Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The New Atheists and the Age Old Problem of Evil

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

By now, most readers here are familiar with Richard Dawkins’s view of God as expressed in The God Delusion where Dawkins writes that God is “the most unpleasant character in all fiction … a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” The last time a literary character was described in such despicable terms was probably Charles Dickens’s description of Ebeneezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol. “Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge!” writes Dickens, “a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.” I’ll let you decide which character is worse.

Let’s lay aside for the moment that Dawkins considers God fictional, that is to say (in Dawkins’s words) “almost certainly does not exist.” (even that betrays some slight doubt on Dawkins’s part). The real issue for Dawkins and many of his fellow ‘New Atheists’ (NA’s) such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and the like, is that humans have had a nasty tendancy to commit many acts of evil over the centuries in the name of this fictional God. As the NA’s see it, if we could only rid the world of this fiction called God and its handmaiden, Religion, then the the Golden Age of Atheism will lead the world to a Scientific Utopia, where Science and Reason rule the Mind and all humanity is rid of these childhood fantasies about God, Church, Religion and the like. In short we’ll grow up. At least, that is the upshot of most of the lectures, books, articles and blog posts coming from the NA’s and their ilk.

Unfortunately for the NA’s, there’s a huge hitch in their thinking, and it just isn’t going to go away no matter how much clever rhetoric they toss at it. That hitch is the age old Problem of Evil (PoE). According to the NA’s, if only we could rid humans of the false beliefs in this or that god or gods and/or this or that religion, then all the evils committed by humans in the name of those gods and/or religions would go away, too. Thus, Dawkins, Harris and the other NA’s mince no words in describing their disdain for anything that smacks of the supernatural. What the NA’s don’t seem to realize is that they are admitting that real evil exists, even if the God or gods in whose name(s) the evil is committed does not.

The upshot of taking evil to be real, even if the God(s) behind aren’t, is that evil still needs to be explained. For the NA’s, the only possible explanation for any behavior, evil or otherwise is evolution. Thus, for all their ranting against religion(s) and god(s), they really ought to be ranting against evolution itself. But appealing to evolution doesn’t help their case much.

On the NA’s worldview, all events in time and space are the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. That’s it. There simply are no other causal forces at work. That means that all human behaviors, good or evil, are also the end result of this same chain of evolution. We might claim we were motivated to do good or evil by our belief in some diety or religion, but the truth of the matter (on the NA’s worldview), is that evolution made us do it.

For all their complaints against religion(s) and dieties, the NA’s have no basis, rooted in evolution, to judge any act as good or evil, simply because evolution has not produced any objective standard by which to measure such things. Sure, humans might do things that NA’s (or others) don’t like, may even hate, but that doesn’t really make them evil (or good…depending on your point of view). Dawkins judgement that if the God of the Old Testament Scripture were real He’d be evil is thus not based on any objective standard, but is itself the result of the same evolutionary processes. For all the caterwauling from the NA’s against religion, they really ought to be complaining about evolution itself!

Comments
StephenB @ 142:
From a sociological standpoint, there is an unspoken, apriori unifying principle that guides your group as it does all modern groups, namely the imaginative power of the individual. This ethic informs, unifies, and guides the members of the group and defines what it means to be fair.
