The Problem of Evil

[Veritas Aequitas]

...the 'concept of evil' is well understood by most at least intuitively.

You miss the point...probably deliberately, I would suppose.

"Most" understand the concept "unicorn." It doesn't imply they can ride one.

I'll spell the problem out carefully. The problem for Atheism is not one of understanding evil but of justifying their valuation of something as evil, given that they believe they live in an inherently value-neutral universe, in which time and chance are the ultimate explanations.

The evolutionary universe has no features in it that correspond to an objective basis for morality. That's why Peter Holmes can't be convinced; as an Atheist, he's certain that the universe has no such objective properties in it. All alleged "morals" are nothing more than odd, totally subjective phenomena that just happen to be generated by human beings. But the fact that they are has no prior explanation in his world. They might as well have not been...and they have no basis in fact.

Peter Holmes is of the minority according to one survey of philosophers.
Note this;

Survey: 56% of Philosophers Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893

The above cover those who believe morality entails objectivity and values.
Evilness has negative values as a threat to the overall good, induced sufferings and the possible extinction of humanity.

Btw, the above 56% do not include the theistic pseudo-morality [i.e. Divine Command Theory] which is classified as moral-relativism within metaethics. It is relative to a group, i.e. theists.

I have already raised numerous threads in the Ethical Theory Section to justify why Morality has an objective grounding based on objective moral facts of human nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The problem for Atheism is not one of understanding evil but of justifying their valuation of something as evil, given that they believe they live in an inherently value-neutral universe, in which time and chance are the ultimate explanations.

To justify something as evil merely requires defining evil and matching acts to the definition.
To justify the definition is easy. We are evolved animals. Evolved animals care to try and stay alive, live in good health and avoid harm. Those that do not have those built in desires tend to reproduce less successfully by comparison to those that do. To this extent the desire is caused by an objective reason (evolution happens) but is then a subjective set of thoughts and considerations flowing from that base. (I call this the Is of Ought).
Living in good health and avoiding harm is easier if you have a cooperating group, and to maintain a cooperating group you need to detect behaviors that would go against the purpose of such a group and define them as evil, not be done.

Good points and well said.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The problem for Atheism is not one of understanding evil but of justifying their valuation of something as evil, given that they believe they live in an inherently value-neutral universe, in which time and chance are the ultimate explanations.

To justify something as evil merely requires defining evil and matching acts to the definition.

No, that would be sufficient for an arbitrary "matching": it would not show that the "matching" was warranted.

To justify such a "matching," one would first have to show that evil objectively exists, on what terms it is recognizable, and then how the incident in question matches the criteria for objectively calling something "evil."

Generally what is termed as 'evil' [or any term] is based first on real experiences of certain actions with a general patterns and distinct features.
To facilitate the communication of this general set and pattern of actions and elements, a term is assigned to that set as its definition.

I define "evil" as related to a set or pattern of human acts and thoughts that are net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and therefrom to humanity.

What is well being? see this link:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

What are the set or pattern of human acts and thoughts defined as evil has to be identified, verified and justified to be Justified True Beliefs as evil. These list of justified evil acts are presented within a taxonomy and a continuum.

Genocides by humans is rated as of the highest degree within the continuum, say at 99/100 degrees of evilness as defined.
Would you dispute genocides is 'evil' [as defined] of the highest degree?
I bet no normal human being on earth will disagree with the above.

That genocide is evil of the highest degree is grounded on the moral fact, no human ought to kill humans, which is grounded within neural programs in all human brains. All these can be verified and tested with repeated results.

Since all normal human beings agree genocides is evil [as defined], it is objective within the moral framework, thus independent of individuals opinions and beliefs.

You may dispute and insist that only your God can define what is evil, i.e. the sins as listed by your God where the wages of sin is death.
But your claim above is groundless because God is an impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

The evil I defined above is empirical and justifiable to be real empirically and philosophically.

[Immanuel Can]

Peter Holmes is of the minority according to one survey of philosophers.
Note this;

Survey: 56% of Philosophers Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893

Well, that's bandwagon fallacy again. I know you're fond of it, but it's still 100% a fallacy. It does not matter if half the world thinks the planet is flat, either. It's not. Either way, it will not be decided by a popularity poll.

