Some observations on the problem of evil

[Z]

So you keep saying. But you can only justify it in generalised terms of "God is so powerful, I'm sure he could do it...." without looking at the details of my explanation as to why it may well be impossible.

Don't confuse your own cognitive limitations with what is is possible in reality.

These two sentances are so amusing together...

You, who would limit God to being nothing more than a natural force (and, therefore, unworthy of being considered a god), claim I have 'cognitive limitations' for claiming that a logically consistant universe has no place for a god?

After all, look closely at your argument, Jeff - you're saying that God has to make a life-supporting world via entirely natural, entirely purposeless forces of nature - in other words, that God is irrelevant and unnecessary to explain how life exists at all. Sure, you can say, 'Well, God set it all in motion so that it would eventually happen this way'... but that still limits God to a position of either uselessness or inferiority. If, instead, as I was pointing out, we take a meaning of God that has purpose and supposed superiority (such as the alleged Abrahamist God), then we have a divine being who would be capable of creating a life-sustaining environment without the need for naturally occuring chains of action-reaction - and, therefore, without the requirement for natural disasters.

What it really boils down to for most atheists, I'd say, is if God has the power to make a better world, and doesn't, He's unworthy of worship; and if God lacks the power to make a better world, He's unworthy of notice. Kind of a lose-lose situation, IMHO.

For my own part, I think the development of life was an interesting and unexpected side effect, nothing more.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

These two sentances are so amusing together...

Do you think that was accidental or deliberate?

After all, look closely at your argument, Jeff - you're saying that God has to make a life-supporting world via entirely natural, entirely purposeless forces of nature - in other words, that God is irrelevant and unnecessary to explain how life exists at all.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. You want to say either God designed everything down to the last detail and engineers history or there can be no such things as God. That is a straightforward false dichotomy. You are imposing your own conceptual limitations (which appear to be dictated by Christianity) on to the situation.

What it really boils down to for most atheists, I'd say, is if God has the power to make a better world, and doesn't, He's unworthy of worship.

Which is why I keep telling you this is the best possible world.

 

[Z]

You are setting up a false dichotomy. You want to say either God designed everything down to the last detail and engineers history or there can be no such things as God. That is a straightforward false dichotomy. You are imposing your own conceptual limitations (which appear to be dictated by Christianity) on to the situation.

Not at all. My own view is that the Divine engineered the basic physical constants of our universe, set the whole thing in motion, and sat back, not taking any noticable part in the universe which It created. This means the Divine exists, but is irrelevant (as regards issues such as worship, morality, etc.).

Your reading comprehension could use some sharpening.

Which is why I keep telling you this is the best possible world.

And I disagree. I believe a far better world could exist - even under the laws of physics - and definitely under Divine will. That it doesn't shows that the Divine lacks the same mode of morality that humans would attempt to impose upon It. Frankly, I think the Divine exists, but doesn't care much one way or another about what we consider 'morality', 'good', or 'evil'.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

ZD,

Your reading comprehension could use some sharpening.

Sorry, but the level of debate I get from you doesn't warrant me continuing to read your posts.

Geoff

 

[Z]

ZD,



Sorry, but the level of debate I get from you doesn't warrant me continuing to read your posts.

Geoff

Understood.

When you reach up to my level, we'll talk.

 

[Robin]

Let me say two things. First, when I spoke of a person's response to suffering, my primary motivation was to object to the notion that inaction could be the moral response, because it seemed to me that whatever good was intended to be realized by the suffering in the first place (regardless of whether that good was somehow bound up with the response or opportunity for response), the total amount of actualized goodness would be greater if the bystander responds compassionately than if he does not. I was not really focusing on such questions as:

Don't forget that the implied premise, (the Agnostic Defense) is that we are intrinsically incapable of judging the ultimate value of any individual instance of suffering.

So we have no way of knowing whether acting compassionately will increase or decrease actualised goodness. Assumptions about whether individual actions increase or decrease good cannot be part of the logic.

If the only thing we know about a situation is that a benevolent, omnipotent God has arranged that this suffering is specifically and individually necessary to some greater good then of course the only moral action would be to stand back and let that good eventuate.