You slay me. (But murder is WRONG!) StephenB: "Provide examples of individuals coming together and forming unity without an apriori principle to guide them." Diffaxial: (provides example from personal experience). StephenB: "No, your conduct was guided by unseen unity fairies of which you were unaware." I can see the future of this discussion: Diffaxial: (provides another example.) StephenB: "No, invisible a priori awareness of fairness fairies guided their conduct, although the parties were unawares. Diffaxial: (example) StephenB: "Nope. Morality fairies." Let's dispense with that. Suffice it to say that you plan to claim that every instance of human beings attaining fairness, unity, and cooperative agreement upon ethics and morality MUST reflect the presence of aprior, objective principles, regardless of the self-report of the participants to the contrary. On what basis? As above: faith that it must be so, and that counterexamples are simply not possible.Diffaxial
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
PS: It is also worth the pause to underscore that this is not a matter of "Christian" morality [though Christians, Jews and other theists have championed the morality of fundamental equality of human nature in our time] but a general, and generally understood principle: we are equal by nature, and have rights that reflect that dignity, so by simple common sense reasoning on reciprocity, we should mutually respect the right to life [without which we are simply not here to stand for our rights], liberty, person, reputation, etc.kairosfocus
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
Onlookers: It is worth the while to pause and excerpt Locke's citation from "the judicious Hooker," in Ecclesiastical Polity, when he set out to ground natural alw as the premise of liberty, in teh 2nd Essay on Civl Giovt, Ch 2 Section 5: _______________ >> . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant. >> ________________ I need not do more than simply point out the pivotal nature of that for the rise of modern democratic self-government of and by a free people. In short, Severski's attempt at turnabout rhetoric just above, self destructs. God's requirements of the creatures equally made in his image, that they respect one another, is intelligible and reasonable, not arbitrary. It is evolutionary materialism that is facing an inescapable is-ought gap, not Judaeo-Christian theism. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
StephenB (143), "It’s main claim is that it is a self evident principle, which it is. All normal people know that we shouldn’t lie, cheat, slander, steal, murder, and rape. It’s a built in instinct that reflects our human nature." Not really. "Lying" was done extensively in World War 2 to deceive the eneny as to our battle plans. Does that go against the natural law? How about judicial exceutions. Murder? Many would say so; and many wouldn't. And then there's those vegetarians who say "meat is murder". Hardly good grounds for a "natural law" self evident to all.Gaz
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
Stephen, you are still dead on target. Order up salvos by the score.kairosfocus
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT
---seversky: "There must be an agreed standard of morality." I completely agree. "Something imposed on us all by force majeure is not going to work. It never has, at least, not for long." I agree again. We are on a roll. ----"What is clear is that what is meant by this “universal standard which binds us all” is Christian morality." Not really. The common morality that binds us all, [atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc] is the natural moral law, which is much broader and much less demanding than the Christian ethic. [Google "Illustrations of the Tao"]. ---"This is not necessarily wrong but its claim to authority rests on it being the will of an all-powerful Creator." Not really. It's main claim is that it is a self evident principle, which it is. All normal people know that we shouldn't lie, cheat, slander, steal, murder, and rape. It's a built in instinct that reflects our human nature. ---"What is that but the biggest case of “might makes right” of all?" Might makes right is the logical and only alternative to the ordered principle of the natural moral law. Either we submit to order or we submit to tyranny. Those are the two choices; there is no third.StephenB
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
----Diffaxial: “I don’t accept your propositions vis objective morality and right reason themselves, as I find them unproven, and don’t share your faith. As you say, absent faith nothing compels their acceptance. Certainly not logic: Were logic sufficient, faith would not be required.” The rules of logic cannot prove themselves or be proven by any other means. That is the whole point. Faith in logic’s philosophical underpinning precedes the logical initiative; neither logic nor rational discourse cannot exist without them. So far, you are on record of rejecting those principles on the grounds that they are not relevant to the real world. ----“As you say, I’ve been silent on that assertion, and haven’t given it any thought. It seems largely to exercise the definitions of “whole” and “part.” If you reject[or question] the principle that the “whole is always greater than any one of its parts,” on definitional or any other grounds, you must concede that an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft. Does that in any way give you pause? . ----“Sure. Here’s an example on a small scale, from personal experience. Every now and then I gather with three friends to form a small jazz (or jazz-like) ensemble (I play piano). We all like to improvise and we all like to solo, but also enjoy attaining a shared ground that can be quite compelling, as any ensemble musician will tell you. On a good day we virtually wordlessly attain a cooperative integration that includes both an equitable distribution of solo time (supported by the background of non-soloing musicians) and sometimes quite surprising and moving instances of unity of musical expression and exchange (”conversation”). We’ve never required transcendent definition of “fair” to attain this particular form of “fair play,” and indeed have never explicitly discussed the issue. Nevertheless, the fairness we attain is eminently rational, as it is by means of that fairness and cooperation that we attain the goals we seek.” Since I am a jazz pianist myself, I accept all examples of musical symbolic interaction as relevant. So, I am attracted to the subject matter. From a sociological standpoint, there is an unspoken, apriori unifying principle that guides your group as it does all modern groups, namely the imaginative power of the individual. This ethic informs, unifies, and guides the members of the group and defines what it means to be fair. From a performance standpoint, the musical laws make up the apriori defining principles that provide for the creativity. Creativity occurs only within the boundaries of those [principles] laws. They can be probed, stretched and teased, but they cannot be broken without compromising and finally destroying any sense of artistry. You could never hope, for example, to form a group and create your own musical laws or allow them to emerge during the performance. Those laws are transcendent and unchangeable. If either you or the bass player began creating new musical laws, even if done in a spirit of perfect cooperation, chaos would follow. In keeping with that point, if you try to be creative and play an Aflat pentatonic scale against a Cmaj chord, it will sound awful. The existence of an unchanging, unifying reality precedes you. One can build order only around an ordering principle.StephenB
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
DonaldM @ 128
On the NA’s worldview, evil can only mean “something I do not like took place” or “something I didn’t want to happen, did happen.” In other words, it comes down to personal preference, because on the NA’s worldview there is no possible way to objectify any notion of what evil, or for that matter, good, is. None. So, even in Seversky’s example of the shooter in the diner, we may not like it, may even abhor it, but on the NA worldview, no one can say it is evil with any real meaning.
