Some observations on the problem of evil

[UndercoverElephant]

So you believe the world is "real" because you would go insane if you didn't? No problem.

I cannot prove I am not a solipsist, which is basically the same issue. But if I really believed I was a solipsist, and nobody else existed, I would go crazy, yes.

You would choose to believe exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason in a virtual world.
You would be as convinced that your world is real as you are now. And I would be just as convinced that it is a completely unimportant distinction.

It doesn't matter whether the other sentient creatures in this world are zombies? It matters to me.

 

[Bri]

Quite obviously if suffering now, leads to less net suffering in the future then it may be justified. But we are still making the assumption that sufferring is bad. If our morality is based on the Christian principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" then this pretty much implies that we must act to reduce sufferring, because none of us want to suffer.

Yes, that is correct that we should reduce overall suffering as much as we can. That is not to say that all suffering is "bad" however, since some suffering leads to less suffering, such as a doctor giving an injection to an ill child. In determining what is morally right or wrong, we can only consider the forseeable consequences and choose the action that we think will lead to the greatest good.

The same would have to hold for God -- that he too must consider the forseeable consequences of his actions to do what will lead to the greatest good. That may, in fact, involve causing suffering just as a doctor might cause an ill child to suffer in order to cure him. Just as a child doesn't understand the longer-term consequences of receiving an injection, we cannot possibly understand the long-term consequences of what God does. Nonetheless, the injection and suffering inflicted by God might both be for a greater good.

Now, Robin seems to be suggesting that if we believe that the injection is for the greater good of the ill child, then we are suddenly stripped of our ability to make a moral decision as to whether to comfort the child in order to reduce his suffering. That is, of course, rediculous.

-Bri

 

[chriswl]

Because the alternative is metaphysical slavery. You seem to think the only things which matter in this life are visible (physical, detectable) objects. This is not true. What could be more valuable than the freedom to determine your own destiny!? If you don't understand this, I have no idea how to explain it to you. If you had to choose between the freedom to determine your own destiny and living in a co-ordinated reality where you have no control whatsoever over your decisions and destiny you are trying to tell me you would choose the latter.

If the two experiences were indistinguishable to me, why would I prefer one to the other? Why is "real" free will better, from my perspective, than a perfect illusion of free will? The difference is only detectable from an external perspective that I can never have.

I have actually assumed, for a long time now, that the world is deterministic on the macro scale and that we therefore have no free will in the sense that you demand. The evidence of science points strongly to this conclusion, I think, with the exception of quantum mechanics. But it's not at all clear that mere quantum randomness can be said to correspond to the sort of freedom you want. Nor is it clear that our decisions are affected by quantum randomness.

So I think it is safe to say that I have no problem living in a deterministic universe as I believe I am already living in one. The compatibilist free will I have feels just like freedom to me.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If the two experiences were indistinguishable to me, why would I prefer one to the other? Why is "real" free will better, from my perspective, than a perfect illusion of free will? The difference is only detectable from an external perspective that I can never have.

For all the reasons I have just stated! You are just repeating yourself. You are still claiming that if someone came along and stripped you of your free will that you would not care. I don't believe you.

I have actually assumed, for a long time now, that the world is deterministic on the macro scale and that we therefore have no free will in the sense that you demand.

In which case your answers are being influenced by the fact that you do not believe you have free will to begin with.

The evidence of science points strongly to this conclusion, I think, with the exception of quantum mechanics.

Which is a pretty big exception, and means that the scientific evidence has nothing to say on the matter. We have no empirical answer to the question.

So I think it is safe to say that I have no problem living in a deterministic universe as I believe I am already living in one. The compatibilist free will I have feels just like freedom to me.

Well, you can live your robotic life and I'll live my free one. But if you could threaten to take away my free will and chose to do so, I would kill you. That's how much it matters. Nothing is more important.

 

[rocketdodger]

Then you are talking about some sort of world that bears no resemblance whatsoever to our own. In which case, I have no idea what you might mean.

What if I told you that I could make an extremely good case for the claim that most of the evil done to humans by other humans is the logical result of leftover animal instincts combined with greater than animal intelligence?

Assuming that claim is true, then wouldn't it be relatively easy to not have implanted those instincts in the first place, thereby preventing much of the evil in the world? I don't see how that is far-fetched at all..

 

[chriswl]

Yes, that is correct that we should reduce overall suffering as much as we can. That is not to say that all suffering is "bad" however, since some suffering leads to less suffering, such as a doctor giving an injection to an ill child. In determining what is morally right or wrong, we can only consider the forseeable consequences and choose the action that we think will lead to the greatest good.

The same would have to hold for God -- that he too must consider the forseeable consequences of his actions to do what will lead to the greatest good. That may, in fact, involve causing suffering just as a doctor might cause an ill child to suffer in order to cure him. Just as a child doesn't understand the longer-term consequences of receiving an injection, we cannot possibly understand the long-term consequences of what God does. Nonetheless, the injection and suffering inflicted by God might both be for a greater good.

