The Problem of Evil

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]vroom wrote:
No, I would disagree. Right and wrong are independent concepts from the concept of a greater power, in my opinion.

If you choose to believe it defines a God, that is your right.

The simple concepts of empathy and efficiency are enough.[/quote]

Empathy and efficiency are enough for what? You wrote that right and wrong are independent concepts. No, I don’t believe that. If you have actually read through this thread, you would know that. My point to you was that, in my understanding, you are the one who simply refuses to give that concept of ultimate right the sobriquet of God. I understand that humans may have a need to believe in a concept of being a part of something greater. I wrote that much to you already. My point is, anyone who believes as such is not a true atheist. They simply don’t believe in God because they feel they need proof. That makes you agnostic, not atheist…which makes any degradation of those who actually do give the force of good the distinction of God a ridiculous action that makes little sense. Yet, that didn’t stop it from happening in this thread.

162

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:

No, I mean that we aren’t capable of telling whether God exists. Now, by “God” I mean:

A being who is the cause of all things and whose thought and will are similar to human thought and will.

The reason I qualify my definition in this way is because is just because I don’t want to call ‘The Nature of the Universe’ or ‘The Way Things Are’ or ‘The Laws of Physics’ God.[/quote]

You could have ended your entire novel…uh, I mean, post right here. This is what I have been discussing with Vroom. You simply choose to not give it the distinction of God. I choose to do so. Considering the eternal consequences, I personally would give it more than a passing fart of a thought. But hey, that’s just me.

163

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Vroom, my perception is that an atheist would logically have to assume that any concept of moral right or wrong is simply an illusion. To an atheist, the only thing seperating us from a cockroach is a few thousand years of evolution. That means, following that train of thought, any belief that our lives are more important than the life of that cockroach is just a hallucination based on our vain attempt to make ourselves more important than we are.[/quote]
This is entirely correct. What you are forgetting is the fact that we have a choice to make every day. This is the choice to determine how much we care about other people. Nothing has any absolute value. A value judgement is something which is made by a person, and is dependent upon their point of view. We aren’t any more important than the cockroaches – if you choose to think that way. Don’t make the mistake of trying to assign the value of truth or falsehood to this “self-important illusion” that we all carry. It is a choice – like chocolate or vanilla --nothing more.

Once again, right on the money. There are tangible benefits to living a life of caring towards others, though, which I outlined previously. No doubt you know this better than most people, being a doctor and all.

[quote]That is the only logical way to think if you assume that any belief in a higher power is an illusion. You can’t have it both ways. Anything else would make you agnostic and not atheist.

My belief, or understanding, is that anyone with strong morals and values who claims to not believe in God or any higher power feels some form of being a part of something much larger than they are. They simply refuse to give this feeling a name or accept the concept of GOD.[/quote]
I have strong morals. And I know that this life leads to nowhere. I understand the futility of it all, and yet I am not bitter. This world has merits which stand on their own. I see the point to living as best as I can, while I can, and helping as many people along as I can, and I don’t need a metaphysical carrot dangled in front of me to be that way. It is very easy to be an atheist and to be a man of strong moral fiber, if you open your eyes a little to see what it’s like to be in somebody else’s shoes.

164

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
mertdawg wrote:

  1. Give me an example of a selfless sane act. I think this argument came from Pliny but not sure.

Tonight when I came into work, there was an old lady standing in front of the elevators. She looked lost, and even though it’s not my job, I asked her if she knew where she was going. She replied that she was looking for her sister in the intensive care unit. I said “okay, let’s go find her” so I made a few phone calls, and walked her to the proper ICU (we have several). This resulted in me being ten minutes late to work tonight, and my co-workers heckled me, but I don’t regret what I did in any way.

[quote]

Would you have regretted it if you abandoned her? If so, you avoided feeling regret, and probably avoided raising your cortisol levels (a biological adaptation) and you also get a story that you can use to claim you made a selfless decision which keeps your moral framework intact. Selfish boy!