That rather depends on what you mean by "real meaning". As we know, words only mean what we decide they mean. Those meanings can vary according the the group which uses the word, the context in which they are used and over time. No one meaning is more 'right' or "real" than another. I agree, though, that there is no way to "objectify" notions of good or evil or morality. There is no reason to think they are anything other than concepts or judgements which exist only in the minds of intelligent observers. If we return to the story of the shooting in the restaurant, an artificial intelligence like an android, so common in science-fiction genres, might observe the shooting and simply note the details without passing any judgement on it at all, whereas a human observer might be horrified by the evil of it. Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Witness is a good movie, though.Seversky
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 103
How do you arbitrate between my standard of justice and your contrary standard of justice? It can’t be done. One of us will win or lose the battle of “might makes right.” In the larger picture, taking everyone else’s personal standard of justice into account, it would lead to a war of all against all. The only solution is to appeal to a universal standard which binds us all. This is clear.
There must be an agreed standard of morality. Something imposed on us all by force majeure is not going to work. It never has, at least, not for long. What is clear is that what is meant by this "universal standard which binds us all" is Christian morality. This is not necessarily wrong but its claim to authority rests on it being the will of an all-powerful Creator. What is that but the biggest case of "might makes right" of all?Seversky
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 136:
If that is the case, then you have radically changed your position, having always claimed that the principles of right reason are mere “tautaologies” and need not [do not] apply to the real world.
You misunderstand: You stated that your propositions are unprovable (hence unproven). I accept without reservation that they are unprovable (hence unproven). You stated that faith is required for their acceptance (and that absent faith nothing compels their acceptance). I accept your assertion that faith is required for their acceptance. I don't accept your propositions vis objective morality and right reason themselves, as I find them unproven, and don't share your faith. As you say, absent faith nothing compels their acceptance. Certainly not logic: Were logic sufficient, faith would not be required.
Indeed, you are silent on the example referring to the proposition that “the whole is always greater than any of its parts.” I gather, then, that you reject that one as well.
On what basis? As you say, I've been silent on that assertion, and haven't given it any thought. It seems largely to exercise the definitions of "whole" and "part."
Returning to old business, are you now prepared to provide examples of individuals coming together and forming unity without an apriori principle to guide them. If, as you insist, it happens every day and happened all throughout history, you should be able to cite one instance.
Sure. Here's an example on a small scale, from personal experience. Every now and then I gather with three friends to form a small jazz (or jazz-like) ensemble (I play piano). We all like to improvise and we all like to solo, but also enjoy attaining a shared ground that can be quite compelling, as any ensemble musician will tell you. On a good day we virtually wordlessly attain a cooperative integration that includes both an equitable distribution of solo time (supported by the background of non-soloing musicians) and sometimes quite surprising and moving instances of unity of musical expression and exchange ("conversation"). We've never required transcendent definition of "fair" to attain this particular form of "fair play," and indeed have never explicitly discussed the issue. Nevertheless, the fairness we attain is eminently rational, as it is by means of that fairness and cooperation that we attain the goals we seek.Diffaxial
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
---Diffaxial "I accept these statements without reservation." If that is the case, then you have radically changed your position, having always claimed that the principles of right reason are mere "tautaologies" and need not [do not] apply to the real world. ----“Logical declarations” from premises that themselves must be accepted on faith are not logically compelled for those who don’t share that faith. And, for those persons, it is the absence of faith resembling yours, not want of abstract thinking and reasoning (as you are so fond of claiming), that results in dissent to your claims." The faith of which I speak constitues agreement on the principles of right reason. If one doesn't accept them, then one cannot reason in the abstract. To dissent from them is to abandon logic. In spite of your claims in the preceding paragraph that you accept those statements without reservation, you have yet to show that you are serious about that. Indeed, you are silent on the example referring to the proposition that "the whole is always greater than any of its parts." I gather, then, that you reject that one as well. Returning to old business, are you now prepared to provide examples of individuals coming together and forming unity without an apriori principle to guide them. If, as you insist, it happens every day and happened all throughout history, you should be able to cite one instance.StephenB
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 131 & 132:
Of course the moral codes cannot be proven. They must be accepted on faith, just as the principles of right reason must be accepted on faith. [My claims] are merely unprovable.
