The problem of evil

[Resha Caner]

Even if they have a credible track record, if it was a matter of debate I wouldn't trust them.

All you did was repeat your previous answer. Whatever.

I said just the opposite, that we shouldn't defer.

Are you saying you see no value in obedience?

Can you show me any evidence that backs up the claims made in the Bible?

I get that you don't trust the Bible. I'm not trying to argue that. But it does seem it's making it difficult for you to separate some of the issues.

Why don't you summarize them and see if they work.

I did already. But, to reiterate, my general answer is that since God is the creator, he knows the function of his creation, and can therefore base his commands on that function to create a morality with utility - a morality that best serves his creation. It is the same as the military, who created the vehicle and knows its function, and can therefore base their choice of paint color on that function to create a paint with utility.

But what I'm also saying is that, because of the view you're projecting onto the Bible, I expect you to reject that. However, that still does not make Biblical morality arbitrary. Why? Because even if I take a cynical view - something like the Bible was created by men who want to control society - there is still a demonstrable utility to that, which is that the morality controls society.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I did already. But, to reiterate, my general answer is that since God is the creator, he knows the function of his creation, and can therefore base his commands on that function to create a morality with utility - a morality that best serves his creation.

You sure you want to use the word "function"? "Function" is subjective to the user, regardless who it is:

Creator: The function of object "X" is "Y".
User: The function of object "X" is "Z".

Neither statement is more correct.

Any commands based on this subjective system are... subjective:

Creator: You must not use "X" for "Z".
User: You must not use "X" for "Y".

Neither statement is more correct.

Any you're left with the second horn of the dilemma unresolved.

 

[Loudmouth]

All you did was repeat your previous answer. Whatever.

Am I supposed to change my answer until you like it? I answered the question, as requested.

Are you saying you see no value in obedience?

I see no value in blind obedience.

I get that you don't trust the Bible. I'm not trying to argue that. But it does seem it's making it difficult for you to separate some of the issues.

What issues?

I did already. But, to reiterate, my general answer is that since God is the creator, he knows the function of his creation, and can therefore base his commands on that function to create a morality with utility - a morality that best serves his creation.

God could, but that doesn't mean that he has. Just because someone can do good doesn't mean that they will.

Another example is the most recent global economic meltdown. Accountants, business men, executives, and others probably all knew what was best for the long term health of their business. What they did instead was opt for short term profits that doomed the long term health of their business. They did the wrong thing, even though they knew what the right thing was.

But what I'm also saying is that, because of the view you're projecting onto the Bible, I expect you to reject that. However, that still does not make Biblical morality arbitrary. Why?

You still give no valid reason why a deity who knows what is good will always do good.

Because even if I take a cynical view - something like the Bible was created by men who want to control society - there is still a demonstrable utility to that, which is that the morality controls society.

If a bad moral code controls society, then that is bad.

 

[Resha Caner]

Am I supposed to change my answer until you like it? I answered the question, as requested.

No, you changed the question before you answered it. I don't see how someone with a track record of making non-arbitrary choices suddenly becomes "debatable" (the word you added). What about a good track record is a cause of concern?

I see no value in blind obedience.

Again with the added qualifiers. I didn't ask about blind obedience. If there's a form of obedience you think is morally acceptable, I'd be interested to know what that is.

If a bad moral code controls society, then that is bad.

You asked what issues it appears you are struggling to separate. My answer is: things like the above statement. Arbitrary and bad are two different things. A decision could be arbitrary and yet good. A decision can be non-arbitrary and yet bad. We're talking about "arbitrary".

God could, but that doesn't mean that he has. Just because someone can do good doesn't mean that they will.

That's why I've mentioned things like trust and a track record. I never said God has to be blindly trusted. It's also why I mentioned issues of relevance. Even you, when I was talking about the average citizen in the military vehicle example, stated that we should choose someone who was above average. In other words, you're indicating that the people making decisions must in some form or another be relevant to that decision.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you changed the question before you answered it.

I didn't change the question at all. I answered the question you asked.

I don't see how someone with a track record of making non-arbitrary choices suddenly becomes "debatable" (the word you added).