[quote]
2) What is evil? Is evil a human (mental) invention? Is it explainable by the laws of physics? If not, it falls into the OTHER category, as does good. We don’t have to use the G word.

There are many things which are human inventions which are not explained by the laws of the physical world. A short list: the meaning conveyed by language, the emotions communicated by art, any moral or qualitative judgement of any kind about anything. The fact that I might think a spanking is good thing vs. someone who thinks that there’s nothing to be gleaned from having a woman decked out in leather slapping their ass with a paddle is a good example.

[quote]

My argument here was precisely that without a belief in a higher power, the definition of evil is relative. Others argued that athiests could hold that some things WERE “just wrong”

[quote]
3) The bible is a teething ring.
This is odd coming from a theist, but maybe I can see what you’re getting at. If the bible is a teething ring, which infers that those who follow it blindly are a kind of “spiritual children”, what is the makeup of a “spiritual adult”? Hmmm…

[quote]

Again, the modern psychological model is that morals go through developmental stages. The bible (especially the old testament) is stage one; analogous to a father slapping a young child’s hand who is about to touch a grill, or even for disobeying an apparently arbitrary rule.

I pointed out earlier that “Moral feelings” could be wholly explained by the theory of evolution as the human race developed from uncivilized apes to where we are today. My argument then was that pragmatic choices-however apparently detached from te practical outcome, or “Hardwired behavioral tendancies” are not moral choices but are self centered decisions to improve one’s situation, and avoid physiological stress from feelings of guilt, paranoia and regret. These are the product of millions of years of biological evolution. They also may be regarded as moral development stage 1, but if they end their and you call it morality, its like a kid who learns to say the alphabet song saying that he can read a little.

165

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Would you have regretted it if you abandoned her? If so, you avoided feeling regret, and probably avoided raising your cortisol levels (a biological adaptation) and you also get a story that you can use to claim you made a selfless decision which keeps your moral framework intact. Selfish boy![/quote]

Yes, I would have regretted it. But try as you might to suggest that this could somehow be construed as a self-protective mechanism, the greater stress I knew that would befall me from being heckled by everybody in the lab by being late was offset by the fact that I would be helping somebody. I knew I was going to be late, and that there were consequences to helping the old lady, but I did it anyway. There was no payoff by helping her except for the good feeling of having done something nice. If you want to call that selfish, then fine.

Oh my bad. Yes, evil is relative to personal POV just like any other human qualitative judgement. I guess when the atheists were saying “just wrong” they meant against the framework of their value system, independent of religious belief.

[quote]3) The bible is a teething ring.
This is odd coming from a theist, but maybe I can see what you’re getting at. If the bible is a teething ring, which infers that those who follow it blindly are a kind of “spiritual children”, what is the makeup of a “spiritual adult”? Hmmm…

Again, the modern psychological model is that morals go through developmental stages. The bible (especially the old testament) is stage one; analogous to a father slapping a young child’s hand who is about to touch a grill, or even for disobeying an apparently arbitrary rule.[/quote]
So what does the “moral adult” look like? When and in what manner does one advance from stage one to something else?

[quote]I pointed out earlier that “Moral feelings” could be wholly explained by the theory of evolution as the human race developed from uncivilized apes to where we are today. My argument then was that pragmatic choices-however apparently detached from te practical outcome, or “Hardwired behavioral tendancies” are not moral choices but are self centered decisions to improve one’s situation, and avoid physiological stress from feelings of guilt, paranoia and regret. These are the product of millions of years of biological evolution. They also may be regarded as moral development stage 1, but if they end their and you call it morality, its like a kid who learns to say the alphabet song saying that he can read a little.
[/quote]
But you’re forgetting about the choice. It is just as easy to say that everything is worthless in the long run because nothing lasts forever. Not even the earth and sky will last for eternity. We are truly dust in the wind. And yet there are people like me who find joy in this place regardless of the long-term futility of our efforts. It is not childish to gaze into the abyss that waits for us all and not feel any fear.

