am inclined to agree with you to some extent. But, unless you lay bare that presupposition, you don't even know that you are reaching "firm" conclusions based upon premises that are not firm.

 

[abacabb3]

I suppose it is.

That's your faith I suppose.

I didn't say that humans alone were the measure.

So, is it morally equivalent for a bear to eat a man and a man to eat a cow?

If? You've yet to establish that 'if'. I see no reason to merely assume your conclusion (that morality is theocentric).

I don't need to, as you have not shown that morality is wedded to sentient beings. Morality can be an imaginary concept, don't you know? Just because we invent stuff, it does not mean it has any bearing on reality.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's your faith I suppose.

You suppose wrongly.

I don't need to believe by faith that morality concerns us. I have evidence of that. Do you have something comparable for a theocentric morality?

So, is it morally equivalent for a bear to eat a man and a man to eat a cow?

What do you mean by "morally equivalent"?

I don't need to, as you have not shown that morality is wedded to sentient beings.

Since when does that excuse you from the burden of proof? You claim that morality is theocentric. On what grounds?

 

[abacabb3]

You suppose wrongly. I don't need to believe by faith that morality concerns us.

You're defining morality purely from an anthropocentric viewpoint, you have no understanding of what the viewpoint of other sentient beings is for exmaple. Appears arbitrary and faith based to me...

What do you mean by "morally equivalent"?

One action would morally be no worse than the other, they would be morally equivalent.

Since when does that excuse you from the burden of proof? You claim that morality is theocentric. On what grounds?

I don't claim morality is objectively theocentric. I am skeptical that morality can even be discerned objectively. Hence, to answer my contention, you would have to demonstrate that it actually can be. The skeptic does not have to prove anything, he has to be proved to.

 

[siralex172]

To the O.P. My opinion of why evil is allowed in this world so God can make full judgements on us but also so we can fully understand right and wrong. You must know that this earth isn't supposed to be heaven. Bad things happen, its up to us to grow in faith and build resistance to evil. We should fear God he has control of everything, he gives favour to those who want to know him more.

 

[talquin]

To the O.P. My opinion of why evil is allowed in this world so God can make full judgements on us but also so we can fully understand right and wrong. You must know that this earth isn't supposed to be heaven. Bad things happen, its up to us to grow in faith and build resistance to evil. We should fear God he has control of everything, he gives favour to those who want to know him more.

If God knows everything, then he can make judgments of us without there being evil. If you wanted to know something about a child and could acquire the knowledge without him being brutally raped, why would you still allow him to be raped?

 

[Non sequitur]

Same goes for the men. It is perverse because it is not an activity people would do in public for everyone to see, hence it is a shameful activity.

Where do you get that activities people wouldn't do in public are perverse?

Is going to the bathroom perverse?

 

[Dave Ellis]

You did not prove a point at all. You put forward an arbitrary standard, and have changed it within the conversation. So what is the proportion of good versus bad that makes someone good? 50.1% good vs. 49.9% bad? 95% to 5%? If it is so objective, please let us know.

I haven't changed my standard at all, you've been tossing out rather silly examples, like the one above.

But you just said the objective value of saving a life is not equivalent to the objective value of taking away one life. That sounds awfully subjective to me.

Not at all, here's why:

If you have the ability to prevent a murder, it's just something that you do, you'd have a moral obligation to do so. To allow a murder to take place that you could have stopped would be an immoral act.

Whereas murder is one of the most immoral things you can do.

So, when you stack them up against each other, you have one of the most extreme forms of evil any one person could carry out by themselves, versus a basic moral act that anyone would do. They aren't equivalent at all.

Precisely, including secularism. The Truth is not a religion, it is a fact.

Secularism isn't a religion. Secularism is a political position that believes all forms of religion should have equal protection under the law, but that none of them should have power over the law.

On the flip side, Christianity is a religion.

 

[Dave Ellis]

To the O.P. My opinion of why evil is allowed in this world so God can make full judgements on us

Are you saying an all knowing being would need more information in order to make a judgment?

but also so we can fully understand right and wrong. You must know that this earth isn't supposed to be heaven. Bad things happen, its up to us to grow in faith and build resistance to evil. We should fear God he has control of everything, he gives favour to those who want to know him more.