I accept these statements without reservation. This aligns without conflict with the thesis of my posts here: Your claim of possession of an absolute system of morality from which you can 'logically declare' the wrongness of actions is empty. "Logical declarations" from premises that themselves must be accepted on faith are not logically compelled for those who don't share that faith. And, for those persons, it is the absence of faith resembling yours, not want of abstract thinking and reasoning (as you are so fond of claiming), that results in dissent to your claims. Given your statement above, a similar argument can be mounted vis your claim of a "proof" of the existence of God derived from "principles of right reasoning." That proof is not logically compelled, as you have previously so strenuously claimed, but rather rests upon premises that "must be accepted on faith."Diffaxial
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
---Cabal: ---"What makes a ‘truth’ ’self-evident’?" It is self evident if denying it causes one to descend into intellectual absurdity. Also, if the self-evident truth is not agreed to by both parties prior to the discussion rational discourse is impossible. ---"I am asking very seriously because I know of no self-evident truths except things like ‘up is not down.’" How many do you want? Let's try these for starters: A thing cannot be and not be at the same time. The whole is always greater than any one of its parts. A proposition cannot be both truth and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances.StephenB
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
Unless we all acknowledge self evident truths as a starting point, all attempts at coming to agreement on the most difficult issues are futile. Thank you for dramatizing my point once again.
Self-evidence is a pet subject of mine. What makes a 'truth' 'self-evident'? I am asking very seriously because I know of no self-evident truths except things like 'up is not down.' Boolean algebra is a fine tool for ascertaining truth.Cabal
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
----Diffaxial: "What I have also said is that the moral codes for which absolutism is claimed, including yours, are themselves the products of cultural evolution. You may assert otherwise, but there is no platform from which the “absolute” correctness of either position can be adjudicated, which puts them on all fours with one another, your claims upon absolute truth and an objective moral code notwithstanding. Your claims are unprovable and self-refuting; mine are merely unprovable. You are either saying that it is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths, which is contradictory, or you are saying that we can't know anything about it, which is equally self refuting. Whichever way you go, you are immersed in intellectual quicksand.StephenB
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
----Diffaxial: “If individual successes and failures at negotiation are indicators of anything, witness that you and Jerry, both purportedly operating from within a system of objective truth and morality, find yourselves unable to agree on a definition of “evil.” Thank you for that.” You did not think that one through. Your example proves once again that individuals cannot get together and forge a consensus on fundamental matters. Unless we all acknowledge self evident truths as a starting point, all attempts at coming to agreement on the most difficult issues are futile. Thank you for dramatizing my point once again. ----“I’ve made no claims regarding what is ultimately attainable by means of human efforts. What I have claimed is that individuals and parties oftentimes attain fair and equitable exchanges (ie., exchanges they regard as equitable, and that become the basis for sustained human cooperation and, at times, unity) without consulting transcendental definitions of “fair” and “equitable.” You have stated that objective, absolute truths are not necessary. That leaves only the alternative, which is the prospect of building truth and morality by consensus. In any case, can you provide a specific example of individuals coming together and forming unity without an apriori principle to guide them----one that we can analyze? Recall, after all, that you refuse to go through the "process" with me, which proves that all your assertions are empty. It two individuals cannot go throught the process at the simplet level of interaction, then clearly millions with the increased permutations could never hope to. That is clear. ----“This process attains many of the aims of the parties involved (i.e. is rational), and can sometimes be generalized to larger scales.” Again, an example would help. ----“What I have also said is that the moral codes for which absolutism is claimed, including yours, are themselves the products of cultural evolution. You may assert otherwise, but there is no platform from which the “absolute” correctness of either position can be adjudicated, which puts them on all fours with one another, your claims upon absolute truth and an objective moral code notwithstanding.” Of course the moral codes cannot be proven. They must be accepted on faith, just as the principles of right reason must be accepted on faith. With regard to the latter, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with anyone who rejects those principles. Have you so soon forgotten: Darwinists at this site, with your blessing, assert with confidence that an automobile can be a part of a crankshaft because they will not acknowledge in principle that the whole is always greater than any one of its parts. This can mean only one thing: There is an inverse and proportional relationship between the Darwinist's inability to reason and his capacity to be embarrassed about it.StephenB
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
DonaldM: @ 129:
On your own logic, this not something that can really be known to be true, so why should anyone accept it. It a mere assertion on your part. Excuse me for rejecting it as false.