Do you want to know what death feels like? It feels like how you felt back in 1867. Wait… you weren’t alive then? Oh yeah, just like what it will be like after you die. You see, it’s not that bad! You’ve been dead a hell of a lot longer than you’ve been alive, bro. One would say that you’ll probably be better at being dead because you’ve had so much practice.

166

“First and foremost, I would like to see some of this “Firsthand Knowledge” that vegita claims to have.Although he claims to have it, it has yet to be presented.I have proof to the contrary.There are even a couple of doctors that could not explain why on earth I am still alive. They and the rest of the intensive care unit were absolutely amazed.I would call the damage I sustained,lived through,and made a complete recovery from a miracle,and so have the medical professionals that worked on me.”

Oh I get it… only the christian god can be responsible for miracles, or supernatural things? Right that must proove that the christian god is the right one. Nope, sorry wrong answer, I fully believe your own spirit can draw enough strength from withing to will a miracle for itself and aid you in your hour of need. It happens more often than you think. I have seen video of an 80 year old grandmother lifting an automobile off of one of her grandchildren when if fell off the jack. her bone structure isn’t even capable of carrying a load like that, noe is her muscle strong enough to lift 200 lbs let alone over 1000.

I love how angry all you religous types are getting, it is actually fun. Why don’t you take a lesson from your good book and TAKE A CHILL PILL.

As to the Historic value of the bible. I never said it was 100% untrue nor have I said that any other historic book was MORE true than the bible. You are grasping at straws, which generally means your argument is weak. Of course other books are historically inacurate. But generally there are many books which describe the same event in different perspectives, that is where we can start to find some truth into what has been written. So tell me what other books chronicle the life of jesus so that I may take another point of view on it? Didn’t think so.

167

“Considering the eternal consequences, I personally would give it more than a passing fart of a thought. But hey, that’s just me.”

Irrelevant, for those of us who are not christian, these consequences are merely a made up ferry tale. I would submit to you that you are taking just as big of a risk in believeing in the wrong god. What if the muslim god allah is the true god? you will burn in hell forever for being christian. doesn’t your logic here force you to reconsider your own faith? … right so sense you aren’t going to then stop warning us that we should. This is the type of convert or else mindset that pisses people like us off. And whenther you are doing it intentionally or not, you are coming off as an elitist who thinks he has everything figured out and knows what is best for everyone. Didn’t TC just do an atomic dog recently on Hubris? You might want to re-read that one.

168

Love thy neighbor, Professor. Patience, too, is a virtue. Sorry about the length; I don’t just give these things a passing thought, I spend quite some time thinking about them. But I’ll try for a shorter version:

I didn’t say that human beings shouldn’t think about God; I think that they should. However, I think that they question that they should be thinking about is whether or not there IS a God.

It seems clear to me, at any rate, that since God (assuming he exists) always presents himself to us in the form of events fully in accordance with natural science, it is impossible to distinguish between a world willed into existence by God (whether eternally or created in time) and a world that has always existed and will always exist, and that is governed by certain rules.

Why keep thinking about this matter? I don’t think that we can acquire certainty one way or another by doing so. But maybe we can discover things that incline us, logically, towards one belief or another.

169

OK prof X let me throw this one at ya.

  1. true selflessness and love for others will get you into heaven. Having an agenda for soley selfish reasons is a sin.

  2. If you behave JUST for the simple reason that you want to get into heavan, that is selfish. You are not doing it for the good of another you are doing it so YOU can go to heavan.

  3. evil is necessary for good to exist.

  4. If I purposely did something evil possibly foresaking my entrance into heaven because it would allow good to exist, continue to exist, grow stronger. That would be a true selfless act for the GOOD of others and the detriment to myself.

  5. so would I go to heavan or hell?

Or tell me where one of the steps I have outlined above is flawed in your view.

170

I ask questions to see if people can give thought provoking responses, and so that I can understand them better, not to prove a point. I see the\is discussion as a constructive not combatative action and in reality we have reached a conclusion:

We are not using the same definitions for right/wrong good/evil

and or

We are not using the same definition of theism.

correct me if my understanding of you is inaccurate

Vroom believes that there is at least some level of absolute right and wrong undefinable by physics and not an invention of the human mind, but that that doesn’t make him a theist according to his definition of a theist.