That isn't my problem. I do see a problem with absolutely trusting someone just because of their track record. You asked what my position was, not what your position was or what position you would like me to take.

What about a good track record is a cause of concern?

The concern is that there is no physical law that requires a person to do good.

Again with the added qualifiers. I didn't ask about blind obedience.

You should really go back and read the flow of the conversation:

You: Are you saying you see no value in obedience?

Me: I see no value in blind obedience.

You asked me what I was saying. I clarified what I was saying. You asked for my position, and I tried to clarify it for you. I really don't know what else I am supposed to say.

If there's a form of obedience you think is morally acceptable, I'd be interested to know what that is.

Obedience to a moral code that can be shown to be moral through reason and logic. That is what I would find acceptable. The onus is always on yourself to do the right thing.

Arbitrary and bad are two different things. A decision could be arbitrary and yet good. A decision can be non-arbitrary and yet bad. We're talking about "arbitrary".

And I was talking about arbitrary. You decided that since God could do good that God does do good for no apparent reason. That is arbitrary. A deity could know good from evil, and still do evil.

That's why I've mentioned things like trust and a track record. I never said God has to be blindly trusted. It's also why I mentioned issues of relevance. Even you, when I was talking about the average citizen in the military vehicle example, stated that we should choose someone who was above average. In other words, you're indicating that the people making decisions must in some form or another be relevant to that decision.

If we judge God's commands by our own sense of morality, then this answers Euthyphro's Dilemma. God commands that we act a certain way because it is moral. Since morality is independent of God, we can determine for ourselves what is and isn't moral, and determine for ourselves if what God commands is moral.

 

[Resha Caner]

The concern is that there is no physical law that requires a person to do good.

OK. Again, we're talking about arbitrary morality, not good. Regardless, I assume you would give the same answer: there is no physical law requiring a person to be non-arbitrary. That is an answer to my question, so thanks for the clarification.

That seems a very pessimistic approach to life to me, but it's also a very intriguing answer.

You asked me what I was saying. I clarified what I was saying. You asked for my position, and I tried to clarify it for you. I really don't know what else I am supposed to say.

Then consider my reply a follow up question. You see no value in blind obedience. Is there a different type of obedience which you think does have value?

If we judge God's commands by our own sense of morality, then this answers Euthyphro's Dilemma. God commands that we act a certain way because it is moral. Since morality is independent of God, we can determine for ourselves what is and isn't moral, and determine for ourselves if what God commands is moral.

As I stated earlier, I'm well aware that you're deciding for yourself what you think is moral and immoral. But as I've said many times now, that has no bearing on whether God's morality is arbitrary, which, as we agreed, is dependent upon an ability to demonstrate utility. You make think it bad, but it still has utility, and is therefore non-arbitrary.

And I was talking about arbitrary. You decided that since God could do good that God does do good for no apparent reason. That is arbitrary. A deity could know good from evil, and still do evil.

We can always speculate about what a person could do. I can speculate that in the future DNA will no longer mutate. There is no "law" that stands apart from the universe to guarantee that. When you speak of a physical law causing DNA to mutate, all you are really doing is pointing to evidence - a track record - that establishes what has happened in the past along with an assumption that it will continue in the future.

I am doing the same thing - using a past track record to assume what will happen in the future.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK. Again, we're talking about arbitrary morality, not good.

Now you don't even want me to answer your questions. This is what you asked, remember?

"What about a good track record is a cause of concern?"--Resha Caner

Then consider my reply a follow up question. You see no value in blind obedience. Is there a different type of obedience which you think does have value?

I also answered that question.

Obedience to a moral code that can be shown to be moral through reason and logic. That is what I would find acceptable. The onus is always on yourself to do the right thing.

As I stated earlier, I'm well aware that you're deciding for yourself what you think is moral and immoral. But as I've said many times now, that has no bearing on whether God's morality is arbitrary, which, as we agreed, is dependent upon an ability to demonstrate utility. You make think it bad, but it still has utility, and is therefore non-arbitrary.

What you said is forcing humans to obey any moral code has utility. Which moral code you choose appears to be arbitrary.