Of course. That is your prerogative. And that is my point: yours is no more or less a bare assertion, adopted by prerogative, than the contrary view. Your view includes claims vis the absolute objectification of notions such as good and evil - mine does not. What do you have that I don't? Undecidable claims. Claim away, brother: you are certainly justified in attempting to convince others of the correctness of your views.Diffaxial
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Diffaxial
What I have also said is that the moral codes for which absolutism is claimed, including yours, are themselves the products of cultural evolution. You may assert otherwise, but there is no platform from which the “absolute” correctness of either position can be adjudicated, which puts them on all fours with one another, your claims upon absolute truth and an objective moral code notwithstanding.
Applying your own logic to your own statement then, there is no way adjudicate the truth of "...the moral codes for which absolutism is claimed, including yours, are themselves the products of cultural evolution." On your own logic, this not something that can really be known to be true, so why should anyone accept it. It a mere assertion on your part. Excuse me for rejecting it as false.DonaldM
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Seversky
I think most people would agree that the first shooting was an evil act but the second was good. The reasons would be that the first shooting was a case of murder, the unlawful taking of another’s life, the second served to save lives given that it appeared the gunman was prepared to shoot more people. In other words, evil resides in the effect of an act. We could argue that it also lies in the purpose of the evil-doer but, unlike Gc, we cannot see into the heart of an evil-doer, we can only infer intent after the act.
The Amish would disagree and say that the evil resides in all of it. Recall the response of the Amish community to the shooting of several school children a couple years back in, I believe, Pennsylvania. Instead of seeking revenge or retribution, they displayed forgiveness and love in both word and deed. Perhaps they understand something better than what most do. This idea was the the subject of the 80's movie "Witness" with Harrison Ford. Well worth seeing, by the way. That said, the point of my OP and this thread is that on the NA's worldview the very concept of evil itself has no meaning whatsoever. It does not matter what most people would think or believe about a particular situation. On the NA's worldview, evil can only mean "something I do not like took place" or "something I didn't want to happen, did happen." In other words, it comes down to personal preference, because on the NA's worldview there is no possible way to objectify any notion of what evil, or for that matter, good, is. None. So, even in Seversky's example of the shooter in the diner, we may not like it, may even abhor it, but on the NA worldview, no one can say it is evil with any real meaning.DonaldM
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 121:
You have ignored it because it completely refutes your position.
If individual successes and failures at negotiation are indicators of anything, witness that you and Jerry, both purportedly operating from within a system of objective truth and morality, find yourselves unable to agree on a definition of "evil." Thank you for that.
Your whole point is that absolute, objective standards are not necessary because equitable standards, which in your case would be arbitrary standards, are sufficient to build a well-ordered society and can be arrived at through consensus, negotiation, or some other process...If, as you now acknowledge, all parties cannot everywhere “negotiate difficult issues vis fairness and justice,” then you have conceded that arbitrary standards are not up to the job that you claimed they could handle.