Lothario believes that morals are the product of evolution of the human species, are relative to the individual person and that people can make good and bad choices within this framework. You are therfore using a different definition of moral decision and right and wrong as I.

Prof X and I think that moral right and wrong are independant from definition by laws of physics, and not an invention of the human mind, but unlike Vroom, believe that that belief makes you a practical theist if not a nominal theist.

anyone alse want to describe themselves using this framework?

any corrections or clarifications?

It sounds like we have progessed!

The questions then are

  1. Is there good and evil, right and wrong outside of human invention and physical definition or not and

  2. Does believing that make you a theist.

171

[quote]Vegita wrote:
OK prof X let me throw this one at ya.

  1. true selflessness and love for others will get you into heaven. Having an agenda for soley selfish reasons is a sin.

  2. If you behave JUST for the simple reason that you want to get into heavan, that is selfish. You are not doing it for the good of another you are doing it so YOU can go to heavan.

  3. evil is necessary for good to exist.

  4. If I purposely did something evil possibly foresaking my entrance into heaven because it would allow good to exist, continue to exist, grow stronger. That would be a true selfless act for the GOOD of others and the detriment to myself.

  5. so would I go to heavan or hell?

Or tell me where one of the steps I have outlined above is flawed in your view.[/quote]

I don’t think any are flawed in my view or anyone who truly understands what is being written in the Bible. If by an evil act, you apply something like suicide (which by Christian standards is one of the ultimate sins), and the circumstances were that if I die, hundreds of people can live, that act of taking life for granted as a gift becomes a truly selfless act of GIVING life for others to live. I don’t understand why you would even think that I would not agree with you on these points. This has been what has been stated from the beginning. I would hope that no one is following God for fear of hell alone. That would be missing the point. Then again, I know several people who only go to church so they can show off their new suit, new car, new girlfriend, or whatever other shallow reasons that occupy many seats in front of the pulpit. That act makes them no more Godly than the person who rejects God straight forward. I think many here who are on the side of there being a God have already mentioned that “organized religion” is often flawed because of the misdeeds of people, not because of God.

172

ok well sort kinda… I am not necisarrily talking about doing something like a sin such as killing one person for the greater good. I am talking about doing a purely evil act that the only benefit from it is so that great good can exist. Example there were heroes made on 911, people now respect the NYPD and the NYFD more than at any time in the history of those orginazations. They are great men and women because they did great good in the face of evil. Hence the evil allowed them to exist in that capacity.

If there were no dragons to slay, there would be no point in being a knight in shining armor. You would just be a fancy metal dressed regular guy.

So since the dragon is necessary for the knight to exist and be the embodiment of good. Would it therefore in your mind be selfless or selfish to become the dragon for the sole purpose of creating a knight. Knowing that your actions might foresaken you to an eternity of hell or whatever.

Here is another bad example. Jesus could not exist in america today. Ther eis not enough evil and suffering and oppression here for him to exist. If he came here and claimed to be the son of god, he would be laughed at maybe, a few people might follow him. He would not be tortured, stoned, hit, whipped, hung, or any other number of things that supposedly happend to him. If the romans just ignored him, they would have taken his power away from him. His only power was to be pure good against pure evil, therefore should you not be thanking your god that people tortured jesus and made him suffer? were it not for these evil acts he could not have existed.

well hopefully you get my point.

173

mertdawg, I agree almost wholely with Prof.X.
On the subject of evil, I believe it is a choice. One can choose to be Good, Neutral, or Evil. I don’t believe in the mistical or spiritual possesion though. That would be when one is taken over or possesed by a good or evil spirit.
Back to choices. Using myself as an example, I have chosen many times to do that which is considered by theists and athiests alike to be prety damn wicked.Something changed though, and now I choose not to do harm to people or my community.I would rather do nothing at all, or something good. The opportunity still exists to do bad things, but now I would rather not. I am on a different path.