We can always speculate about what a person could do. I can speculate that in the future DNA will no longer mutate. There is no "law" that stands apart from the universe to guarantee that. When you speak of a physical law causing DNA to mutate, all you are really doing is pointing to evidence - a track record - that establishes what has happened in the past along with an assumption that it will continue in the future.

That is false. I can point to specific mechanisms that cause mutations to occur. For example, the polymerase active site is larger than the nucleotides it binds to which allows the wrong base to be incorporated.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16249340

I could also find the specific chemical pathways that physically change DNA, otherwise known as chemical mutagens . . . if you want. The point being that I use more than just a track record. I search for reasons why a thing is a certain way.

So we are not the same. You use a track record. I use reason.

 

[Resha Caner]

I also answered that question.

Obedience to a moral code that can be shown to be moral through reason and logic. That is what I would find acceptable. The onus is always on yourself to do the right thing.

So, children (or those without the mental capacity) are not required to be moral?

What you said is forcing humans to obey any moral code has utility. Which moral code you choose appears to be arbitrary.

How? I don't see how what I said forces obedience.

That is false. I can point to specific mechanisms that cause mutations to occur. For example, the polymerase active site is larger than the nucleotides it binds to which allows the wrong base to be incorporated.

Didn't you establish this "mechanism" by observing past events?

 

[Loudmouth]

So, children (or those without the mental capacity) are not required to be moral?

I thought we were talking about moral agents, those who were capable of differentiating between right from wrong. Is this not the case?

How? I don't see how what I said forces obedience.

You said that forcing people to follow a moral code, even a bad moral code, had utility. From that position, it would seem that any moral code would have the same utility, making the choice of a moral code an arbitrary one.

Didn't you establish this "mechanism" by observing past events?

The time frame of the experiment doesn't matter. The point is that I can establish what causes mutations independent of the mutations themselves. It is equivalent to understanding morality independently of what God commands.

 

[Achilles6129]

Well, no, it isn´t.

Ever hear the term "evil genius"?

I can't imagine who you arrived at tge idea that intelligence equals goodness. They are utterly unrelated.

More importantly, do you trust the car salesman because he says "you can trust me"?

Actually, in response to both of you, it is simple logic. A much better example than a car salesman would be a car mechanic or a medical doctor. They're both in a much better position to know things about their respective fields than, say, someone off the street. So obviously you would trust them over a complete stranger. The same goes for God: he's simply in a better position than anyone else to know good and evil.

But even if it were, here you appeal to human logic and in the next instance you discard it as potentially unreliable:

I was talking about opinions about what was logically possible or not, based upon our experience of reality. This has nothing to do with who to trust regarding moral issues.

What's logically impossible isn't an opinion, and it's not based on a "perception of reality". You're using the phrase as some sort of catch-all to deflect any arguments.

Someone can certainly state their opinion on what's "logically impossible" or not. It certainly can be based upon their perception of reality. Regardless, we're going to have to disagree that an omnipotent being can/can't undo actions. But it's irrelevant for the problem of evil anyway, because certainly an omnipotent being can still right all wrongs.

Individuals opinions are the only things that matter when discussing what our preferences are regarding suffering. So if I say that it's better for me not to have suffered, then... it's better for me not to have suffered. Once again, my "perception of reality" is not involved...

If God rights all wrongs, then the net effect of evil is going to be zero. If you never suffered, then the net effect of evil is going to be zero. Same net effect, same result.

 

[Achilles6129]

Restoration of all things, yes... Negation of evil? Sort-of. Some peoples Christian message seems to emphasize punishment so much, it is not clear there is a real victory of good.

Negation of evil in the sense of unjustified evil. It means that for those that suffered evil unjustifiably (like, say, a 5-year-old with cancer) evil will be negated.

I suppose my real issue is the fact that the Bible just says good wins, without explaining how that is so.

Sure it does; it says it all over the book of Revelation, etc.

Especially when you seen the amount of suffering in the world, it's hard to believe some kind of magic will wipe it away.

Surely God would be capable?

When we are in heaven, are we just going to forget about all the 5 year olds that died of cancer? Maybe it is something beyond our comprehension, but still, you cannot at least acknowledge this is not an easy thing to accept?