But in the case of the child we can see quite clearly how the greater good might come about. No doubt there are some cases where apparently bad things lead to unforseeable good consequences, but to justify God's perfect goodness this has to be the case for all bad things that are not the fault of humans. This is pure wishful thinking. There is no reason for anyone to believe such a bizarre thing.

You can't just assume that God somehow makes this happen and we can't understand how because he's God. We need to understand how it could be logically possible for God to do this - God cannot do logically impossible things. How could it be true that no suffering or premature death is ever pointless?

 

[chriswl]

For all the reasons I have just stated! You are just repeating yourself. You are still claiming that if someone came along and stripped you of your free will that you would not care. I don't believe you.

I wouldn't know, therefore I couldn't care. Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Bri]

Which is a pretty big exception, and means that the scientific evidence has nothing to say on the matter. We have no empirical answer to the question.

Actually, chriswl is correct on this. The scientific evidence that is available would suggest that free will does not exist. Of course, that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist, just that the currently-available evidence suggests otherwise. I'm afraid that quantum theory doesn't help in this matter either. At best, it simply replaces causation with randomness, neither of which allows for free will as you would define it.

But, if you believe in God, then free will is a fairly simple leap from there. If God exists, then he could certainly arrange for free will despite any evidence to the contrary.

-Bri

 

[rocketdodger]

But, if you believe in God, then free will is a fairly simple leap from there. If God exists, then he could certainly arrange for free will despite any evidence to the contrary.

-Bri

Unless, of course, you think that god is omniscient and omnipotent across all of time. Then you are pretty much f---ed.

Or, unless, of course, you think that there is some judgement going on, and you will burn forever in the fires of "hell" if you make the wrong choices. Then free will pretty much flies out the window too...

God: "choose either the Snickers bar, or the Milky Way -- Oh, and BTW, if you choose Snickers, a giant blade will sever your arm. Feel free to make either choice, my child."

Me: "Um......."

 

[Bri]

But in the case of the child we can see quite clearly how the greater good might come about.

But the child cannot. That in no way changes the greater good that might come about from the injection, but does illustrates that the child may not be able to understand it, and therefore cannot see the good that might come from it. Likewise, it makes sense that we cannot understand all of the variables, and therefore may not be able to understand the greater good that might come about from God's actions. But God could.

No doubt there are some cases where apparently bad things lead to unforseeable good consequences, but to justify God's perfect goodness this has to be the case for all bad things that are not the fault of humans. This is pure wishful thinking. There is no reason for anyone to believe such a bizarre thing.

It is quite possible that all seemingly bad things that are not the fault of humans are for a greater good. In order to state as a fact that this is not the case (rather than just as your opinion), you would have to prove that it is impossible. I don't think you can do that.

You can't just assume that God somehow makes this happen and we can't understand how because he's God. We need to understand how it could be logically possible for God to do this - God cannot do logically impossible things. How could it be true that no suffering or premature death is ever pointless?

There are many true things about our universe that we don't understand. It is logically possible because it's not logically impossible (in other words, it could be true). Simple as that.

Now your second point about whether God can do the logically impossible is a discussion for another thread. Some theists believe that God created logic itself and is therefore not limited by it. However, human understanding is limited to logic, so if God can do the logically impossible, we would have no basis at all for discussing it. So, for the purposes of this discussion, we must assume that God is limited to doing the logically possible.

That said, it is logically possible that no suffering or premature death is ever pointless.

-Bri

 

[rocketdodger]

Now your second point about whether God can do the logically impossible is a discussion for another thread. Some theists believe that God created logic itself and is therefore not limited by it. However, human understanding is limited to logic, so if God can do the logically impossible, we would have no basis at all for discussing it. So, for the purposes of this discussion, we must assume that God is limited to doing the logically possible.

No, no theists (well, no theists worth listening to) seriously consider that god can do the logically impossible. Under no circumstances can a square be a circle, there isn't any god that could do it. God could redefine what it means to be a square and a circle, but it wouldn't change the original concept. If you think so, it is pure poppycock and you might as well drink houses and drive pencils.

What many theists do believe is that god can do things that are not logically impossible but are beyond our current logic. In other words, there may be a whole realm of possibile things that we simply cannot imagine because they are outside our logic. But it is pointless to argue about such things because we can't even conceive of them. Indeed, their definition would be ONLY that we can't know anything about them, not even the fact that we can't know anything about them.

 

[Bri]

Unless, of course, you think that god is omniscient and omnipotent across all of time. Then you are pretty much f---ed.

This has already been discussed on this thread. It is possible for a timeless, omnipotent, omniscient being to be able to know future events that are the result of free will by observing them.

Or, unless, of course, you think that there is some judgement going on, and you will burn forever in the fires of "hell" if you make the wrong choices. Then free will pretty much flies out the window too...

