The Problem of Evil

[FireDragon76]

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

I'm a human being, I can't envision a morality as a human being that isn't anthropocentric without betraying what I am. And if you claim you believe in an all-loving God, he would have to be concerned about anthropocentric morality as well because he created us this way and supposedly cares about us.

It seems to me you've never really thought about the Problem of Evil except in the most juvenile way, showing a lack of emotional intelligence. These are serious matters we are talking about and you are trivializing them by dismissing my viewpoint as "anthropocentric". Do you think its merely "anthropocentric" to care about kids dying from cancer or people drowned in tsunamis? I for one do not, I believe there is some kind of cosmic significance to the fact that we as a species are capable of compassion. Shame on you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

We have little choice but to see morality from our own human standpoint, since "good" and "evil" pertain most closely to what is good or evil for us as human beings.

And while one might speculate that Cthulhu -- an alien being who has little awareness of and absolutely no sympathy for humankind -- might possibly be a "good" Cthulhu from his own standpoint, he would still be evil from our own.

Since God is thought to be good, that raises seriously issues for theological morality. If an alien being, such as God, is imposing its own values on humankind, it is hardly possible to call such a being "good". It wouldn't be good for us as human beings, since that implies an anthropocentric value system. Such a being might as well be considered "evil".

And if we are made "in God's image" and this suggests a commonality of moral values, then we can certainly judge God to be evil even on our terms.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[abacabb3]

We have little choice but to see morality from our own human standpoint, since "good" and "evil" pertain most closely to what is good or evil for us as human beings. And while one might speculate that Cthulhu...

Because that is our limitation, it does not mean we should be declarative truth claims based upon our narrow vantage point. By saying evil would make God evil, or impotent, or ignorant, you bring GOd into the equation. The moment you, in your very objection, bring the Deity into the equation you have just expanded the realm of morality outside the human realm.

That's the difference between our conversation now, and one about Cthulhu. You bring up an objection about God. I have no such objections about Cthulhu, I don't even bother giving such a phantom consideration.

 

[FireDragon76]

Because that is our limitation, it does not mean we should be declarative truth claims based upon our narrow vantage point. By saying evil would make God evil, or impotent, or ignorant, you bring GOd into the equation. The moment you, in your very objection, bring the Deity into the equation you have just expanded the realm of morality outside the human realm..

It seems to me you are trying to redefine "good" and "evil" to suit your theology.

I think the solution to the problem of evil is potentially to believe that either God is incompherensible. If God is incomprehensible, though, this tends to undermine many fundamentalist Christian epistemologies, since they presume to know God's will on all sorts of social and even political matters.

 

[com7fy8]

It's logically impossible for an all powerful & all loving God to exist in the presence of mass calamities & mass catastrophes.

according to what you dictate to be logic

But you are not my dictator, and certainly you are not God's dictator.

What we define as 'evil' might be subject to interpretation, but we can all agree that things like genocide, the holocaust, rapes & molesting of children, famines, destructive tsunamis, destructive earthquakes and destructive tornadoes do occur.

God knows this And you have subjected "God" to your interpretation.

If God loves everyone, then he would want to see that people don't suffer as a result of the aforementioned items. But since such things do occur, then we can conclude if God is all-loving, then he is incapable of preventing such catastrophes.

He is in control, yes. And there are a lot of things that would be much worse, if evil and only humans were all there is.

If we humans came from evolution, I understand that behaviors are believed to be the product of genes. So, do you really think born-again Christians and their behaviors are the product of evolution????

Similarly, if God can do anything, then he would be able to prevent all the aforementioned catastrophes. But since these things do occur, we can conclude if God can do anything, then he doesn't love humans enough to prevent the aforementioned catastrophes.

He loves us better than only to keep us from suffering and dying. But if we do not tap into all the good that we could have, we "might" be busy with looking only at what is happening physically.

"fear of death" is a form of suffering you did not mention.

Fear of death can be much more hurting and damaging than only physical suffering and death.

And Jesus on the cross can take care of "fear of death", for us.

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

If we let evil decide how we see God, evil is not a good dictator to obey.

 

[abacabb3]

It seems to me you are trying to redefine "good" and "evil" to suit your theology.

I beg to differe, you are not admitting that your definition is anthropocentric. The moment you enter God into the equation, you just entered the possibility that morality isn't anthropocentric.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[abacabb3]

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 is not objective criteria, can you give me some objective, quanitifable criteria?

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.

You wouldn't say that, but what if someone else did. Whose right?

The Scripture says to lay down one's life for someone else is the essence of love.

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

Does one action negate the other?

Secularism is a political position.

Definition:
"a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics"

 

[abacabb3]

What other viewpoint would you have me define it from...?

Again, the moment you enter a deity into the equation, you just opened up other potential avenues to center morality. As long as we don't enter deities, aliens, or anything of a higher order, we can speak anthropocentric morality all day. The moment you enter them into the equation, you make a fundamental error by presuming that our lower order morality is relevant to higher order beings.