Just as in a hospital we see a patient suffering but know him to be in the active care of an ethical and competent doctor, the good of the patient would not be helped by our acting compassionately and attempting to ease the suffering of the patient. Our inept intervention could lead to calamity.

The moral action in either case is to do nothing, unless specifically asked.

But now that you've posed them, I submit that we don't know the answer to your questions.

1. It is logically possible that Mr. B's suffering would provoke a different moral outcome than Mr. A's.

No doubt - in fact that is already stipulated in my premise.

But we are considering whether it is logically possible that Mr. B's suffering would provoke a different moral response than Mr A's.

2. Imagine that we were able to plot a graph of overall goodness brought about as a function of the degree of Mr. A's suffering. It is intuitively plausible that the plotted curve could have a single highest point on it. I can't logically exclude the possibility that net goodness (whether bound up in Mr. Y's response, the requirements of justice, or something else) is negatively affected if we move off of that point and Mr. A suffers just a bit more or a bit less. Even if I could foresee all of the consequences, I have no knowledge that would permit me to weigh the intrinsic value of virtue (or some other good) versus that of suffering.

I have no way of determining whether suffering is individually and specifically necessary to either (i) the moral good of the response or (ii) any other moral good possibly occasioned by the suffering.

The problem is that if you are attempting to show that it is logically possible that an individual instance of suffering can be individually and specifically necessary to the moral response, then you must limit your argument to the moral response and not the overall goodness brought about by the suffering.

Perhaps that graph could be plotted but Mr Y could not plot that graph (again, from the theist premise). The overall goodness of the result cannot be part of Mr Y's moral response and it cannot be part of the logic of the argument.

So this objection could not be considered unless it can be reframed only in terms of Mr Y's moral response and not in terms of the overall moral outcome.

Now it seems to me my moral framework ought to be consistent across each situation that I encounter. That I ought to apply a consistent set of morals to each situation. I ought not to apply one moral standard to men and another to women. I ought not to apply one moral standard to my own race and another to different races.

I ought not, but of course I am human. If I fail in this and apply different moral standards, then the weakness is entirely mine and nothing to do with the person of another race or another sex that I encounter. It is in fact a part of my moral response.

So if I help people on a racist or sexist basis then this does not depend on which race or sex I encounter, but on my own prejudices. Racism, it is well understood, is not the fault of the victim.

So let us suppose that Mr. A produces one specific moral response in Mr. Y and Mr. B another - for whatever reason. The difference between those responses depends, not on Mr A, or Mr B, but on Mr Y.

If Mr Y treats Mr A one way does that change the fact that he would have treated Mr B another way?

If Mr Y treats Mr B one way does that change the fact that he would have treated Mr A another?

So whether it is Mr A or Mr B has not changed the basic moral response, applied to different situations.

In other words it is illogical that one instance of suffering can be individually and specifically necessary to the moral response to it.

 

[Robin]

This is what I mean about unavoidable suffering. The following is a hypothesis only:

People have asked: why couldn't we eliminate the suffering from earthquakes by having a planet to live on where there are no earthquakes? This is a good example, because it can show what I mean by logically unavoidable suffering for the greater good. There's a reason why there are earthquakes on this planet, but no earthquakes on Mars. The Earth is still geologically active partially because it is bigger than mars, but this is not the primary reason. The primary reason is because Earth has a much higher proportion of heavy radioactive elements in it's core in proportion to it's size. There is a reason for this, too. The Earth-Moon system was created by the collision of two planets. The moon is made of the lightest bits that were ejected furthest from the collision zone and the Earth is made from the cores of both planets plus whatever was left over. So we got a double dose of the heavy stuff. This is also why there is so much iron on Earth and why the planet has such a large iron/nickel core. Why does this matter? It matters because life on earth is absolutely dependent on that disproportionately large iron-nickel core because it is the reason why the Earth has a powerful-enough magnetic field to deflect the solar wind and prevent life on earth from being frazzled with solar radiation. We need that magnetic field, so we need the massive iron/nickel core and there is no way to end up with a massive iron/nickel core without ending up with the radioactive elements which cause that core to heat up, inevitably resulting in earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis at the surface.