174

ProfX,

Forgive me brother, I came to the conversation late, I’m not trying to yank your chain or denigrate theists.

I’m going to ramble a bit and quite possibly contradict myself, but here goes anyway.

Going down to simple animalistic issues, I know that a full belly is right and starving is wrong. I know that if I am wounded that this is bad.

It is a leap, though probably a small one, to believe that this is going to hold true for most animals, entities, people or whatnot.

Posessing some measure of empathy, I know that hurting others or denying them happiness is wrong. Of course, this doesn’t mean we wouldn’t do these things in order to survive, but necessity changes our decisions when it raises its head.

At the same time, with modern science, I know that one day the Sun will swell up and incinerate the Earth. I realize that there is a certain futility in my actions, but that does not sway me from my beliefs of right and wrong.

I understand the arguments and I know how dangerous it feels to imagine that there is no higher power enforcing absolute right and wrong. There are sociopaths who make the “wrong” decision or psychopaths who make “insane” decisions, but generally most people come to similar conclusions.

If religion and God are helping more people reach the right conclusions, then I have no argument with them. I am deeply troubled by the repeated occurence of intolerance and religious based crusades and warfare. This struggle has been ceaseless. What irony!

How can something that causes so much death, pain, destruction and misunderstanding between men be “good” or “right”? The precepts of religion are generally so altruistic but the clashes between religions and beliefs has the opposite effect.

Perhaps I am merely agnostic. However, I will tell you this. I reject religion. I reject the several thousand year old religions that did a poor job of attempting to codify behavior and morals. There are too many to choose from and they are used for ill purpose. I cannot ascribe to something which has and continues to cause so much harm to humanity on a worldwide basis.

Does this make me amoral? Does this mean I don’t know the difference between right and wrong? Hardly. It means that my system of right and wrong has caused me to make a decision concerning adherence to the recognized religions.

I believe that you can live the life of a saint without believing that there is a God. If there was a God, what difference does it make why I behave appropriately, if I choose to do so? Would those ascribing to a certain religion and following the mob mentality down the road of hatred and warfare make me a better person?

Would believing that religion will always be used in this way, yet ensuring that I helped indoctrinate others into a religion not make me a contributor to the misdeeds of that religion in the future? If you are religious, I would ask your God that question.

If the religion of your God has been the cause of great evil, perhaps you had better junk the religion as an imperfect interpretation that has been mangled over thousands of years and try to independently determine the aspects of the religion you believe your God would expect you to adhere to.

When something that is held up as the authority of good, religions, cause so much evil, how the hell do you reconcile that? I may be going straight to hell, if it exists, but my determination of right and wrong cannot let me be a willing party to that type of nonsense.

If there is a God, I’ll stand and be judged. I’ll be happy there is in fact a God, though I might be unhappy with the outcome of my judgement. So be it. In the meantime, I’ll continue to be a decent, caring and honorable man who forms his own opinions and makes his own decisions.

Whether theist, agnostic or atheist, I respect your right to come to your own conclusions, or to question mine.

175

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

…The questions then are

  1. Is there good and evil, right and wrong outside of human invention and physical definition or not and

  2. Does believing that make you a theist.

[/quote]

mert,

      Excellent summary - however, I propose that the questions should read as follows:
  1. Do good and evil come from God’s will, from natural causes, or from man’s will?
  2. [With respect to each of the answers to question 1)] Does believing this making you a theist?

To put my cards on the table [2nd “Novel” begins here; the above is really more important]:

1)I think that the distinction between standards of good and evil layed down by the will of God and standards of good and evil established by nature or man’s will would not necessarily be evident if God does not perform miracles (i.e., actions that are contrary to nature).
I think that he does not perform miracles, so I think that it is not possible for man to know if his laws come from God or from other sources. However, I think it might be possible, with difficulty, to determine whether a law has been laid down by some natural accident or whether it has been willed into existence. Some laws are clearly conventional, but even the laws that are apparently most elementary could be understood to be conventional.