Why would they be morally equivalent?

I was asking you, can you answer whether they are or not?

The problem is that you are not merely a skeptic.

Yes I am, I am philosophically a misologist.

You maintain that morality is theocentric, but you have yet to build a case for that.

I maintain that belief by faith, and not by evidence. I don't seek to convince you of it. But if you want to convince me of what you believe, you need to prove to the skeptical mind that if we enter higher order beings into the equation that morality maintains an anthropocentric character.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because that is our limitation, it does not mean we should be declarative truth claims based upon our narrow vantage point.

That isn't a "narrow" vantagepoint. It is the only vantagepoint applicable to us as human beings.

The moment you, in your very objection, bring the Deity into the equation you have just expanded the realm of morality outside the human realm.

Yes, but not for us.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[abacabb3]

Now we have hit absurdity. If man is aware there is something beyond is vantage point, then to with certainty gauge everything by it would be against his plain reason.

 

[FireDragon76]

I beg to differe, you are not admitting that your definition is anthropocentric. The moment you enter God into the equation, you just entered the possibility that morality isn't anthropocentric.

You can't have it both ways.

If morality isn't inherently anthropocentric, what is it? Doesn't the whole issue of being moral have to do with how we should conduct ourselves as human beings? Or is morality for you purely arbitrary?

Let me ask you this question, could God create a universe where rape or murder were moral?

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is not objective criteria, can you give me some objective, quanitifable criteria?

I didn't say that was objective criteria, I asked you a question. You are dodging my question by throwing out a red herring.

Answer my question.

You wouldn't say that, but what if someone else did. Whose right?

Whoever has the facts to back their case.

The Scripture says to lay down one's life for someone else is the essence of love.

And what if someone says something that contradicts the scriptures, who is right?

Secondly, why would we care what the scripture says?

Does one action negate the other?

Depends on what the actions are

Definition:
"a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics"

You're being disingenuous here, and I'd suspect purposefully so. I found your definition via google search, the full definition is as follows:

secularism (ˈsɛkjʊləˌrɪzəm) n1. (Philosophy) philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics
2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs
3. the state of being secular

ˈsecularist n, adj ˌsecularˈistic adj


We aren't talking about philosophy, we're talking about politics. So, #2 applies.

Secondly, I noticed since you underlined "doctrine" you somehow think because something is a doctrine, it is therefore religious. So, for a laugh, I looked up doctrine as well.


doc·trine
ˈdäktrən/
noun
noun: doctrine; plural noun: doctrines

1. a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
   "the doctrine of predestination"
   
   
   
   
   • US
     a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs.
     "the Monroe Doctrine"
     
     
   
   
   
   

 

[abacabb3]

If morality isn't inherently anthropocentric, what is it? Doesn't the whole issue of being moral have to do with how we should conduct ourselves as human beings?

It would if you didn't put higher order beings into the mix. Once you do that, you have broadened the application of morality.

Let me ask you this question, could God create a universe where rape or murder were moral?

As best as I understand no. Evil is bad. But it is good to have evil, at least temporarily. However, I cannot definitively prove this.

 

[abacabb3]

I didn't say that was objective criteria, I asked you a question.

But that was in response to me asking for an objective, quantifiable way to measure morality. You would be obligated to answer my question first. If you did, you would realize why your follow up question would be irrelevant.

Whoever has the facts to back their case.

How do you back a subjective opinion, what is there to back?

And what if someone says something that contradicts the scriptures, who is right?

There is no way to know without it logically being demonstrated that one is compelled to believe one way or the other.

Secondly, why would we care what the scripture says?

You're posting on the wrong website if you think that the Scriptures are irrelevant to the people you want to dialogue with here. I merely said that to show you that my totally subjective moral opinions would be entirely different than yours.

Depends on what the actions are

Obviously, we are talking about that specific situation. Can saving a life under any circumstance negate taking a life? Heck, can saving two lives at the cost of one's own repay for murdering someone who flipped you the bird on the road?

You're being disingenuous her...We aren't talking about philosophy, we're talking about politics.

Wait a moment there. I used "secularism" speaking specifically of a worldview/philosophical belief system. You essentially called me an idiot and said "look at a dictionary, secularism does not refer to that." Then you jsut wrote the definition out with its several meanings, disproving yourself...

 

[Dave Ellis]

But that was in response to me asking for an objective, quantifiable way to measure morality. You would be obligated to answer my question first. If you did, you would realize why your follow up question would be irrelevant.

I'm attempting to explain it to you by asking you questions. My end goal is to demonstrate that you already use all of the necessary methods to measure morality or how good a person is.

I didn't want to just throw out a blanket statement that you already fully understand the process, but that's essentially what I'm getting at.

How do you back a subjective opinion, what is there to back?

There is no way to know without it logically being demonstrated that one is compelled to believe one way or the other.

You just answered your own question.

You're posting on the wrong website if you think that the Scriptures are irrelevant to the people you want to dialogue with here. I merely said that to show you that my totally subjective moral opinions would be entirely different than yours.