I've made no claims regarding what is ultimately attainable by means of human efforts. What I have claimed is that individuals and parties oftentimes attain fair and equitable exchanges (ie., exchanges they regard as equitable, and that become the basis for sustained human cooperation and, at times, unity) without consulting transcendental definitions of "fair" and "equitable." This process attains many of the aims of the parties involved (i.e. is rational), and can sometimes be generalized to larger scales. Most probably, well ordered societies are possible to the extent that we now observe: a fractally pluralistic world characterized both by considerable cooperation and order at many scales, and considerable strife and conflict at those same scales. Whether increased order is possible remains to be seen; history is turbulent. What I have also said is that the moral codes for which absolutism is claimed, including yours, are themselves the products of cultural evolution. You may assert otherwise, but there is no platform from which the "absolute" correctness of either position can be adjudicated, which puts them on all fours with one another, your claims upon absolute truth and an objective moral code notwithstanding.Diffaxial
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
StephenB (121), "If, as you now acknowledge, all parties cannot everywhere “negotiate difficult issues vis fairness and justice,” then you have conceded that arbitrary standards are not up to the job that you claimed they could handle." It's not so much that they are not up to the job, just that it's hellish difficult getting there. That's one reason why we have so many wars. But, in some areas, some people make progress - Western Europe, for instance, where wars were rife until the mid years of the last century, whereas now it's virtually unthinkable between those states. "Hence, absolute, objective truth is necessary as a unifying principle, since a socially constructed consensus about truth and morality can neither unify nor consistently be arrived at through negotiation." The fact that there are so many conflicts suggests there is NO absolute objective truth - if there is, why would people be in conflict over waht they recognise as the same absolute truth? "Indeed, as I made clear, and as you confirmed by refusing to negotiate, it can never be arrived at through that process." How are you so sure it can "never" be agreed by negotiation? Lots of things thought intractable have been solved by negotiation - the political situation in Northern Ireland being one. "Never" is too strong. "Difficult", for sure.Gaz
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
StephenB (118), "But I had such high hopes for you" Dad - is that you ??Gaz
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
Stephen Excellent onward contributions, again. I have made a more or less rounding off comment on the HuffPo thread, on the manifest amorality of evolutionary materialism -- which reduces step by step to "might makes right" -- and its philosophical roots, which were evident from the days in which Plato exposed them in the Laws, Book X, 360 BC. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
----Jerry: "I think you miss my point. I believe the focus on so called evil is misplaced because what most people are calling evil is not really evil." I understand your point very well. I just don't happen to agree with it for reasons that I have already indicated. On the other hand, I am not persuaded that you understand my position.StephenB
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
"If an earthquakes is evil then I guess cyanide is also?" I haven't a clue where you got that reasoning. I never said an earthquake was evil. I have a very narrow view of what is evil. See my previous post.jerry
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
StephenB, I think you miss my point. I believe the focus on so called evil is misplaced because what most people are calling evil is not really evil. As I said I believe there is only one true evil and that is an act of the will as you said and it denies salvation. The other things that people like to call evil, are not evil at all but extremely unpleasant earthly events. Things that cause pain and suffering on earth are not necessarily evil but most people use the term in that sense and then turn around and then says God allows evil because he allows pain and suffering and therefore He is not good or the Christian conception is then nonsense. That is why I made my examples as I did. I believe the discussion of evil is conflating two separate ideas. One is unpleasantness at various levels on earth with what I consider the only true evil. All the discussion is on the unpleasantness and the then association with God. To me it is a non sequitur. As I said who cares what happens to someone if they are saved. Name whatever unpleasantness you can imagine and there is no comparison. And the reverse, the person who has every possible earthly advantage but defies God and is not saved. Which is evil? While the world always looked upon physical calamities as unfortunate it was the Lisbon earthquake that seemed to focus people on this type of suffering and senseless loss as evil. It happened on All Saints Day and was thought to be a rebuke by God. It certainly made theodicy a prominent issue and was used by many to reject God. That is why when the theodicy issue comes up, I will participate a little since I avoid religious arguments around here like the plague. But for about 20 years even before I ever heard the term theodicy, I had rejected these unfortunate events as evil because they just did not matter in what really counted. I had come to the conclusion that what people were describing as evil was a subjective thing and not absolute. So I will restate my point. What most call evil is just unpleasantness and it can be extreme. But it is not real evil which as you say is an act of the will. The two concepts should not be conflated.jerry
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
Paul Giem @ 71 asks a very good question:
If God truly gives us freedom to choose to love or not to love, how can this be logically consistent with His making sure that we cannot chose not to love? This seems like a logical contradiction, very much like making a square circle. Could you explain how this works? If not, does it not take out a fundamental premise of the rest of your post and make the argument invalid?