You appear to be saying that God is at the mercy of the laws of physics.

God could (according to definition) choose any laws of physics he wanted. Otherwise he could not be termed the creator of the universe.

 

[Z]

You appear to be saying that God is at the mercy of the laws of physics.

God could (according to definition) choose any laws of physics he wanted. Otherwise he could not be termed the creator of the universe.

You said, much more succinctly, what I was trying to mean...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You appear to be saying that God is at the mercy of the laws of physics.

Not quite. I am saying that God as at the mercy of the laws of logic, and that this has the further effect of restricting any reality which can actually exist to existing within a set of self-consistent laws. Just as God cannot create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it, God cannot create a Universe which is itself internally inconsisent/incoherent. Even God cannot create something which is inherently uncreatable. No square circles. Therefore any possible physical Universe must be arranged according to some set of laws. We have already noted that the laws of physics, as they stand, arguably allow for indeterminism (QM), so "being at the mercy of the laws of physics/logic" doesn't imply "being at the mercy of the laws of probability." In other words, God can act in the world but only within the laws of physics, and that means "loading the quantum dice". What he cannot do, for example, is create a perpetual motion machine (or a planet with a large magnetic field but no geological activity).

God could (according to definition) choose any laws of physics he wanted. Otherwise he could not be termed the creator of the universe.

He cannot set up a logically-inconsistent reality. EVERYTHING has to "add up properly". He cannot create a world where everybody is rich and nobody is poor, because in reality the poor support the lifestyle of the rich. You cannot have the top of a pyramid without a bottom to support it. He cannot create a world where there is no death but organisms are still capable of a(genetically) adapting. There are loads of examples like this. I am clearly stating that God had no means of "creating" humans other than by a process of evolution, which may or may not have been "nudged in the right direction" from time to time.

 

[Z]

Not quite. I am saying that God as at the mercy of the laws of logic, and that this has the further effect of restricting any reality which can actually exist to existing within a set of self-consistent laws. Just as God cannot create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it, God cannot create a Universe which is itself internally inconsisent/incoherent. Even God cannot create something which is inherently uncreatable. No square circles. Therefore any possible physical Universe must be arranged according to some set of laws. We have already noted that the laws of physics, as they stand, arguably allow for indeterminism (QM), so "being at the mercy of the laws of physics/logic" doesn't imply "being at the mercy of the laws of probability." In other words, God can act in the world but only within the laws of physics, and that means "loading the quantum dice". What he cannot do, for example, is create a perpetual motion machine (or a planet with a large magnetic field but no geological activity).



He cannot set up a logically-inconsistent reality. EVERYTHING has to "add up properly". He cannot create a world where everybody is rich and nobody is poor, because in reality the poor support the lifestyle of the rich. You cannot have the top of a pyramid without a bottom to support it. He cannot create a world where there is no death but organisms are still capable of a(genetically) adapting. There are loads of examples like this. I am clearly stating that God had no means of "creating" humans other than by a process of evolution, which may or may not have been "nudged in the right direction" from time to time.

So the laws of logic supercede God's power?

Then He's unworthy of worship.

And God can't create something that couldn't have come about by purely random chance?

Then He's unnecessary.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So the laws of logic supercede God's power?

Absolutely. If they did not do so then it would be possible for God to create square circles and stones so heavy that even he couldn't lift them. The laws of logic are unbreakable, even by God.

Then He's unworthy of worship.

1) I don't remember saying anything about God wanting to be worshiped. It's not really anything to do with this thread.
2) Not being able to create a square circle is not a limitation.

And God can't create something that couldn't have come about by purely random chance?

Correct, but it can still be the case that the probability of it coming about purely by chance is infinitesimally small. But strictly speaking this is true. Even if the randomness in QM is actually determined by acts of will, whatever happens could still have happened if the randomness was truly random. It is possible to throw ten thousand consecutive sixes with a dice, but if I actually did it in front of you I still suspect you'd think something fishy was going on.....

 

[Tricky]

The only correct application of the word "evil" is for human actions which deliberately cause suffering to others for no good reason.

I almost agree with your definition, but have a problem with the word "good". What is a "good" reason? Isn't that a definition that is supplied by the individual? Even a self-centered reason such as "It gives me personal gratification to hear people suffering" is good enough for those who have an abnormal moral code. So once again, the question of evil resolves down to morality. There simply can never be an all-encompassing definition of evil that applies to everyone, so it is pointless to try to identify evil as a specific thing. It varies depending on moral code.

I am not suggesting that we should live without moral codes, but that they are relative, not absolute things. Almost every conception of God I have ever seen implies that He/She/It abides by a very different moral code than humans because of the difference in the definition of "good".

I submit that since it is impossible to know the moral code of God, then the existence of God is moot. How can we tell the difference between powers and plans which we cannot possibly understand versus no powers or plans?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I almost agree with your definition, but have a problem with the word "good". What is a "good" reason?

There is a good reason to cause somebody excruciating pain by cutting their leg off if the alternative is that they die from gangreen.

I am not suggesting that we should live without moral codes, but that they are relative, not absolute things. Almost every conception of God I have ever seen implies that He/She/It abides by a very different moral code than humans because of the difference in the definition of "good".

Yes, I'm not pretending its always easy to define what is good and what isn't. But the above example still stands.

I submit that since it is impossible to know the moral code of God, then the existence of God is moot.

Depends entirely on what you think God is.

How can we tell the difference between powers and plans which we cannot possibly understand versus no powers or plans?

Perhaps we can't.

 

[Tricky]

There is a good reason to cause somebody excruciating pain by cutting their leg off if the alternative is that they die from gangreen.

That's one example, but even then, suppose you were wrong about the certainty of his death from gangreen? Then you would have done him no favors, even with the best of intentions.

Of course, there are some that would argue that all disease is God's will, so you shouldn't do anything, and by their moral code, you have done evil by cutting off his leg.

When it comes to morality, there are no absolutes.

Yes, I'm not pretending its always easy to define what is good and what isn't. But the above example still stands.

No it doesn't. I just proposed a couple of alternate scenarios where the above example shows that you did not do good either because you were mistaken or because your morality is different. It is not just hard to know for sure what is good, it is impossible. But this does not mean that I advocate avoiding any moral decisions. You just have to realize that you could be wrong and damn the torpedos.

Depends entirely on what you think God is.

Not really. Can you give me an example of a concept of God where the person believing the concept is absolutely sure of what God wants in every conceivable situation? Every definition of God I have ever heard says that He is beyond our power to understand.

Perhaps we can't.

That is my conclusion and therefore atheism seems logical to me. If we don't know what God wants, there is no sense in trying to do His will. You might as well live your life as if there were no God.

 

[rocketdodger]

I would suggest that the contrary cannot be shown, so I would be unwilling to incorporate this as a premise in any version of the PoE.

The problem with this theodicy is that it is not in any way fair.

Suppose evil exists because our purpose is to develop into moral and spiritual beings (the theodicy that ceo_esq suggests) -- in other words we need evil in order to learn not to be evil.

This theodicy is unfair because the effects of one man's evil can be permanent for another. In the most extreme case, the decision to kill someone in cold blood results in one being failing the morality test (the killer) and the other being snuffed out of existence completely. What happens to him? Any way you look at it, the victim does NOT have a chance to complete his own moral growth as far as we know.

There are many less extreme cases, but the fact remains that many are unfairly permanent.

As an analogy, consider a police officer standing over another man who is beating you during a mugging. You ask the officer "why aren't you stopping this guy?" He responds "I would like to save you, but unfortunately it is more important for us to determine just how evil your attacker is -- otherwise we won't know how much to punish him!" Does this seem fair?

 

[Z]

Absolutely. If they did not do so then it would be possible for God to create square circles and stones so heavy that even he couldn't lift them. The laws of logic are unbreakable, even by God.



1) I don't remember saying anything about God wanting to be worshiped. It's not really anything to do with this thread.
2) Not being able to create a square circle is not a limitation.