If god is all powerful, he could allow us to know the difference between right and wrong without the need to inflict evil upon us.

Furthermore, what other loving being should you be fearful of?

 

[abacabb3]

I haven't changed my standard at all, you've been tossing out rather silly examples, like the one above.

Calling something silly does not make the question any less valid. You said this issue was "objective." If so, can you quantify how many good thigns versus bad things someone can do and still be "good?"

If you have the ability to prevent a murder, it's just something that you do, you'd have a moral obligation to do so. To allow a murder to take place that you could have stopped would be an immoral act.

What if it puts your life at risk? You are morally obligated to go into your neighbor's house and fight the thieves instead of calling the police and staying to yourself?

Here is a concrete example. Let's say a murderer hated his ex wife and murdered her. He gets thrown in jail and a few years later finds a gang abusing someone to the point of killing him. He gives up his life, with the intention of doing so, and saves that guys life. Is he now morally neutral?

Secularism isn't a religion.

You bet it is, it is a faith-based materialist world view and nothing more.

 

[CryOfALion]

To the O.P. My opinion of why evil is allowed in this world so God can make full judgements on us but also so we can fully understand right and wrong. You must know that this earth isn't supposed to be heaven. Bad things happen, its up to us to grow in faith and build resistance to evil. We should fear God he has control of everything, he gives favour to those who want to know him more.

Don't bother man. Run away from this thread.

This thread is certifiable.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Calling something silly does not make the question any less valid. You said this issue was "objective." If so, can you quantify how many good thigns versus bad things someone can do and still be "good?"

Of course, and so can you. For example, do you know people that you trust and enjoy hanging around with? Furthermore, do you know anyone that you don't trust, or would rather avoid?

This isn't hard to do buddy, the stuff i'm advocating for you yourself do in your everyday life as well.

What if it puts your life at risk? You are morally obligated to go into your neighbor's house and fight the thieves instead of calling the police and staying to yourself?

Depends on the situation. I wouldn't say you have a moral obligation to put your life at risk in any situation though. But it certainly would be a moral act if you did so to try to defend your neighbour.

It would also be a moral act to call the police, as that's another method to try to defend your neighbour and see that justice is done.

The immoral act would be to ignore the robbery altogether and not do anything.

Here is a concrete example. Let's say a murderer hated his ex wife and murdered her. He gets thrown in jail and a few years later finds a gang abusing someone to the point of killing him. He gives up his life, with the intention of doing so, and saves that guys life. Is he now morally neutral?

There isn't enough information given. How else did he live his life?

You can't adequately judge anyone based upon two actions.

You bet it is, it is a faith-based materialist world view and nothing more.

If that's what you think secularism is, I recommend you pick up a dictionary. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Secularism is a political position.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But then it would not be true morality, it would be distorted by people. Theists get around this by believing in revealed truth. In Islam, for example, God literally speaks Arabic and Allah breathed out the Quran through the Angel Gabriel, to Muhammad, who had a bunch of people memorize it until under the Caliph Uthman it was written down. So, according to Muslims, morality derived from the Quran would be unadulterated truth straight from the mouth of the deity.

Whether man correctly understands Allah's revelation is a different matter.

More like that understanding and agreement is more important than anything else

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're defining morality purely from an anthropocentric viewpoint, you have no understanding of what the viewpoint of other sentient beings is for exmaple.

What other viewpoint would you have me define it from, except from the viewpoint of sentient beings interacting with other sentient beings? Presumably you would have me define it from a theocentric viewpoint instead. But what does that even mean practically?

Appears arbitrary and faith based to me...

In what way? I haven't arbitrarily decided that morality concerns us and not rocks or waterfalls. I've based that on the social reality we all commonly share. It would be arbitrary if I decided, for no reason at all, that morality concerned shoes, for example. What reason do we have to think that morality primarily concerns the desires of deities?

One action would morally be no worse than the other, they would be morally equivalent.

Why would they be morally equivalent?

I don't claim morality is objectively theocentric. I am skeptical that morality can even be discerned objectively. Hence, to answer my contention, you would have to demonstrate that it actually can be. The skeptic does not have to prove anything, he has to be proved to.

The problem is that you are not merely a skeptic. You aren't merely skeptical of the claim that morality concerns us. You maintain that morality is theocentric, but you have yet to build a case for that.