Why does God not stop the evil?

[timur123456789]

Like I said before uncomfortable things help us grow spiritually.

 

[Elioenai26]

We can reason, and therefore we can see the actions that genocide has had on people and cultures. We have seen the pain inflicted and the destruction caused.

We can also see in the end that genocide helps nobody, not even the people who commit the genocide.

In short, there are plenty of negative consequences of genocide. Likewise, there is not a single good consequence. We can then definitively say using reason and logic that Genocide is a horrendous act, and is to be avoided at all cost.

Of course we can. I agree with every bit of what you say.

There's nothing objective at all with that, that conclusion is reached through purely subjective means.

Ahh, this is where the confusion lies Dave. And I have seen others make this same error.

You are taking the terms objective and subjective and and using them in an epistemological sense instead of an ontological sense. This is the confusion and conflation and it is an accidental confusion due to a lack of understanding between the fundamental differences between moral ontology and moral epistemology.

Moral ontology deals with whether or not values and duties EXIST.
Moral epistemology deals with how we come to KNOW or APPREHEND moral values.

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.

So Dave, when you say: "There's nothing objective at all with that, that conclusion is reached through purely subjective means." You are speaking of how you KNOW what is right and what is wrong and I definitely agree with everything you said. We use our moral intuition or conscience, reason, logic and rational capacities to know or apprehend that genocide is wrong. This is something we agree on. In fact, that is how everyone knows anything! We use our own minds to rationally produce thoughts about this or that. In this sense our apprehension or understanding of (X) or (y) is owed to our reasoning process. They are our own in that we produce them.

But Dave, when I say that objective moral values and duties EXIST, I am talking about their existence, NOT how we come to KNOW them. Here the issue is ONTOLOGY.

What you have done is spoken epistemologically and sought to argue against ontology.

I will give you an example of why you cannot do this:

Lets say you are given a sheet of paper and are told to solve the math equation 2+2=? which is written on the paper. How do you do this? You use your mind, and reasoning processes to mentally calculate and come to the conclusion that the answer is 4. This conclusion of yours was reached through purely subjective means i.e. your brain, but the answer "4" is true objectively. Just because your subjective reasoning process leads you to the conclusion that "4" is the right answer, does not mean that the answer to the equation is NOT OBJECTIVE. The answer to the equation is true INDEPENDENTLY of your reasoning process or how you come to know 2+2=4. You subjectively (epistemologically) come to the conclustion that objectively (ontologically) the answer is 4.

I can see a baby being tortured and my subjective reasoning processes tell me (epistemologically) that the torture of that baby is wrong (objectively) because it is a moral fact (ontologically speaking) that torturing babies is wrong.

Just because a belief is shared by many, or all does not make it objective. You seem to miss the point that opinions reached through subjective means can be widely, and in many cases unanimously accepted.

All opinions are reached through subjective means. This is indisputable. How else would we reach conclusions and form opinions if not with our own minds?

I also agree that just because a belief is shared by many, that does not make it objective. In fact, for something to be objective means that it is true independently of people's beliefs. For example, just because a lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, does not mean it was really flat. The shape of the earth ( a fact ) is independent of people's beliefs.

In the same way, moral objectivists say that rape is wrong (a moral fact) independent of people's beliefs.

In order to name something objective, you must demonstrate the objective set of laws, and by who or what they were created by. Simply strongly holding an opinion something is wrong, does not offer evidence towards the subjective or objective nature of anything.

I do not think you actually believe this.

For example, in order to know that rape is wrong independently of people's opinions, you do not have to be shown that or have that proven to you. Our moral intuition or conscience tells us that rape is wrong independent of people's opinions.

If not, then a person is morally impaired, not unlike a blind person is visually impaired.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I intuitively know beyond a reasonable doubt, that raping children is wrong independent of what people's opinions are about it.

If you cannot agree with that statement, then you are a moral nihilist and or sociopathic.

You have to disagree with it if you want to be true to your moral relativism.

See how ridiculous moral relativism is when viewed that way.

Now you know why the vast majority of philosophers adhere to some form of moral realism.

Its simple really. Nothing hard at all about it.

But you practically admitted to being a relativist yourself. So are trying to convince us that relativism is intellectually untenable or are you trying to convince yourself?

Also, when did you do a count of how many philosophers are moral realists?

 

[Elioenai26]

Because at one point in time, the god described in the OT allowed for and encouraged it.