Are you suggesting that the Christian belief of judgement after death precludes a Christian from being able to make free choices? Given that Christians make immoral choices all the time, I somehow doubt that's the case.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No, no theists (well, no theists worth listening to) seriously consider that god can do the logically impossible.

Quite a statement on your part there.

Under no circumstances can a square be a circle, there isn't any god that could do it. God could redefine what it means to be a square and a circle, but it wouldn't change the original concept. If you think so, it is pure poppycock and you might as well drink houses and drive pencils.

Some theists do indeed believe that God could create a square circle, if he so chose, by changing the laws of logic. I'm in agreement that such possibilities aren't worth discussing, because we have no basis for discussing them.

What many theists do believe is that god can do things that are not logically impossible but are beyond our current logic. In other words, there may be a whole realm of possibile things that we simply cannot imagine because they are outside our logic. But it is pointless to argue about such things because we can't even conceive of them. Indeed, their definition would be ONLY that we can't know anything about them, not even the fact that we can't know anything about them.

I don't understand the distinction you're making here between the logically impossible and that which is "beyond our current logic." Can you provide an example?

-Bri

 

[chriswl]

It is quite possible that all seemingly bad things that are not the fault of humans are for a greater good. In order to state as a fact that this is not the case (rather than just as your opinion), you would have to prove that it is impossible. I don't think you can do that.

I don't have to prove that it is impossible until you have provided a coherent argument for me to refute. I simply don't know what you could mean by "greater good" in this case.

 

[rocketdodger]

This has already been discussed on this thread. It is possible for a timeless, omnipotent, omniscient being to be able to know future events that are the result of free will by observing them.

It may have already been discussed but I don't agree that it is possible. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.

The only way an entity could know "future" events in our world is if it existed in more dimensions than us. But if this is the case, then there is no such thing as free will, because it implies we exist in a finite number of dimensions.

You seem to be of the school which suggests that god somehow is able to view the known 4 dimensions within which we function, in their entirety. That may be the case. It is easy to predict the value of a function at any point in a finite dimensional space (provided you have enough computing power, something I assume you think god has) as long as nothing outside that space intereferes. But in that case (no outside interference), would you explain to me how free will could possibly exist?

The only argument for the possibility of god being able to know the future AND humans having complete free will is the appeal to complete ignorance that we all must turn to at the very deepest levels of metaphysics. But that argument is simply an "I don't know..." It is NOT possible to argue that these two states can coexist using our current logic and mathematics.

 

[Bri]

I don't have to prove that it is impossible until you have provided a coherent argument for me to refute.

No, you don't have to prove that it is impossible, but be clear that your belief that it is impossible is simply your opinion and not fact.

-Bri

 

[rocketdodger]

I don't understand the distinction you're making here between the logically impossible and that which is "beyond our current logic." Can you provide an example?

Well, a logical impossibility is a square circle.

An example of something beyond our current logic is the metaphysical question of existence. We simply cannot imagine either self-existence or spontaneous existence -- and by that I mean we have no clue at all. We can't even say whether they would be similar or dissimilar to our current notion of existence as a location in an infinite series. We can't think about them at all except to give them the terms "self existence" and "spontaneous existence."

 

[Bri]

It may have already been discussed but I don't agree that it is possible. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.

This was discussed in detail some time ago on another thread. It would be decidedly off-topic to discuss it here, but you could probably do a search and read through that other thread. Although it seems counter-intuitive because we are limited by time, a being who is not limited by time could view any moment of the timeline at will and would be able to observe future events, including those that are the result of free will.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Well, a logical impossibility is a square circle.

An example of something beyond our current logic is the metaphysical question of existence. We simply cannot imagine either self-existence or spontaneous existence -- and by that I mean we have no clue at all. We can't even say whether they would be similar or dissimilar to our current notion of existence as a location in an infinite series. We can't think about them at all except to give them the terms "self existence" and "spontaneous existence."

I'm afraid I still don't understand what you mean by "beyond our current logic."

Some theists do hold that God created logic itself, is beyond logic, and could therefore change logic and do the logically impossible. Others simply hold that God can do the physically impossible (making a pig fly) but not the logically impossible (making a circle square). Unfortunately, we cannot begin to understand the former and therefore must assume the latter for the purposes of discussion.

-Bri

 

[rocketdodger]

Although it seems counter-intuitive because we are limited by time, a being who is not limited by time could view any moment of the timeline at will and would be able to observe future events, including those that are the result of free will.

I am not talking about time at all. And it is not counter-intuitive, it is impossible.

You think that I am measuring free will by our ability to alter events along our timeline. That is merely a part of free will (it just so happens to be the part that we observe).

So if you are saying that god could know all the events that have occured and will occur in the four dimensions that we currently consider our universe, I would completely agree. But this isn't free will...

The fact is, if free will exists in a deeper sense, then there cannot be a god that knows all events in all dimensions. The two are mutually exclusive.