Correct, but it can still be the case that the probability of it coming about purely by chance is infinitesimally small. But strictly speaking this is true. Even if the randomness in QM is actually determined by acts of will, whatever happens could still have happened if the randomness was truly random. It is possible to throw ten thousand consecutive sixes with a dice, but if I actually did it in front of you I still suspect you'd think something fishy was going on.....

Which means - that God is irrelevant. Indeed, doesn't one of those weird debate terms apply here? Like... Occam's Razor?

So, according to you, God is unnecessary to explain any naturally occuring phenomenon, and cannot act counter to the rules of logic and, therefore, the laws of nature...

The best God can do is 'nudge' probability manifestations, yes?

Well - that's what I believe, too. Funny, isn't it?

Of course, this also means that it's highly unlikely that God cares a fig about good or evil - and even if God does care, that there's really nothing God can do about it anyway...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

When it comes to morality, there are no absolutes.

Sure, but that doesn't mean there is no morality. I'm not sure how we've ended up on this subject. I was talking about neccesary suffering for the greater good, and I've given two examples: one about earthquakes and magnetic fields and one about gangreen. I don't see how the abscence of an absolute morality has any bearing on this.

No it doesn't. I just proposed a couple of alternate scenarios where the above example shows that you did not do good either because you were mistaken or because your morality is different.

This is turning into an argument about ethics which it is not supposed to be. I said that the Universe has to be internally coherent. I didn't mention ethics.

Can you give me an example of a concept of God where the person believing the concept is absolutely sure of what God wants in every conceivable situation?

Again, who said anything about God wanting things? Not me, that's for sure. Wanting is a trait of finite beings, bestowed upon us by evolution. God can't want anything.

That is my conclusion and therefore atheism seems logical to me. If we don't know what God wants, there is no sense in trying to do His will.

I never said anything about doing God's will either.

Geoff

 

[Robin]

In other words, God can act in the world but only within the laws of physics, and that means "loading the quantum dice".

He can, as I have said, operate within any laws of physics he chooses. He can do so within the laws of logic.

What he cannot do, for example, is create a perpetual motion machine (or a planet with a large magnetic field but no geological activity).

Explain to me why God cannot set up a universe in which a perpetual motion machine is possible. Explain why God could not set up some stable structure capable of maintaining life.

There appears to be no logical contradiction to this second one even with our current laws of physics, never mind any possible laws of physics.

I imagine a competent human could devise a stable structure capable of maintaining a biosphere.

By the way, you appear to be saying that randomness is intrinsically unpredictable, but ask any casino operator or bookmaker if that is true.

You can use randomness within a perfectly predictable environment.

He cannot create a world where there is no death but organisms are still capable of a(genetically) adapting.

Explain to me why God cannot create an organism that adapts without dying. I cannot see any logical contradiction here at all.

There are loads of examples like this. I am clearly stating that God had no means of "creating" humans other than by a process of evolution, which may or may not have been "nudged in the right direction" from time to time.

So the only method available to God, who could choose any laws of physics whatsoever, to create a free agent was through the process of evolution that we observe in this planet. Care to justify that?

 

[rocketdodger]

Sure, but that doesn't mean there is no morality. I'm not sure how we've ended up on this subject. I was talking about neccesary suffering for the greater good, and I've given two examples: one about earthquakes and magnetic fields and one about gangreen. I don't see how the abscence of an absolute morality has any bearing on this.

There is no such thing as a "greater good" unless there is an absolute morality in the universe. The abscence of absolute morality implies good is only a subjective concept and hence there cannot be a "greater" good in any objective sense.

This is the main reason why the "greater good" argument holds no water at all -- nobody has been able to define exactly what "good" and "evil" mean.

 

[rocketdodger]

So, according to you, God is unnecessary to explain any naturally occuring phenomenon, and cannot act counter to the rules of logic and, therefore, the laws of nature...

Um, yeah, geoff, this does seem to be what you are saying...

I see no problem with thinking such a being exists but... what good does it do other than answering a few questions that don't affect life as we know it?

From what you write your "god" is just a more advanced being... and in that case I see no reason why you would label it as "god" anyway...