I didn't say the scriptures were irrelevant, I asked why we should take them seriously. Those are two very different things.

Obviously, we are talking about that specific situation. Can saving a life under any circumstance negate taking a life? Heck, can saving two lives at the cost of one's own repay for murdering someone who flipped you the bird on the road?

There isn't really enough information in either example to make a reasonable judgment.

Wait a moment there. I used "secularism" speaking specifically of a worldview/philosophical belief system. You essentially called me an idiot and said "look at a dictionary, secularism does not refer to that." Then you jsut wrote the definition out with its several meanings, disproving yourself...

No, you said secularism is a religion, I said secularism is a political position. You said I was wrong, I brought up the definition which proves my point.

Furthermore, even under the philosophical definition secularism is not a religion, it's a doctrine which rejects religion. So it doesn't matter what definition you use, you're still wrong. Secularism is not a religion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, the moment you enter a deity into the equation, you just opened up other potential avenues to center morality. As long as we don't enter deities, aliens, or anything of a higher order, we can speak anthropocentric morality all day. The moment you enter them into the equation, you make a fundamental error by presuming that our lower order morality is relevant to higher order beings.

You keep dodging the question. In fact, you even removed it from the text you quoted. Here it is, in full: "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?"

I was asking you, can you answer whether they are or not?

In my view, no. But how is this relevant to theocentric morality?

Yes I am, I am philosophically a misologist.

Never heard of a misologist before, so I had to look it up. Now that I know what the word means it seems very underused.

I maintain that belief by faith, and not by evidence. I don't seek to convince you of it. But if you want to convince me of what you believe, you need to prove to the skeptical mind that if we enter higher order beings into the equation that morality maintains an anthropocentric character.

Now that you have admitted to being a misologist, and believing by faith, wouldn't that be futile? Regardless of what I present you will remain committed to the same position, so what would be the point? Further, given your unwillingness to even present a case for theocentric morality, I see no reason to define morality in terms of the desires of deities.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Scriptures themselves suggest an answer to the PoE in the book of Job: God is incomprehensible. That's hardly comforting, though... as Slavoj Zizek notes, its a source of tension in Judaism. Christianity only resolves this through the doctrine of incarnation.

 

[abacabb3]

The Scriptures themselves suggest an answer to the PoE in the book of Job: God is incomprehensible. That's hardly comforting, though... as Slavoj Zizek notes, its a source of tension in Judaism. Christianity only resolves this through the doctrine of incarnation.

Not exactly. The main answer given by the book is that God has ordained evil for His purposes. Why?

Who has given to Me that I should repay him?
Whatever is under the whole heaven is Mine (Job 41:11).

I've done a lot of reading on this and have actually undertook a lengthy commentary on the subject.

 

[abacabb3]

You keep dodging the question. In fact, you even removed it from the text you quoted. Here it is, in full: "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?"

Answer: The moment you enter higher order beings into the conversation, you just added additional possible viewpoints.

In my view, no.

Then, please give an example of an evil action that can be undone by a morally equivalent counter-action.

Never heard of a misologist before, so I had to look it up. Now that I know what the word means it seems very underused.

I would imagine most people actually are not, they pick and choose their skepticism. Quite frankly, I view pretty much everything as an illusion and inherently "untrustable."

Now that you have admitted to being a misologist, and believing by faith, wouldn't that be futile? Regardless of what I present you will remain committed to the same position, so what would be the point?

Unless you can convince me that misologism is an untenable position. I cannot find a way in which someone can assert that math, epistemologies, and observations internalized by our senses can in any way be substantiated to any quantifiable degree of certainty.

Further, given your unwillingness to even present a case for theocentric morality, I see no reason to define morality in terms of the desires of deities.

I don't need to present the case because I don't think there is a problem of evil. We go back to the beginning. The moment you judge theoretical higher order beings by a moral system that you admit is only applicable to lower order beings, you have already conceded that moral system you use as the measure can theoretically be lower order as well.

If man is the highest order being, then there is no problem of evil.

 

[abacabb3]

I'm attempting to explain it to you by asking you questions...

Again, I ask please, can you give me an "objective, quantifiable way to measure morality?" If your answer is no, why are we having this conversation?

I didn't say the scriptures were irrelevant, I asked why we should take them seriously.

You shouldn't take them seriously in of your own intellectual capacity to understand them, they are foolishness to the unbeliever.

There isn't really enough information in either example to make a reasonable judgment.

Of course, because you are incapable of offering an objective, quantifiable way to measure morality of your own.

No, you said secularism is a religion, I said secularism is a political position. You said I was wrong, I brought up the definition which proves my point...

This is simply embarrassing. You misspoke twice and still can admit you are wrong. We were never talking about politics, and obviously when I called secularism a "religion" I meant it as any philosophical system in which its worldview affects how people live. Neo-Platonism and Pythagoreanism were philosophical systems that essentially had religious adherents.

If you are not aware of the term's popular usage post-cold war (which is when I grew up), then what can I tell you?