Do you have any support for this assertion. If so, I would like you to provide it. It is my position that you do not have adequate or sufficient evidence to support this statement.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As an atheist, this view of yours is consistent with a naturalistic explanation of reality.

It is referred to broadly as the socio-biological evolutionary explanation for moral values and duties, i.e that our concept of morality is a by-product of evolutionary processes which aid in our survival and reproduction. Michael Ruse sums it up well in his work. This explanation for moral ontology is a common one used by atheists. Several people here including you espouse this view.

It is also a view which affirms the veracity of premise (1) of the moral argument:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Since on atheism, there is no transcendant and Ultimate Moral Law Giver, there simply is no good reason to think that certain moral behaviors are wrong in the objective sense. Hence, most atheists are moral relativists.

That is incorrect. The explanation for morality that you are describing does not necessarily affirm (1) at all. And that last paragraph is especially dubious, and you know it. You referred to Sam Harris as an example of a moral realist. I directed you to McDowell's account of external reasons as well. The question of whether morality is objective or subjective (depending on how one defines those words) doesn't hinge upon the question of whether there are deities.

 

[Elioenai26]

But you practically admitted to being a relativist yourself. So are trying to convince us that relativism is intellectually untenable or are you trying to convince yourself?

I have never even insinuated that I was a moral relativist. Saying that I have does not qualify as an argument that I am a moral relativist.

Also, when did you do a count of how many philosophers are moral realists?

I am so delighted you asked!

PhilPapers survey, 2009, under the heading 'Meta-ethics'

One study found that most philosophers today accept or lean towards moral realism, as do most meta-ethicists, and twice as many philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism as accept or lean towards moral anti-realism.[2] Some examples of robust moral realists include David Brink, John McDowell, Peter Railton,[3] Geoffrey Sayre-McCord,[4] Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo,[5] Russ Shafer-Landau,[6] G.E. Moore,[7] John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Nicholas Sturgeon,[8] Thomas Nagel, and Plato. Norman Geras has argued that Karl Marx was a moral realist.[9]*wikipedia*

 

[Elioenai26]

That is incorrect. The explanation for morality that you are describing does not necessarily affirm (1) at all.

The adherence to a socio-biological evolutionary account of morality does not NECESSARILY commit one to affirming (1). But it does cause one to have to come up with some pretty untenable and problematic explanations for the existence of objective moral values and duties on a naturlistic view of the universe. Scathing reviews of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape by his own collegues and naturalists highlight the impracticality and ultimately untenable position of maintaining that objective moral values and duties can exist apart from a transcendant moral law giver. Sam Harris and those like him are vastly outnumbered by their fellow atheists who are moral relativists. This can be demonstrated in this very forum. Most atheists here adhere to some form of moral anti-realism, specifically, moral relativism.

So while one can try to come up with an explanation of how objective moral values and duties exist without there being a transcendant moral law giver who would make such values objective, these explanations ultimately fail and are simply too problematic to be seen as viable.

And that last paragraph is especially dubious, and you know it. You referred to Sam Harris as an example of a moral realist. I directed you to McDowell's account of external reasons as well. The question of whether morality is objective or subjective (depending on how one defines those words) doesn't hinge upon the question of whether there are deities.

The vast majority of atheists rightfully hold that if there is no God, then there is no viable basis for grounding moral values and duties objectively. It is the majority of atheists, as can even be seen here in this forum, that say this, not me, and not any theist. So I simply appeal to them. After all, it is to atheists that the moral argument is presented. Not to theists.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have never even insinuated that I was a moral relativist. Saying that I have does not qualify as an argument that I am a moral relativist.

See here and here for example.

Interesting! So it is relative to the god you are referring to.

That is correct.

If a person is convinced enough in what they perceived to be a command to murder their family and think a god has told them to do it, then they would consider themselves obligated to do so.

This is self-evident I think.

If they perceive that it was an obligation for them to murder their family, then they would feel obligated to do so.

I can think of an innumerable number of "gods" that one could appeal to as a reason to commit an innumerable number of acts. These "gods" would be what they perceived to be the one commanding them to do act (x).

Surely you have heard of people in court using as a defense the phrase: "god told me to do it." No?

You suggested that morality is relative to religious opinion.

I am so delighted you asked!

PhilPapers survey, 2009, under the heading 'Meta-ethics'

Interesting!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The adherence to a socio-biological evolutionary account of morality does not NECESSARILY commit one to affirming (1). But it does cause one to have to come up with some pretty untenable and problematic explanations for the existence of objective moral values and duties on a naturlistic view of the universe.

McDowell and others don't seem to find it problematic. You do seem to be having problems showing how objective moral values could exist within a theistic framework, however.

Scathing reviews of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape by his own collegues and naturalists highlight the impracticality and ultimately untenable position of maintaining that objective moral values and duties can exist apart from a transcendant moral law giver. Sam Harris and those like him are vastly outnumbered by their fellow atheists who are moral relativists.

Hang on... you just provided a study that showed most philosophers surveyed were moral realists and atheists. Even among atheist philosophers surveyed, the majority were moral realists. This goes against your point.

So while one can try to come up with an explanation of how objective moral values and duties exist without there being a transcendant moral law giver who would make such values objective, these explanations ultimately fail and are simply too problematic to be seen as viable.

You have yet to explain how values are made 'objective' by God. In fact, your second definition of objective would seem to rule out God as a "moral law giver" and your first definition rendered premise (1) of your moral argument tautological.

The vast majority of atheists rightfully hold that if there is no God, then there is no viable basis for grounding moral values and duties objectively.

This is contradicted by the survey you presented earlier.

 

[Elioenai26]

See here

You will need to go back and read carefully the quote from Loudmouth which I was responding to when I wrote what I wrote befire you jumped in.

and here for example.

My words:

That has nothing to do with whether or not objective moral values or duties exist, which is the essential question regarding whether moral relativism or moral realism is true.

That simply is to say that if I am a Christian, I am going to believe it is right to pray for my enemies.

If I am a Muslim, I am going to believe it is right to blow them up.

This is just one example.

Now you say that in light of the above, I was espousing moral relativism.

Was I espousing the view that in moral disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong, which is what moral relativism states?

Of course not!

I am saying that it is objectively right to love one's enemies and that it is objectively wrong to blow them up. I highlighted that just because different religions teach different things, that does not mean that they are all true, which is what relativists must maintain.

This should be self-evident to you.

 

[Tnmusicman]

There is one common question which is often posed as an objection to God's omnibenevolence and that is the question: "why does God not prevent or stop the evil in the world?"

"Why does God not stop all the child molestors and rapists and murderers, why does God not stop this or prevent that or do this or that...."

These types of questions, surprisingly are raised by many atheists. But I find it ironic that the few instance in which we see God acting to stop and to prevent such heinous acts in the Bible, these same objectors claim that God was wrong in in stopping these people!

On one hand, God is blamed for tolerating evil, and on the other hand when He is shown to act in judgment on people who commit such atrocities, He is branded as being a murderer and genocidal!

If there were known to us today, to be civilizations and societies in existence that behaved the way the Canaanites, Amorites and Amalekites, did in making it a regular practice to offer their newborn babies and young children on fiery pagan altars to gods, atheists would be among the many to cry out: "If God exists, then why does He not stop these atrocities!"

Yet, in cases where it is clear that this was happening, when God does act, He is judged as being a genocidal murderer!

It seems to me that the qualm with God is not that He does not act to judge sin, but that He indeed does exist and holds us morally accountable for our sins. It is evidently clear, that in some people's eyes (those who lack belief in God) that whatever God does, He fails to meet their moral standards. Which is ironic, for if there is no objective moral standard, then all we have is opinions, none being any closer to the non-existent standard than any other. And the opinion that God was somehow wrong in ordering the children to be killed is no closer to adhering to this non-existent moral standard than the opinion that God, since He is the author and giver of life, was justified in taking that life.

So what is the objection?

Great point!! It seems that God is in a lôse/lose situation with atheists (of this variety) and nothing is ever good enough. It's good to know God doesn't hold it against us!!

Jesus said He did not come to eliminate evil from the world, but so that the kingdom of God can grow amid the evil of the world until the time when all evil is destroyed (Matthew 10:34-36, 13:24-30, 13:36-43). We cannot eliminate all evil in the world, but we can and should do our best to minimize the suffering it causes (Matthew 5:7, Acts 20:35, Matthew 25:31-46, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, Ephesians 4:32, 1 John 3:17-18).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You will need to go back and read carefully the quote from Loudmouth which I was responding to when I wrote what I wrote befire you jumped in.

I did go back.

Before you were arguing that human sacrifices were immoral, but now you are making moral justifications that can be used to support human sacrifices. When your moral code is justified by "because my god says so" we see atrocities abound.

Depends on the god you are referring to.

Interesting! So it is relative to the god you are referring to.

That is correct.

If a person is convinced enough in what they perceived to be a command to murder their family and think a god has told them to do it, then they would consider themselves obligated to do so.

This is self-evident I think.

If they perceive that it was an obligation for them to murder their family, then they would feel obligated to do so.

I can think of an innumerable number of "gods" that one could appeal to as a reason to commit an innumerable number of acts. These "gods" would be what they perceived to be the one commanding them to do act (x).

Surely you have heard of people in court using as a defense the phrase: "god told me to do it." No?

My words:

That has nothing to do with whether or not objective moral values or duties exist, which is the essential question regarding whether moral relativism or moral realism is true.

That simply is to say that if I am a Christian, I am going to believe it is right to pray for my enemies.

If I am a Muslim, I am going to believe it is right to blow them up.

This is just one example.

Now you say that in light of the above, I was espousing moral relativism.

Was I espousing the view that in moral disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong, which is what moral relativism states?

Of course not!

I am saying that it is objectively right to love one's enemies and that it is objectively wrong to blow them up. I highlighted that just because different religions teach different things, that does not mean that they are all true, which is what relativists must maintain.

This should be self-evident to you.

It does, however, imply that they are relative to religious opinion. You confirmed this in the quote above when I asked you whether morality was relative to the god a person believes in.

 

[Elioenai26]

Hang on... you just provided a study that showed most philosophers surveyed were moral realists and atheists
Even among atheist philosophers surveyed, the majority were moral realists. This goes against your point..

LOL, where in that survey does it state that the majority of atheistic philosophers were moral realists?

I will save you the trouble, it does'nt. It states that 56.4% of ALL philosophers surveyed were moral realists not 56.4% of ATHEISTIC philosophers.

You have yet to explain how values are made 'objective' by God. In fact, your second definition of objective would seem to rule out God as a "moral law giver" and your first definition rendered premise (1) of your moral argument tautological.

Objective simply means mind independent and I have said this ad nauseum.

This is contradicted by the survey you presented earlier.

Since you misinterpreted the data, this statement is false.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

LOL, where in that survey does it state that the majority of atheistic philosophers were moral realists?

I will save you the trouble, it does'nt. It states that 56.4% of ALL philosophers surveyed were moral realists not 56.4% of ATHEISTIC philosophers.

See this link. 59.2% (386/651) of atheist philosophers surveyed indicated that they ascribed to moral realism.

Objective simply means mind independent and I have said this ad nauseum.

And your god is disembodied mind. So...

Since you misinterpreted the data, this statement is false.

See above.

 

[Davian]

...
Since on atheism, there is no transcendant and Ultimate Moral Law Giver, there simply is no good reason to think that certain moral behaviors are wrong in the objective sense. Hence, most atheists are moral relativists.

Still, an atheist can have morals based on human wellness and empathy. They seem to have worked for millions of years.

Now, with your particular Ultimate Moral Law Giver, there simply is no good reason to think that certain moral behaviors are wrong in any sense, as long as you believe!

 

[Elioenai26]

It does, however, imply that they are relative to religious opinion. You confirmed this in the quote above when I asked you whether morality was relative to the god a person believes in.

When your moral code is justified by "because my god says so" we see atrocities abound. -Loudmouth

To which I replied: "It depends on the god you are referring to."

You see Archaeopteryx, in your eagerness to prove your point, you latched onto my statement with complete disregard for what it was in response to.

Loudmouth said atrocities would abound if people's moral code was based on what their god said. And in response to this I said it would depend on which god they were referring to. Atrocities would abound if people believed for example, an evil sadistic god was giving them divine commands to torture and rape women and babies. This is self evident. But honestly, who is running around saying God told them to rape and torture women and babies? Do you know of anyone who is doing that?

Even if they were doing these things and saying a god told them to, would you believe a god actually told them to do that, or would you think they were sociopathic?

If someone came up to me and told me that god told them it was ok to rape people, I would call the police and have the man arrested. I would not sit there and say: "well, I gues that means morality is relative!"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When your moral code is justified by "because my god says so" we see atrocities abound. -Loudmouth

To which I replied: "It depends on the god you are referring to."

You see Archaeopteryx, in your eagerness to prove your point, you latched onto my statement with complete disregard for what it was in response to.

Loudmouth said atrocities would abound if people's moral code was based on what their god said. And in response to this I said it would depend on which god they were referring to. Atrocities would abound if people believed for example, an evil sadistic god was giving them divine commands to torture and rape women and babies. This is self evident. But honestly, who is running around saying God told them to rape and torture women and babies? Do you know of anyone who is doing that?

Even if they were doing these things and saying a god told them to, would you believe a god actually told them to do that, or would you think they were sociopathic?

If someone came up to me and told me that god told them it was ok to rape people, I would call the police and have the man arrested. I would not sit there and say: "well, I gues that means morality is relative!"

You need to consider carefully what it is you said. I asked you whether morality is relative to the god a person is referring to. To which you responded with "That is correct." Morality is thus relative to religious opinion. Theist A refers to one god and theist B refers to another. I think you captured it best when you said:

It is also not tenable because in the case of moral disagreements, there is no logical, viable way to arbitrate between two or more opposing [religious] views.

I added the word 'religious' in.

 

[Elioenai26]

See this link. 59.2% (386/651) of atheist philosophers surveyed indicated that they ascribed to moral realism.

Excellent. Thanks for that. I shall look into it a little more indepth later.

But guess what Archaeopteryx???

Look at what I said:

Scathing reviews of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape by his own collegues and naturalists highlight the impracticality and ultimately untenable position of maintaining that objective moral values and duties can exist apart from a transcendant moral law giver. Sam Harris and those like him are vastly outnumbered by their fellow atheists who are moral relativists. This can be demonstrated in this very forum. Most atheists here adhere to some form of moral anti-realism, specifically, moral relativism.

You are using a survey of philosophers to disprove my point but guess what? Sam Harris is not a philosopher! Nor are his collegues who wrote scathing critiques of his book. Nor do I mention anything about atheist philosophers in the above quote. I simply talk about atheists who are moral relativists.

The fact that you cannot accept what is so plainly obvious is startling. Did you not know that the majority of atheists were moral relativists?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Excellent. Thanks for that. I shall look into it a little more indepth later.

But guess what Archaeopteryx???

Look at what I said:

Scathing reviews of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape by his own collegues and naturalists highlight the impracticality and ultimately untenable position of maintaining that objective moral values and duties can exist apart from a transcendant moral law giver. Sam Harris and those like him are vastly outnumbered by their fellow atheists who are moral relativists. This can be demonstrated in this very forum. Most atheists here adhere to some form of moral anti-realism, specifically, moral relativism.

You are using a survey of philosophers to disprove my point but guess what? Sam Harris is not a philosopher! Nor are his collegues who wrote scathing critiques of his book. Nor do I mention anything about atheist philosophers in the above quote. I simply talk about atheists who are moral relativists.

The fact that you cannot accept what is so plainly obvious is startling. Did you not know that the majority of atheists were moral relativists?

Now you are simply stretching the meaning of words to save face. By what measure did you conclude that Sam Harris is not a philosopher? His book The Moral Landscape deals with philosophical issues, does it not? (We wouldn't be talking about it if it didn't). Many of his critics are philosophers, aren't they? Are you going to pretend that every time you use the word 'philosopher' you are only ever referring to those who have obtained a degree in philosophy? From where did Socrates obtain his degree? I suppose he isn't a philosopher either.

 

[Elioenai26]

You need to consider carefully what it is you said. I asked you whether morality is relative to the god a person is referring to. To which you responded with "That is correct." Morality is thus relative to religious opinion. Theist A refers to one god and theist B refers to another. I think you captured it best when you said:

Misinterpreting one's statements is what happens when you interject into a conversation that two people are having. All that I wrote must be understood in the context of Loudmouth's statement. That is why it is unwise to jump into people's conversations when you had no stock in the conversation in the first place.

You also keep saying morality is relative because two people may have differing religious views. That does not mean that objective moral values and duties don't exist LOL, that means we are members of diffferent religions.

Of course my religious views are going to be relative to my religion. I as a Christian am not going to believe Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet, and a Muslim most certainly is not going to claim Jesus is the Son of God. These are matters of adherence to doctrinal matters, not moral ontology.

These arguments of yours are becoming quite desperate.