See again my answer to the problem of evil. All wrongs will be righted by God: how is this a difficult thing to accept? Are you have trouble believing that God, who's usually defined as an omnipotent being, is powerful enough to do this?

 

[Resha Caner]

I thought we were talking about moral agents, those who were capable of differentiating between right from wrong. Is this not the case?

That's what I was asking. Does your "moral agent" category exclude children and people with limited mental capacity?

You said that forcing people to follow a moral code, even a bad moral code, had utility. From that position, it would seem that any moral code would have the same utility, making the choice of a moral code an arbitrary one.

No. Remember that the utility had to be demonstrable. I don't know that every moral code can demonstrate that.

The time frame of the experiment doesn't matter.

That is somewhat true. It's just that I'm not aware of any biology experiments that have taken place in the future. So, it's just an attendant consequence that they are all in the past.

The point is that I can establish what causes mutations independent of the mutations themselves.

You can do this without any observations whatsoever?

 

[Dan Bert]

Yeah I did some answers require Background.

You write all this stuff in response to my question:



and yet you in no way address my question.

Well, no, it isn´t. But even if it were, here you appeal to human logic and in the next instance you discard it as potentially unreliable:

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Someone can certainly state their opinion on what's "logically impossible" or not. It certainly can be based upon their perception of reality.

I obviously didn't say people couldn't state what their opinion was on what was logically impossible. I said that what's logically possible isn't an opinion. You understand the difference, right?

Regardless, we're going to have to disagree that an omnipotent being can/can't undo actions. But it's irrelevant for the problem of evil anyway, because certainly an omnipotent being can still right all wrongs.

Well, you can believe whatever you'd like, even if it flies in the face of logic. But I don't think you're going to get very far here in the Philosophy section if it's something you're going to continue to do.

If God rights all wrongs, then the net effect of evil is going to be zero. If you never suffered, then the net effect of evil is going to be zero. Same net effect, same result.

Again, you're going to have to provide evidence or some sort of justification that a god can create the contradiction of making someone who has suffered, never having suffered.

Do you believe that omnipotence means that a god could make a square circle?

 

[Picky Picky]

Yeah I did some answers require Background.

No, you didn't. My question was specifically about non-human animals, and your answer was about humans.

I'll ask again: how can non-human animals learn obedience and thus avoid suffering?

 

[FireDragon76]

Negation of evil in the sense of unjustified evil. It means that for those that suffered evil unjustifiably (like, say, a 5-year-old with cancer) evil will be negated.

And how does that happen? Is God going to give that 5 year old a full life? Or is he trapped being a 5-year-old forever?

See again my answer to the problem of evil. All wrongs will be righted by God: how is this a difficult thing to accept? Are you have trouble believing that God, who's usually defined as an omnipotent being, is powerful enough to do this?

Maybe its not even logically possible to right all wrongs? Why do you just accept this stuff as a given?

God's omnipotence has been qualified throughout history at various times. It's not just some kind of blank check to let everything happen. You can't make a square circle.

Using eschatology to try to answer the problem of evil is problematic in my mind, because the eschatological accounts in the Bible are so vague and full of assertions about what God will do, without really specifying details.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's what I was asking. Does your "moral agent" category exclude children and people with limited mental capacity?

By definition, yes. Moral agents are defined as knowing the difference between right and wrong.

No. Remember that the utility had to be demonstrable. I don't know that every moral code can demonstrate that.

The utility you described was adherence to any moral code, just as long as society was forced to follow the same code.

That is somewhat true. It's just that I'm not aware of any biology experiments that have taken place in the future. So, it's just an attendant consequence that they are all in the past.

The point being is that I don't conclude mutations will keep happening simply because they have happened in the past. There is much more to it. We understand the underlying chemistry and physics that produces mutations, and from that knowledge we can predict that as long as those conditions persist you will have mutations.

IOW, we understand the mechanisms behind the emergent property. The same can be said of morality. We understand how empathy, logic, and reason work, and how they produce the morality we follow. We don't, or at least we shouldn't, proscribe to the reasoning that just because someone says we should do something that we should do it. We have the responsibility of using our ability to reason and empathize to determine if what someone orders is moral.

You can do this without any observations whatsoever?

I linked the peer reviewed study in the previous post which lists the observations.

 

[Resha Caner]

The point being is that I don't conclude mutations will keep happening simply because they have happened in the past. There is much more to it. We understand the underlying chemistry and physics that produces mutations, and from that knowledge we can predict that as long as those conditions persist you will have mutations.

IOW, we understand the mechanisms behind the emergent property. The same can be said of morality. We understand how empathy, logic, and reason work, and how they produce the morality we follow. We don't, or at least we shouldn't, proscribe to the reasoning that just because someone says we should do something that we should do it. We have the responsibility of using our ability to reason and empathize to determine if what someone orders is moral.

I changed the emphasis of your post to indicate what I'm focusing on.

In short I mostly agree with your first paragraph and disagree with the second. However, based on the comment you made earlier - the one I called "intriguing" - I understand why you would say what you did.

WRT DNA mutation, you have created a model that correlates well to the data you've collected (of past events). It allows you to create cause-effect chains such that you can predict the future with much higher accuracy than you could without the model ... as long as the conditions persist ... as long as the chemistry and physics persists. Obviously the best bet is that it will continue, but the point is that there is no LAW - some Form with eternal existence apart from the material universe. You're simply placing your bet where experience tells you to place it.

Whatever "model" people may be claiming for morality, it isn't nearly as reliable as your model for DNA mutation. Not even close. In fact, the nature of the model is completely different. Your DNA mutation model, as you indicated, has been deconstructed into the principles of chemistry and physics. Models of morality, at best, can only be called empirical. Whereas theoretical models rely primarily on first principles, empirical models rely primarily on evidential trends - a track record.

So, I agree with your characterization of the understanding of DNA mutations, but disagree it can be extended to morality in the same way. The two situations are different except for one thing - that they are both fundamentally based on an observation of trends. The first allows a theoretical model. The second only allows an empirical model. As such the first model is a better predictor of the future than the second.

Yet at their root, they both assume a reliable track record ... and that's what I see in God.

I suppose there's no harm in trying to develop first principles for a model of morality, but I don't think it will succeed. I think the model will forever remain empirical; morality will forever depend on things like trust and obedience. The reason I think this is because it appears to me that morality is separated from the necessary first principles by emergent phenomena.

 

[Loudmouth]

WRT DNA mutation, you have created a model that correlates well to the data you've collected (of past events). It allows you to create cause-effect chains such that you can predict the future with much higher accuracy than you could without the model ... as long as the conditions persist ... as long as the chemistry and physics persists.

As long as the universe doesn't have physical and chemical laws that change all willy nilly, and the polymerases themselves don't mutate and change the size of the active site. Those are the conditions.

Obviously the best bet is that it will continue, but the point is that there is no LAW - some Form with eternal existence apart from the material universe. You're simply placing your bet where experience tells you to place it.

I am placing my bet where the evidence supports it.

Whatever "model" people may be claiming for morality, it isn't nearly as reliable as your model for DNA mutation. Not even close. In fact, the nature of the model is completely different. Your DNA mutation model, as you indicated, has been deconstructed into the principles of chemistry and physics. Models of morality, at best, can only be called empirical. Whereas theoretical models rely primarily on first principles, empirical models rely primarily on evidential trends - a track record.

I did break morality down into its fundamental mechanisms. Those mechanisms are empathy, reason, and logic. That is what we derive morality from. Those are the mechanisms that we use to judge if something is moral.

It isn't just trends.

Yet at their root, they both assume a reliable track record ... and that's what I see in God.

That is completely false. I am not using a track record. I am using empathy, reason, and logic.

 

[Resha Caner]

That is completely false. I am not using a track record. I am using empathy, reason, and logic.

I understand you're looking for a theoretical model of morality. I seriously doubt you've found it.

Are these three things your idea, or are you following a particular school of thought? I ask because empathy is rejected by some as a good basis for morality:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...aul-bloom-is-wrong-about-empathy-and-morality