As you suggest, on the face of it this looks like the kind of logical contradiction that even an all-powerful deity like Gc could not overcome. If that is the case, then my argument is undermined and Plantinga's Free Will Defense stands. My answer is that it depends on what you mean by evil. Let us consider two instances of one man shooting another. In the first case, a man walks into a restaurant and shoots one of the diners dead, apparently at random, and then points the gun at another diner. In the second instance, one of the other diners is a policeman who draws his gun and shoots the gunman dead before he can get off a second shot. I think most people would agree that the first shooting was an evil act but the second was good. The reasons would be that the first shooting was a case of murder, the unlawful taking of another's life, the second served to save lives given that it appeared the gunman was prepared to shoot more people. In other words, evil resides in the effect of an act. We could argue that it also lies in the purpose of the evil-doer but, unlike Gc, we cannot see into the heart of an evil-doer, we can only infer intent after the act. This also offers an escape from the contradiction. In the case of the first shooting, an all-powerful, all-knowing God would foresee what the gunman was intending but do nothing to interfere with the planning or execution of the shooting so as not to violate his free will. What he could do, however, is to prevent the evil effect. He might cause the gunman's hand to shake as he fires so the bullet goes wide or He might arrange for the cartridge to misfire. Thus, the gunman is allowed the full exercise of his free will but the evil effect of his act is forestalled.Seversky
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
----Diffaxial: "I’ve ignored StephenB’s “test” because it is completely off point. I’ve not asserted that all parties everywhere are capable of negotiating difficult issues vis fairness and justice. Specific instances of failure have no particular bearing upon what I DO assert: that parties do oftentimes in many places negotiate equitable exchanges without resort to phony absolutes, when motivated to do so." You have ignored it because it completely refutes your position. Your whole point is that absolute, objective standards are not necessary because equitable standards, which in your case would be arbitrary standards, are sufficient to build a well-ordered society and can be arrived at through consensus, negotiation, or some other process. If, as you now acknowledge, all parties cannot everywhere "negotiate difficult issues vis fairness and justice," then you have conceded that arbitrary standards are not up to the job that you claimed they could handle. Hence, absolute, objective truth is necessary as a unifying principle, since a socially constructed consensus about truth and morality can neither unify nor consistently be arrived at through negotiation. Indeed, as I made clear, and as you confirmed by refusing to negotiate, it can never be arrived at through that process.StephenB
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
----Davem: "Doesn’t work. The Holocaust lacked goodness, or, was a lower order of goodness than what ought to have been?" The victims of the holocaust were denied that which is good, namely freedom, health, and dignity. The evil that they experienced was a "privation" of those and other goods. ----“..evil could not be chosen because there is no evil thing to choose. Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good." The perpetrator chooses a course of action which will deprive another person of a something that is good. For example, the slanderer chooses to deprive the victim of his good name, the murderer deprives his victim of life etc. The whole point is to take away something from he/she who is hated. ---"People choose to rape, murder, steal, etc., every minute. They are not lesser goods." An evil act deprives both the perpetrator and the victim of some good. From the perpetrators side, it constitutes perversion of the will if it is done knowingly. If it is done accidentally, or not knowingly, it is not an evil act. On the other hand, the victim experiences evil [deprivation] whether the event is executed with malice or whether it is experienced for some other reason. Of course, the Darwinist does not acknowledge the "good" so he cannot know what the individual has been deprived of. Hence, he has no way of assessing either good or evil. Evil is a parasite on good, and if good doesns't exist, then evil doesn't exist. That is why Darwinists cannot define evil. A good person is like a "good" anything else. If a thing or person operates according to the purpose of its existence, it is good. If, for example, a can opener was designed to open cans, it is a good can opener if it serves that function. If a pencil was designed to write, it is a good pencil if it writes well. A pencil cannot be a good can opener, and if it tries to play that role, not only will it fail to open the can, it will destroy itself in the process. Similary, if humans, who were designed to save their souls, a task that requires, among other things, behaving according to the natural moral law, disavow it or try to rewrite it in an attempt to rationalize the act of choosing the wrong things, that is, if they try to play the role of God, they will not only fail to be happy, they will also, like the presumptuous pencil that tried to be a can opener, destroy themselves and others.StephenB
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
39 jerry If an earthquakes is evil then I guess cyanide is also?Davem
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply