Atheist philosopher Stephen Law thinks gratuitous evil disproves God. but by disprove he really means makes God's existence less probable. Of course I will argue against this notion.
Gratuitous evil (GE) is evil that has no point, no redeeming social value. Some forms of evil lead to good things. For example poverty might make some people patient, kind, compassionate, or in some way result in a good. An example of gratuitous evil would be a child dying of leukemia. No one is made better. The child doesn't live to understand a lesson and the child suffers badly while dying. No god comes from this. Here is Law's argument:
The ‘evidential problem of evil’, as it’s known, as often presented like so:
If god exists, gratuitous evil does not.
Gratuitous evil exists.
Therefore, god does not exist.
‘Evil’ here means either moral evil—the morally bad things we do as free moral agents—or natural evil, which includes the suffering caused not be free moral agents but by natural diseases and disasters. Now god might have reason to allow some evils if that’s the price he must pay for greater goods. However, God presumably won’t allow evils for which there is no such reason. Call such evils gratuitous evils. Surely, if there are gratuitous evils, then there is no god?[1]
Another version of it:
(1) If an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being existed, that being would not allow gratuitous suffering to occur.There are twp major problems with this argument: (1) The atheist proposes to know what God would do and (2) The atheist proports to know all outcomes such that there can be gratuitous evil with no redepmptive aspects. We do not know either one. It may seem logical that good God would prevent evil andsufferingif he is all powerful. But that is not necessarily the case.We do not know what God would do in every case. God is surprising.We can always come up with some theoretical notion of redemptive suffering even if we can't prove it in a given instance.
(2) Gratuitous suffering probably does occur.
(3) Therefore, (probably) an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being does not exist.[2]
So what could be redemptive about a child dying of leukemia? Nothing yet we can't say that a child's suffering can lead to redemptive effects. But there's another reason why God must allow suffering. Not so much because the enstance of sufferimg will produce some unforeseen good, although perhaps it will. But another reason is God's need to preserve the integrity of the search. What does that mean? In essence it means God can't work miracles every time someone feels pain because there would be no search for the truth of God. Everyone would give lip service and resent God. The search is how we internalize the values of the good. This a complex discussion so I refer the reader to my free will defense on my old website Doxa. [3]
The atheist purports to know all outcomes. But we can know that there can be redemptive suffering even if we don't see it.We can't really be sure that gratuitous evil exists. Thus it can't render God less probable. The free will defense indicates constrictions upon God's action, It's not beyond his power to prevent suffering but given God's desire for the search he can't use that option.
Sources
[1]Stephen Law,"A New Problem of Evil," Forum for Pilosophy (February 29th, 2016) https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/theforum/newproblemofevil/
[2]John Danaher, "What Can Law's Evil God Challenge Do?" Philosophical Disquisitions, (Oct 20 2011) https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-can-laws-evil-god-challenge-do.html
Law uses GE as a starting point for a strategy involving imagining that is evil He calls it the Evil God Challenge or EGC. I will deal with that notion net time, Here I just want to discuss GE.
[3] Joseph Hinman, "Soteriological Drama: Defending the Free will defense," (no date given--maybe 2010) http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/Theodicy1.html
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408765 Joseph Hinman's new book is God, Science and Ideology. Hinman argues that atheists and skeptics who use science as a barrier to belief in God are not basing doubt on science itself but upon an ideology that adherer's to science in certain instances. This ideology, "scientism," assumes that science is the only valid form of knowledge and rules out religious belief. Hinman argues that science is neutral with respect to belief in God … In this book Hinman with atheist positions on topics such as consciousness and the nature of knowledge, puts to rest to arguments of Lawrence M. Krauss, Victor J. Stenger, and Richard Dawkins, and delimits the areas for potential God arguments.
28 comments:
Evil doesn't disprove God. Evil happens when good people do nothing and allow it.
It is important to understand Law's distinction between evil and gratonites evil.
Joe: Atheist philosopher Stephen Law thinks gratuitous evil disproves God. but by disprove he really means makes God's existence less probable.
So in fact we have warrant to think God does not exist.
Pix
Joe: There are twp major problems with this argument: (1) The atheist proposes to know what God would do...
It follows from God being good, loving and all-powerful. Allowing someone to suffer unnecessarily is morally wrong, therefore a good god could not do that.
God loves us all, so we know he considers us to be people in a moral sense - we are not mere parts in a machine, mere insects to him, we have value. It would be wrong for God to allow a person to suffer.
God is all-power so he can prevent all suffering, and therefore all suffering is unnecessary.
If you want to redefine your view of God to say, for example, that he considers humans to have no value, the argument fails. But with the usual Christian view of God, it stands.
Joe. ... and (2) The atheist proports to know all outcomes such that there can be gratuitous evil with no redepmptive aspects.
A Hindu child gets cancer and dies, and, not accepting Jesus, she misses out on heaven (even goes to hell some Christians assure us). Tell us the redemptive aspect there.
It may be that some cancer cases have some redemptive aspects that outweigh the horror of it, but you need to show that every cancer case ends up with an overall positive outcome to defeat the argument.
If just one person gets cancer and suffers more than he or she benefits, God has allowed unnecessary suffering, and the argument stands.
Indeed, it is worse than that for you. If just one person gets cancer and suffers, even if he or she benefits, but God could have contrived those benefits another way with less suffering, then argument stands. And given God is supposedly all-powerful...
Joe: So what could be redemptive about a child dying of leukemia? Nothing yet we can't say that a child's suffering can lead to redemptive effects.
Do those redemptive effects cancel out the suffering? Does the end justify the means?
Could those redemptive effects be achieved another way?
At the end of the day, we all know that the vast majority of Christians will seek medical help if their child gets cancer. That tells me how much faith Christians put in this redemptive aspect.
Joe: In essence it means God can't work miracles every time someone feels pain because there would be no search for the truth of God. Everyone would give lip service and resent God.
So God values the search more than the people he professes to love. The integrity of the search is a higher priority to him than human suffering. This is what I mean by redefining your view of God. If you discard the claim that he loves us, the problem of evil disappears. We are but wheat for the millstone to God.
Furthermore, God could work a miracle every time someone gets cancer; if he did it soon enough, no one would every know. He apparenty chooses not to.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Atheist philosopher Stephen Law thinks gratuitous evil disproves God. but by disprove he really means makes God's existence less probable.
Pix: So in fact we have warrant to think God does not exist.
If he's right but I don't think he is. Besides I said he thinks it proves God is less probable then you jump to "does not exist," those do not equate.
Joe: There are twp major problems with this argument: (1) The atheist proposes to know what God would do...
Pix: It follows from God being good, loving and all-powerful. Allowing someone to suffer unnecessarily is morally wrong, therefore a good god could not do that.
It's not unnecessarily since it's necessary as a consequent of free will, free will is real important,
God loves us all, so we know he considers us to be people in a moral sense - we are not mere parts in a machine, mere insects to him, we have value. It would be wrong for God to allow a person to suffer.
No suffering per se is not wrong because it's necessary trade-off for free will. That's why Law stresses gratuitous suffering or evil. If it has no redeeming value, for example if it was not necessary to free will then it would be a violation of goodness. But then I question the existence and even the possibility of gratuitous evil. There is a priori redeeming value in the free will factor.
Pix: God is all-power so he can prevent all suffering, and therefore all suffering is unnecessary.
You are missing the point of necessity. God has the power to stop suffering but that would screw free will because it would be obvious God is real no one would need to internalize the values of the good. That's why there has to be a search for God.
Pix:If you want to redefine your view of God to say, for example, that he considers humans to have no value, the argument fails. But with the usual Christian view of God, it stands.
Clearly unnecessary since you haven't tumbled to the necessity of allowing POE/S.
Joe. ... and (2) The atheist proports to know all outcomes such that there can be gratuitous evil with no redepmptive aspects.
Pix: A Hindu child gets cancer and dies, and, not accepting Jesus, she misses out on heaven (even goes to hell some Christians assure us). Tell us the redemptive aspect there.
I believe in what the church I grew up in (c of Christ) called "the age of accountability." Children aren't damned because they are not old enough to understand moral choices. This is why some Protestant groups have believer baptism, they don't sprinkle babies. You have to be old enough to make a choice before they allow baptism.
Pix: It may be that some cancer cases have some redemptive aspects that outweigh the horror of it, but you need to show that every cancer case ends up with an overall positive outcome to defeat the argument.
Remember above I argued another reason. It doesn't have to be redemptive but it circumvents the natural world to heal all sufferings. It would also make the search un-necessary that would mean no one is internalizing the roper values.
Pix: If just one person gets cancer and suffers more than he or she benefits, God has allowed unnecessary suffering, and the argument stands.
Ni the second reason I just explained answers that.
Pix: Indeed, it is worse than that for you. If just one person gets cancer and suffers, even if he or she benefits, but God could have contrived those benefits another way with less suffering, then argument stands. And given God is supposedly all-powerful...
Only God could know that. The formulation is too complex and depends upon outcomes we can't know. Also that second reason, call it the principle of preserving the search.
Joe: So what could be redemptive about a child dying of leukemia? Nothing yet we can't say that a child's suffering can lead to redemptive effects.
Pix: Do those redemptive effects cancel out the suffering? Does the end justify the means?
No but they necessitate that level of suffering.
Pix: Could those redemptive effects be achieved another way?
How? what way? The problem is if God always heals pain no need one needs to search for the truth of God. You would have to constantly work miracles and yet still have people search for the truth of God's Existence, But that would be obvious so it's a big contradiction,
Pix: At the end of the day, we all know that the vast majority of Christians will seek medical help if their child gets cancer. That tells me how much faith Christians put in this redemptive aspect.
Now you are changing the meaning of the concept. Redemptive doesn't mean no one suffers it means good comes out of the suffering. Going to the doctor doesn't negate that.
Joe: In essence it means God can't work miracles every time someone feels pain because there would be no search for the truth of God. Everyone would give lip service and resent God.
So God values the search more than the people he professes to love. The integrity of the search is a higher priority to him than human suffering. This is what I mean by redefining your view of God. If you discard the claim that he loves us, the problem of evil disappears. We are but wheat for the millstone to God.
Convoluting the notion. You are starring the big muddle tactic. The search is the point so it is important because it's the mechanism through which a moral universe is had. You speak as though either one is there's the search and there's suffering and that's all there is. WE have better coping mechanisms than that. Not everyone is going to get leukemia. Remember God gives us the strength to overcome all adversity.
Pix: Furthermore, God could work a miracle every time someone gets cancer; if he did it soon enough, no one would every know. He apparently chooses not to.
Cute answer. That could be a scheme Lucy and Ethal try. How do you know God isn't keeping us from worse all the time?
Joe: If he's right but I don't think he is. Besides I said he thinks it proves God is less probable then you jump to "does not exist," those do not equate.
But Joe, that is exactly what "warrant" means! It is that your claim is probable, therefore you get to jump to saying it is fact. Most of your arguments do exactly that.
Joe: It's not unnecessarily since it's necessary as a consequent of free will, free will is real important,
How does free will stop God from curing cancer before anyone knows about it?
Joe: No suffering per se is not wrong because it's necessary trade-off for free will. That's why Law stresses gratuitous suffering or evil. If it has no redeeming value, for example if it was not necessary to free will then it would be a violation of goodness. But then I question the existence and even the possibility of gratuitous evil. There is a priori redeeming value in the free will factor.
So show how cancer is necessary for free will.
Joe: You are missing the point of necessity. God has the power to stop suffering but that would screw free will because it would be obvious God is real no one would need to internalize the values of the good. That's why there has to be a search for God.
According to the Bible, Jesus was resurrected. People saw him after the resurrection. Was it not obvious to those people that God is real? How does that fit with what you say here?
Joe: I believe in what the church I grew up in (c of Christ) called "the age of accountability." Children aren't damned because they are not old enough to understand moral choices. This is why some Protestant groups have believer baptism, they don't sprinkle babies. You have to be old enough to make a choice before they allow baptism.
Then make it a Hindu woman who gets cancer and dies, aged 19. She did not accept Jesus, so she misses out on heaven (even goes to hell some Christians assure us). Tell us the redemptive aspect there.
Also, see if you can explain why it is not moral to slaughter the children of non-Christians. Doing so will ensure they will go to heaven, when most of them would not otherwise do so. I appreciate you would imperil your own soul, but think how many you woulkd save!
And surely that sacrifice would be so much greater than Jesus's?
Joe: Remember above I argued another reason. It doesn't have to be redemptive but it circumvents the natural world to heal all sufferings. It would also make the search un-necessary that would mean no one is internalizing the roper values.
So God has people dying of cancer to force them to search for God?
Joe: Only God could know that.
That is just an evasion.
Remember, we are talking about probability. Which is more probable?
1. God exists, and every single instance of cancer results in an overall benefit for the victim
2. God does not exist, and at least some instances of cancer result in a negative outcome
Pix
Pix: Do those redemptive effects cancel out the suffering? Does the end justify the means?
Joe: No but they necessitate that level of suffering.
I do not know how you can say "no" there when the next sentence appears to be implying "yes". Can you clarify?
Joe: How? what way?
As you said before: Only God could know that.
God is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful. Are you telling me he cannot work it out?
Joe: The problem is if God always heals pain no need one needs to search for the truth of God.
Why? Can God not heal cancer without a big fanfare?
Joe: The search is the point so it is important because it's the mechanism through which a moral universe is had.
What does that actually mean?
Firstly, what is a moral universe? Is that different to a universe that contains moral agents? My view is that the universe is itself amoral, but that there are people in it who are those capable of moral choices. I do not see how a search for God impacts that in any way. So I guess your view is rather different. Maybe it would be useful if you could say how?
How does a search for God engender a moral universe? If no one was searching for God, how would that affect the universe?
Joe: You speak as though either one is there's the search and there's suffering and that's all there is.
My point was about priorities. Clearly God priorities the search over preventing suffering in those he loves. Your argument is founded on that, Joe.
Joe: Cute answer. That could be a scheme Lucy and Ethal try. How do you know God isn't keeping us from worse all the time?
So you think he prevents even worse, but chooses to allow cancers? How does that make any sense? Your whole argument seems to be founded on God not interfering, and now you have switched to saying he does interfer sometimes.
Please get your story straight, Joe!
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: If he's right but I don't think he is. Besides I said he thinks it proves God is less probable then you jump to "does not exist," those do not equate.
But Joe, that is exactly what "warrant" means! It is that your claim is probable, therefore you get to jump to saying it is fact. Most of your arguments do exactly that.
Just because you have a reason doubt does not mean belief is not warranted I just showed how we overcome that reason. Besides he is wrong.
Joe: It's not unnecessarily since it's necessary as a consequent of free will, free will is real important,
How does free will stop God from curing cancer before anyone knows about it?
God's existence being thought a fact would be coercive. Just as gravity or cause and effect are obligatory; belief in God being obligatory would wipe out faith and cause resentment,
Joe: No suffering per se is not wrong because it's necessary trade-off for free will. That's why Law stresses gratuitous suffering or evil. If it has no redeeming value, for example if it was not necessary to free will then it would be a violation of goodness. But then I question the existence and even the possibility of gratuitous evil. There is a priori redeeming value in the free will factor.
So show how cancer is necessary for free will.
are you even trying to follow this? Constant healing all the time = coercion.
Joe: You are missing the point of necessity. God has the power to stop suffering but that would screw free will because it would be obvious God is real no one would need to internalize the values of the good. That's why there has to be a search for God.
According to the Bible, Jesus was resurrected. People saw him after the resurrection. Was it not obvious to those people that God is real? How does that fit with what you say here?
only a relative handful saw that, no tv no newspapers, remember?
Joe: I believe in what the church I grew up in (c of Christ) called "the age of accountability." Children aren't damned because they are not old enough to understand moral choices. This is why some Protestant groups have believer baptism, they don't sprinkle babies. You have to be old enough to make a choice before they allow baptism.
Pix: Then make it a Hindu woman who gets cancer and dies, aged 19. She did not accept Jesus, so she misses out on heaven (even goes to hell some Christians assure us). Tell us the redemptive aspect there.
She would have that problem without the cancer. That comes under the heading problem of other faiths. I've written extensively about that. It deserves it's own blog piece.
Pix: Also, see if you can explain why it is not moral to slaughter the children of non-Christians. Doing so will ensure they will go to heaven, when most of them would not otherwise do so. I appreciate you would imperil your own soul, but think how many you woulkd save!
And surely that sacrifice would be so much greater than Jesus's?
That's pretty stupid. It's hilarious and creative as long as it's not taken seriously. you answered the issue yourself why waste my time?
Joe: Remember above I argued another reason. It doesn't have to be redemptive but it circumvents the natural world to heal all sufferings. It would also make the search un-necessary that would mean no one is internalizing the roper values.
So God has people dying of cancer to force them to search for God?
I said nothing about forcing, cancer is nit the only circumstance under which people seek God
I will answer the other one latter tonight don;t post again until I that please
Anonymous said...
Pix: Do those redemptive effects cancel out the suffering? Does the end justify the means?
Joe: No but they necessitate that level of suffering.
I do not know how you can say "no" there when the next sentence appears to be implying "yes". Can you clarify?
Joe: How? what way?
As you said before: Only God could know that.
God is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful. Are you telling me he cannot work it out?
Joe: The problem is if God always heals pain no need one needs to search for the truth of God.
Why? Can God not heal cancer without a big fanfare?
Joe: The search is the point so it is important because it's the mechanism through which a moral universe is had.
What does that actually mean?
Firstly, what is a moral universe? Is that different to a universe that contains moral agents? My view is that the universe is itself amoral, but that there are people in it who are those capable of moral choices. I do not see how a search for God impacts that in any way. So I guess your view is rather different. Maybe it would be useful if you could say how?
How does a search for God engender a moral universe? If no one was searching for God, how would that affect the universe?
Joe: You speak as though either one is there's the search and there's suffering and that's all there is.
My point was about priorities. Clearly God priorities the search over preventing suffering in those he loves. Your argument is founded on that, Joe.
Joe: Cute answer. That could be a scheme Lucy and Ethal try. How do you know God isn't keeping us from worse all the time?
Pix: So you think he prevents even worse, but chooses to allow cancers? How does that make any sense? Your whole argument seems to be founded on God not interfering, and now you have switched to saying he does interfer sometimes.
It's a complex situation. we can't make seems of it all. What we know is that God is real, he loses us, he wants to save us. The rest is our theory based upon those facts. There are too many complex variables to make sense of it all. I see the possibility of answers. I presented a theory that deals with gratuitous evil even if it does not answer all cases.
You keep ignoring the basic Principe that God is limited by the logic of balancing free will vs POE
Pix: Please get your story straight, Joe!
stop trying to find loop holes and try listening.
A lot of this is a problem of perspective. Here on this planet, our view is limited by our own mortality. We say that suffering must be redemptive, or God is not good-- but this is from our view of what redemptive means, in terms of life here on this planet. But what if we really were immortal? What if there were no limits to our growth as living beings, whether in the body or past needing one? What if, from the perspective of the eternal, there is no such thing as unnecessary suffering-- that to the Divine One who weeps with us and suffers with us, the cost of stopping the suffering is too high to bear, in terms of consequences that are beyond our grasp?
For the rest, Pix, of course you have a warrant not to believe in God. Joe and I have a warrant to believe in God. Both are rational warrants, not certainties. God never intended us to be certain, one way or the other.
One thing I have become convinced of in my spiritual walk is that certainty is the enemy of faith, and that it's faith that for some reason the Holy Mystery values above all else.
I like what you say Kristen That's a great point that perspective really makes a difference, our perspective is limited.
So you're a Consequentialist. Who judges those consequences?
Pix: How does free will stop God from curing cancer before anyone knows about it?
Joe: God's existence being thought a fact would be coercive. Just as gravity or cause and effect are obligatory; belief in God being obligatory would wipe out faith and cause resentment,
A lot to unpack there.
Not a fact
The big blunder here is that you missed where I said "before anyone knows about it". It would be trivial for God to kill a cell as it becomes cancerous, given he is all-knowing and all-powerful, and that would stop cancer completely, without anyone ever knowing they had cancer or God was involved in stopping it.
Your response here is assuming people know about it, so misses the point entirely.
Resentment
Do you think people resent gravity? I am sure you do not, but that is what you are implying here. Gravity is obligatory, and you seem to argue that it is therefore coercive. If something is obligatory, people will resent it, apparently!
How about the moon? It clearly exists, and, using your reasoning, that fact is coercive, and hence people will resent the moon.
That is clearly nonsense, so you need to explain why people would resent God but do not resent gravity or the moon.
Faith
[This is a word with so many meanings; I understand it here to be the belief in something for which there is little to no evidence.]
Why is faith so important to God? Is he testing us? Is he judging us by our ability to believe in something for which there is scant evidence?
You have published books that purport to give us good reason to think God exists. You seem to be working to destroy faith! If people read your books and therefore realise God must exist, then they will not have faith.
Jesus
[I mentioned this before, but it is relevant here.]
If we believe the gospels, then Jesus proved God exists to his disciples. Therefore, according to your logic, he wiped out their faith!
Pix
ix: So show how cancer is necessary for free will.
Joe: are you even trying to follow this? Constant healing all the time = coercion.
Again you miss the point, Joe. If God had created mankind (or guided our evolution or whatever) such that cancer was not a thing, would that impact our free will?
Think of two universes. One in which humans can get cancer (i.e., this one) and one in which we cannot because God has chosen to eliminate it. Can you explain why the latter has less free will than the former?
Joe: She would have that problem without the cancer. That comes under the heading problem of other faiths. I've written extensively about that. It deserves it's own blog piece.
Sure, but - and this is the important point - she has not died of cancer.
On the one hand with have a 19 year old Hindu woman who has died of cancer and been rejected by God. On the other hand we have a Hindu woman who has lived to old age and been rejected by God.
Explain the redemtive aspects of the former because I cannot see any at all.
Pix: Also, see if you can explain why it is not moral to slaughter the children of non-Christians. Doing so will ensure they will go to heaven, when most of them would not otherwise do so. I appreciate you would imperil your own soul, but think how many you woulkd save! And surely that sacrifice would be so much greater than Jesus's?
Joe: That's pretty stupid. It's hilarious and creative as long as it's not taken seriously. you answered the issue yourself why waste my time?
What is stupid about it? Surely getting people into heaven has to be the greatest good, given it lasts for eternity. If dying in childhood guarantees that, why risk letting any child getting to the age of accountability?
Can you explain that, Joe? And I mean explain it, not dismiss it as "stupid" or "creative".
Joe: I said nothing about forcing, cancer is nit the only circumstance under which people seek God
So in fact God could eliminate cancer and people would still seek God. So why has he not done so? Why does he allow so much suffering that you just conceded is not necessary?
Joe: It's a complex situation. we can't make seems of it all. What we know is that God is real, he loses us, he wants to save us. The rest is our theory based upon those facts. There are too many complex variables to make sense of it all. I see the possibility of answers. I presented a theory that deals with gratuitous evil even if it does not answer all cases.
No, Joe, we do not know that God is real.
This is the fatal flaw here. Your argument is based on a faulty assumption. If we assume God exists, then, if we do all sorts of mental gymnastics, then we can rationalise away the PoE. If we assume the Earth is flat, we can conjecture all sorts of maths to explain the movement of the sun, etc. but if it is based on a bad assumption, it is just going to be wrong.
Furthermore, your assumption is based on the very issue under discussion! Your blog post is "Does Gratuitous Evil Disprove God?" and to answer that you are assuming God exists.
Why not just say:
Does gratuitous evil disprove God?
What we know is that God is real
Therefore gratuitous evil does not disprove God?
... and be done with it?
Pix
Kristen: A lot of this is a problem of perspective. Here on this planet, our view is limited by our own mortality. We say that suffering must be redemptive, or God is not good-- but this is from our view of what redemptive means, in terms of life here on this planet. But what if we really were immortal? What if there were no limits to our growth as living beings, whether in the body or past needing one? What if, from the perspective of the eternal, there is no such thing as unnecessary suffering-- that to the Divine One who weeps with us and suffers with us, the cost of stopping the suffering is too high to bear, in terms of consequences that are beyond our grasp?
Okay, we are of course limited by our perspective. But is that really a justification for thinking we are therefore wrong?
It looks to me like you are assuming God exists, and based on that assumption building a world view. If we assume God exists, then it must follow that we are wrong about morality (to some degree). But this is a discussion about whether or not God exists. To assume he does is a circular argument. If you think our morality is flawed you need a better reason to think so than the assumption that God exists.
Tell me what those consequences that are beyond our grasp are - because otherwise it is just wishful thinking.
Pix
Cuttlebones: So you're a Consequentialist. Who judges those consequences?
I am curious to know who this is directed at, as all of us have been using the consequences of an action to justify or condemn it.
I am also curious why you think we need someone to judge the consequences? I am taking this to mean some sort of cosmic judge. Clearly I have to decide for myself why I think is right and wrong; I guess you are questioning who judges if my decision is correct. My view is that that is not necessary.
For Joe and Kristen, they are talking about what God does. I feel pretty sure they do not think there is any cosmic entity judging his decisions either. In fact, the need for a cosmic judge would seem to make God amoral. He is in place to judge our actions, but God's actions are not judged, so cannot be right or wrong.
Pix
So much to respond to here: "It looks to me like you are assuming God exists, and based on that assumption building a world view. If we assume God exists, then it must follow that we are wrong about morality (to some degree). But this is a discussion about whether or not God exists. To assume he does is a circular argument. If you think our morality is flawed you need a better reason to think so than the assumption that God exists."
First, I am not assuming God exists. God doesn't "exist" anyway-- as if God were just another thing in the universe. God is the foundation and source of all things that exist, so categories of "existence" just don't apply. But the reason I believe God is real has to do with spiritual encounters that began in childhood and have continued all my life. Joe(Metacrock) then helped me out in the face of the scoffing of atheists by letting me know I didn't have to try to prove the validity of my own experiences to those who insisted I question all my underlying assumptions but refused to question any of theirs. I don't necessarily put you in this category, Pix, but it is a thing I have frequently encountered from atheists.
So I am starting from the acceptance of my own experiences of an indescribable Mystery which I have encountered only in terms of endless love and light. Given those encounters, what I am to think about the existence of suffering? Again, I'm going to interpret what I see in terms of the validity of my own experience-- which also happens to include an acceptance of my own understanding, not as flawed so much as limited. An analogy: I have to cut my elderly cat's claws from time to time. She hates it-- but she knows and trusts me. She doesn't assume that I am now her enemy because I did something to her I didn't like. However, if someone she doesn't know or trust tries to do this, she will instantly assume emnity. Is her belief that I am to be trusted a mere assumption, obtained from a circular version of whatever equates to reason in cats? Or is it based on her own experience of my goodness to her throughout her life?
But in any event, is it fair to say "The existence of gratuitous suffering can be used to prove there is no God," but if I try to come up with some other explanation of why apparently gratuitous suffering could still exist if there was a God, that's not allowed because it's circular reasoning? In that case there's no point in having a discussion at all.
You see, what we're really talking about is not whether or not there's a God, but whether a certain argument against it works or not. So it's not sporting to declare me out of bounds when you just moved the boundary posts. (grin)
Kristen: First, I am not assuming God exists. God doesn't "exist" anyway-- as if God were just another thing in the universe.
If you want to redefine "exists" such that God does not exist, despite believing he does in some other sense, you are really just muddying the waters. It is clear you do believe God exists for some definition of the word, where I do not, and further more it is whether God exists using this definition that is the heart of the discussion for me.
Kristen: God is the foundation and source of all things that exist, so categories of "existence" just don't apply. But the reason I believe God is real has to do with spiritual encounters that began in childhood and have continued all my life. Joe(Metacrock) then helped me out in the face of the scoffing of atheists by letting me know I didn't have to try to prove the validity of my own experiences to those who insisted I question all my underlying assumptions but refused to question any of theirs. I don't necessarily put you in this category, Pix, but it is a thing I have frequently encountered from atheists.
There is a big problem in discussions like this in that atheists look at the world in terms of what we have hard evidence for, while Christians believe what they feel is right, and both sides distains the other. In fact, it looks like Joe has just posted about just that.
I guess that impacts how we view this discussion. To me this is a discussion about whether God exists or not. It does, afterall, start: "Atheist philosopher Stephen Law thinks gratuitous evil disproves God. but by disprove he really means makes God's existence less probable." It looks like you see it as something quite different; we know God exists, so why does he allow suffering - and I must admit I had not appreciated that previously.
Kristen: So I am starting from the acceptance of my own experiences of an indescribable Mystery which I have encountered only in terms of endless love and light. Given those encounters, what I am to think about the existence of suffering? Again, I'm going to interpret what I see in terms of the validity of my own experience-- which also happens to include an acceptance of my own understanding, not as flawed so much as limited. An analogy: I have to cut my elderly cat's claws from time to time. She hates it-- but she knows and trusts me. She doesn't assume that I am now her enemy because I did something to her I didn't like. However, if someone she doesn't know or trust tries to do this, she will instantly assume emnity. Is her belief that I am to be trusted a mere assumption, obtained from a circular version of whatever equates to reason in cats? Or is it based on her own experience of my goodness to her throughout her life?
When I look at the world, I see a lot of suffering, and no God doing anything about it nor any benefit being gained from that suffering - there is no pet-owner trimming our nails. The world would be a better place if there was no cancer than it is right now, and yet God chooses to allow cancer.
Kristen: But in any event, is it fair to say "The existence of gratuitous suffering can be used to prove there is no God," but if I try to come up with some other explanation of why apparently gratuitous suffering could still exist if there was a God, that's not allowed because it's circular reasoning? In that case there's no point in having a discussion at all.
The problem is that I am not seeing another explanation, only excuses for not having them. They are "are beyond our grasp".
And you really should call me out on my assumptions too!
Pix
Hey Pix.
I was addressing my Comment to Joe.
I guess I should have designated that.
Do we really all base our justification for actions on consequences? Maybe.
Aren't some actions inherently wrong?
Do we judge based on immediate consequences or further removed? And consequences for whom?
For example could the eventual creation of a Jewish homeland be used to justify the Holocaust?
Joe made mention of poverty teaching patience. Who makes the judgement that the one justifies the other?
In the case of some divine power, are we in no position to judge the evil in the world, because we cannot see the consequence that God can? Should we then live life, resigned to whatever life may throw at us?
Hey CB, consequentialism is what (in the days of my youth) we used to call teleological ethics. The eternal content is a matter of outcome.
No I am not a consequentialist; I am against it un the sense of teleological ethics. I am a deontologist. We have duty and obligation that stands behind rule keeping and ethics is based upon that.
Poverty teaching patents is nit an ethical question, Any ethical view would be compatible.
Anonymous said...
Pix: How does free will stop God from curing cancer before anyone knows about it?
Joe: God's existence being thought a fact would be coercive. Just as gravity or cause and effect are obligatory; belief in God being obligatory would wipe out faith and cause resentment,
A lot to unpack there.
Not a fact
The big blunder here is that you missed where I said "before anyone knows about it". It would be trivial for God to kill a cell as it becomes cancerous, given he is all-knowing and all-powerful, and that would stop cancer completely, without anyone ever knowing they had cancer or God was involved in stopping it.
God acting in nature is a matter of faith, WE cant exercise faith if we dot knw about it.
Your response here is assuming people know about it, so misses the point entirely.
see above
Resentment
Pax: Do you think people resent gravity? I am sure you do not, but that is what you are implying here. Gravity is obligatory, and you seem to argue that it is therefore coercive. If something is obligatory, people will resent it, apparently!
Gravity doesn't want your obedience. That's the ground of resentment. God says I must not screw but I want to screw, and stuff like that.
Pix: How about the moon? It clearly exists, and, using your reasoning, that fact is coercive, and hence people will resent the moon. That is clearly nonsense, so you need to explain why people would resent God but do not resent gravity or the moon.
They will not resent God because he exists. They will resent him because HE makes demands on their attitudes and behaviors.
Faith
[This is a word with so many meanings; I understand it here to be the belief in something for which there is little to no evidence.]
there is clearly a ton of evidence, I have 52 arguments on Doxa. this atheist bull shit designed to cover the fact beat a single God argument. That has nothing to do with faith. Not the definition of faith,
Why is faith so important to God? Is he testing us? Is he judging us by our ability to believe in something for which there is scant evidence?
faith is at the basis of a love relationship. Faith necessitates trust without trust love becomes paranoia.
You have published books that purport to give us good reason to think God exists. You seem to be working to destroy faith! If people read your books and therefore realise God must exist, then they will not have faith.
Your definition of faith is atheist propaganda. it's designed to make belief seem stupid.
Jesus
[I mentioned this before, but it is relevant here.]
If we believe the gospels, then Jesus proved God exists to his disciples. Therefore, according to your logic, he wiped out their faith!
Faith has nothing to do with the evidential level of a belief system. In a marriage the partners must trust each other at some point. Trust requires faith in the other, yet they do not question the existence of the other
Pix, I appreciate your thoughtful and civil reply. Yes, I will actually call out one of your assumptions. In taking your stand on the idea of only believing what you have hard evidence for, you are overlooking the fact that at least some of your beliefs are not based on evidence at all, but on what seems logical to you. For instance, there is no hard evidence supporting the proposition that everything that exists can be proved through hard evidence. This is something you believe because your reason seems to support it, not because it can somehow be proven. Then, because of your focus on hard evidence, you have misunderstood the opening argument, which is not an argument about proving the existence of God through evidence. It's a logical argument about whether or not the existence of suffering constitutes conclusive evidence that there is no God. You look at it through your underlying assumptions, you see that suffering exists, and that suffering weighs in your mind as hard evidence against the existence of God. So there you are. You're done, and it's hard to figure out why I don't just agree.
But if you look at the question in terms of logic, it actually goes like this: If A exists, then B cannot exist (A being gratuitous suffering and B being a loving God.) So I address it through another logical argument. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that B exists (this is not circular reasoning because it's for the sake of the argument only). If B existed, would that existence possibly add a new element C? And would C have any effect on A? In my argument, C is the existence of immortality, which is the logical corollary of the existence of B (God). If B exists, C exists. If C exists, then A (suffering) must be viewed not just as a physical thing in a physical universe of beings that suffer and then cease to exist. C means that suffering, looked at through the perspective of immortality, may not actually ever be gratuitous at all. So. If B and C are true, then A is not a thing.
So, if you take for the sake of argument that B exists, then A is no longer the hard evidence against B that it seems to be. No, I haven't proven B-- B is still just for the sake of argument. But what I have done is show that the argument "If A exists, B cannot exist" doesn't actually hold water logically.
Joe: No I am not a consequentialist; I am against it un the sense of teleological ethics. I am a deontologist. We have duty and obligation that stands behind rule keeping and ethics is based upon that.
Who decides those duties and obligations? How does that entity communicate them? How can you be sure you have them right?
Does God have duties and obligations? If not, that would make him amoral.
If so, who to? Himself? Is there a difference between have a duty to yourself to having no duties?
Joe: Poverty teaching patents is nit an ethical question, Any ethical view would be compatible.
The issue is whether allowing poverty becomes ethical if it teaches patience. I do not think it does, but I guess the argument could be made from a consequentialist view. Perhaps you can explain how, under a deontologist viewpoint?
Joe: God acting in nature is a matter of faith, WE cant exercise faith if we dot knw about it.
1. So if God does a miracle that we know about that wipes out faith, and if God does a miracle that we do know about that prevents us exercising faith. And so God is unable to do anything! So much for being all powerful.
2. God doing a miracle that we do not know about is identical to God not doing a miracle from our perspective. Either way if looks like God did nothing. So if God does nothing then presumably, given what you say here, we cannot exercise faith, right?
Joe: Gravity doesn't want your obedience. That's the ground of resentment. God says I must not screw but I want to screw, and stuff like that.
Gravity says you cannot fly. Try disobeying the law of gravity and see how far you get.
Joe: They will not resent God because he exists. They will resent him because HE makes demands on their attitudes and behaviors.
So really it is a PR issue. God is like the IRS; he demands of us something we may not want to do. The IRS demands that we pay taxes while God demands that, for example, we are chaste outside of marriage. No one likes the IRS, so God's solution is to remain hidden.
Let us imagine the IRS used the same approach. They keep their existence secret, but put out hints that people might want to pay money to the government to support education and defence, and even set up centres where you can do that, though it is not at all clear what happens to the money. There have tax inspectors who go around preaching that workers should pay tax, but the IRS refuses to confirm it actually exists.
Then you retire. Some people are okay; they believed and paid their taxes. Most people - about two thirds of them - did not, however. Indeed, most of them realised they had been giving money to made-up government departments that do not exist! And now all those people are saddled with a huge tax bill, just as they retired and have no way to pay it.
How much resentment do you think all those people feel towards the IRS at this point?
Pix
Faith
Pix: [This is a word with so many meanings; I understand it here to be the belief in something for which there is little to no evidence.]
Joe: there is clearly a ton of evidence, I have 52 arguments on Doxa. this atheist bull shit designed to cover the fact beat a single God argument. That has nothing to do with faith. Not the definition of faith,
Seriousy? You previously stated:
"God's existence being thought a fact would be coercive. Just as gravity or cause and effect are obligatory; belief in God being obligatory would wipe out faith and cause resentment,"
And now you want to say it has nothing to do with faith?
You want to believe there is a ton of evidence for God, and yet your argument here is predicated on God's existence being uncertain. You cannot have it both ways.
Joe: faith is at the basis of a love relationship. Faith necessitates trust without trust love becomes paranoia.
What does the word mean when you used it previously? How about "complete trust or confidence in someone or something"? Shall we see how that fits your previous argument?
Can you explain how God's existence being thought a fact would wipe out complete trust or confidence in him? I have faith my chair will support me. Knowing that it exists only helps that faith, it does not wipe it out.
Joe: Your definition of faith is atheist propaganda. it's designed to make belief seem stupid.
But I could give a definition, and you cannot apparently. Why is that? Because your argument depends on flipping between definitions as-and-when convenience. Give me YOUR definition, Joe, and we can look at your earlier claim again.
Joe: Faith has nothing to do with the evidential level of a belief system. In a marriage the partners must trust each other at some point. Trust requires faith in the other, yet they do not question the existence of the other
And yet earlier you said "God's existence being thought a fact ... would wipe out faith..."! I think you have some explaining to do.
Pix
Kristen: Yes, I will actually call out one of your assumptions. In taking your stand on the idea of only believing what you have hard evidence for, you are overlooking the fact that at least some of your beliefs are not based on evidence at all, but on what seems logical to you. For instance, there is no hard evidence supporting the proposition that everything that exists can be proved through hard evidence. This is something you believe because your reason seems to support it, not because it can somehow be proven.
What we believe and why is obviously a complex subject, and I have different reasons to believe different things, and different degrees of certainty that I am right. I want "hard evidence" to believe something exists, but a proposition does not exist, and I would never expect to have hard evidence to support one.
I am not sure I actually do believe the proposition that everything that exists can be proved through hard evidence. For example, it is entirely reasonable to suppose another universe that does not intersect with our own, and therefore we could never have evidence that it exists.
However, that situation is quite unlike the issue of God being real. God supposedly does interact with this universe, and more specifically with people, so in that instance we definitely would expect to see hard evidence that he is real. My reasons for rejecting God is the lack of hard evidence where we would expect there to be hard evidence.
Kristen: But if you look at the question in terms of logic, it actually goes like this: If A exists, then B cannot exist (A being gratuitous suffering and B being a loving God.) So I address it through another logical argument. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that B exists (this is not circular reasoning because it's for the sake of the argument only). If B existed, would that existence possibly add a new element C? And would C have any effect on A? In my argument, C is the existence of immortality, which is the logical corollary of the existence of B (God). If B exists, C exists. If C exists, then A (suffering) must be viewed not just as a physical thing in a physical universe of beings that suffer and then cease to exist. C means that suffering, looked at through the perspective of immortality, may not actually ever be gratuitous at all. So. If B and C are true, then A is not a thing.
It still looks like wishful thinking to me. Can you suggest a way in which the suffering is not gratuitous? Or are you just hoping that there is some way to rationise it? I appreciate we cannot know, but your argument would be so much stronger if you at least had one idea. One idea that makes sense.
Kristen: So, if you take for the sake of argument that B exists, then A is no longer the hard evidence against B that it seems to be. No, I haven't proven B-- B is still just for the sake of argument. But what I have done is show that the argument "If A exists, B cannot exist" doesn't actually hold water logically.
I said to Joe earlier:
Which is more probable?
1. God exists, and every single instance of cancer results in an overall benefit for the victim
2. God does not exist, and at least some instances of cancer result in a negative outcome
At the end of the day, we approach this with different assumptions and so reach different conclusions. However, to me the fact that no Christian can even suggest a possible rationale that justifies cancer only makes it more probable that God is not real.
Pix
Pix, you said: "God supposedly does interact with this universe, and more specifically with people, so in that instance we definitely would expect to see hard evidence that he is real. My reasons for rejecting God is the lack of hard evidence where we would expect there to be hard evidence."
Can you indicate what hard evidence you would expect to see, and why? I do see a good deal of evidence, but none that renders God's reality a certainty, for reasons that I have explained before. Does only evidence that would make it a certainty, count?
With regards to this: "Can you suggest a way in which the suffering is not gratuitous? Or are you just hoping that there is some way to rationalise it? I appreciate we cannot know, but your argument would be so much stronger if you at least had one idea. One idea that makes sense."
Well, here's a scenario I can certainly imagine. Suppose that I die of cancer and leave my body, and discover that I am immortal. I enter the realm or zone of immortality, and from that place I look back on my life, my suffering and my death, and I realize that the experience, terrible as it was, has had an indelible effect on the being that I now am, in terms of depth of character, wisdom, courage, compassion, and insight that will help me immeasurably towards the new growth and development that I now want to make in my new state of being. Is that helpful to you at all?
Post a Comment