176

[quote]Vegita wrote:
OK prof X let me throw this one at ya.

  1. true selflessness and love for others will get you into heaven. Having an agenda for soley selfish reasons is a sin.

[/quote]
Actually protestants believe only faith will get you there.

Only catholics believe it is a works based way to get to Heaven. Protestants don’t

Evil is necessary us to measure good. Not for it to exist.

Faith is the only thing you need. So your actions would not do anything.

That would not depend on what you do. It would depend on If you truly believe in Christ and accept Him.

[quote]
Or tell me where one of the steps I have outlined above is flawed in your view.[/quote]

My guess would be that you are using a doctrine that not all Christians believe in to stereo type us all.

177

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
mertdawg wrote:

…The questions then are

  1. Is there good and evil, right and wrong outside of human invention and physical definition or not and

  2. Does believing that make you a theist.

mert,

      Excellent summary - however, I propose that the questions should read as follows:
  1. Do good and evil come from God’s will, from natural causes, or from man’s will?
  2. [With respect to each of the answers to question 1)] Does believing this making you a theist?

[/quote]

Problem is, some have already answered non of the above to your formulation of #1, so I would prefer

  1. Do good and evil come from man’s will, natural causes or SOMETHING ELSE.

  2. What is that SOMETHING ELSE?

178

[quote]haney wrote:
Vegita wrote:

  1. If I purposely did something evil possibly foresaking my entrance into heaven because it would allow good to exist, continue to exist, grow stronger. That would be a true selfless act for the GOOD of others and the detriment to myself.

Faith is the only thing you need. So your actions would not do anything.

  1. so would I go to heavan or hell?

That would not depend on what you do. It would depend on If you truly believe in Christ and accept Him.

[/quote]

I think you may need to add that if we truly accept God, then no longer would we be just going through the motions as his question eluded to in terms of being fearful of hell. It basically means that you aren’t perfect, God knows you aren’t perfect, and regardless of sin, due to acceptance, your place is already made.

179

[quote]Vegita wrote:
“Considering the eternal consequences, I personally would give it more than a passing fart of a thought. But hey, that’s just me.”

Irrelevant, for those of us who are not christian, these consequences are merely a made up ferry tale. I would submit to you that you are taking just as big of a risk in believeing in the wrong god. What if the muslim god allah is the true god? you will burn in hell forever for being christian. doesn’t your logic here force you to reconsider your own faith? … right so sense you aren’t going to then stop warning us that we should. This is the type of convert or else mindset that pisses people like us off. And whenther you are doing it intentionally or not, you are coming off as an elitist who thinks he has everything figured out and knows what is best for everyone. Didn’t TC just do an atomic dog recently on Hubris? You might want to re-read that one. [/quote]

Believing in God and making it clear what I believe is Hubris? If that is the case, then no Christian would ever be able to speak about why they believe unless they are sure that you agree. I think you are more mad that many in this thread are not coming across as true idiots. I think it would have made you feel much better if we sounded like illiterate fools who are just following a religion because someone told us to.

180

[quote]vroom wrote:

Perhaps I am merely agnostic. However, I will tell you this. I reject religion. I reject the several thousand year old religions that did a poor job of attempting to codify behavior and morals. There are too many to choose from and they are used for ill purpose. I cannot ascribe to something which has and continues to cause so much harm to humanity on a worldwide basis.[/quote]

You lose me here. Man is selfish, weak, greedy, and any other number of terms you can find to describe why a good concept can be corrupted. I wrote in some of the political threads, absolute power corrupts absolutely…and many men are simply looking for power regardless of where it truly comes from. I also stated before that comparing an entire religion to the Crusades makes little sense unless every white man in America plans to pay me my 40 acres and a mule. You can’t compare the wrong actions of people to the right actions professed in a religion. I seriously doubt it is written in any muslim text that readers should grab a plane and fly it into a building to kill a few thousand people. Doesn’t that mean that people corrupt and would corrupt any concept that they feel gives any amount of superiority? The same is seen in politics…you just accept that more freely.