I disagree with Peter, myself, but I understand his point of view. He can't fathom how morality can possibly be objective, given Atheist assumptions. And he's quite right about that, though he's wrong about Atheist assumptions...so ultimately, he's wrong.

The important question is this: not "How many people believe morality is objective," but "What is their basis for thinking that morality is objective." Nothing you've got here addresses that crucial question. But I'm certain I can't convince you of that, because you've fashioned your own straw house, and you're not going to give it up, even if Peter the Wolf knocks it down.

Good luck.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We are evolved animals. Evolved animals care to try and stay alive, live in good health and avoid harm. Those that do not have those built in desires tend to reproduce less successfully by comparison to those that do. To this extent the desire is caused by an objective reason

Wait...you mean "the desire to survive," right? That's the "objective reason"?

All humans are "programmed" to survive at until the inevitable.
No normal humans would volunteer to be killed.
That is the objective reason because it is a justified biological and psychological fact independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs.

....but is then a subjective set of thoughts and considerations flowing from that base.

So you have a subjective wish to survive, flowing from the desire to survive, which is derived from the fact that some animals survive? Have I got your drift so far?

Every individual has the personal [subjective] wish to survive and not to die prematurely but that is in alignment of an objective feature of human nature which is objective within the biological and psychological framework and system of knowledge.
When the above is adopted within the moral framework and system, it is a moral fact and support the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' so that humans can align with their human nature to survive and not die prematurely.

Living in good health and avoiding harm is easier if you have a cooperating group, and to maintain a cooperating group you need to detect behaviors that would go against the purpose of such a group and define them as evil, not be done.

Too simple, I'm afraid. The world doesn't work out that way.

There is an even more survival-conducive strategy: selective cooperation. That is, I cooperate with the group when it suits me, but am totally free to sacrifice the group objectives to my own, the very minute that their objectives do not serve my desires. Moreover, it will actually enhance my strategy if I convince the REST of the group that they owe me consistency, while I remain free to operate purely strategically. That will give me maximal survival potential, definitely way ahead of anybody who is tied to the "slave morality" (Nietzsche) of the group.

But there is a point behind all this as well: you've oriented your description of the world not to morality, but to survival. Now, morality is only sometimes conducive to survival, but often inhibits it, or even threatens it. When it does, what is the basis on which morality is to be preferred?

Whilst selective co-operation happens, this is a merely a subset of the inherent human nature of the principles of human co-operation as the basis of survival for the whole of humanity.

True there are individuals who are selfish and do not want to co-operate but that does not mean the inherent co-operation program is not present in the brain. Thus the inherent propensity is still a fact of human nature.

Morality can be a loose term.
I define 'morality' as something that constitute all that is good and is against all that is evil.
There is no way 'morality' as defined will include 'evil' as defined.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Holmes is of the minority according to one survey of philosophers.
Note this;

Survey: 56% of Philosophers Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893

Well, that's bandwagon fallacy again. I know you're fond of it, but it's still 100% a fallacy. It does not matter if half the world thinks the planet is flat, either. It's not. Either way, it will not be decided by a popularity poll.

I disagree with Peter, myself, but I understand his point of view. He can't fathom how morality can possibly be objective, given Atheist assumptions. And he's quite right about that, though he's wrong about Atheist assumptions...so ultimately, he's wrong.

The important question is this: not "How many people believe morality is objective," but "What is their basis for thinking that morality is objective." Nothing you've got here addresses that crucial question. But I'm certain I can't convince you of that, because you've fashioned your own straw house, and you're not going to give it up, even if Peter the Wolf knocks it down.

Good luck.

I had mentioned it before, the above is merely a hint to show your claim cannot be absolutely conclusive given the above possibility subject to more specific verification and justifications.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

"Most" understand the concept "unicorn." It doesn't imply they can ride one.

I'll spell the problem out carefully. The problem for Atheism is not one of understanding evil but of justifying their valuation of something as evil, given that they believe they live in an inherently value-neutral universe, in which time and chance are the ultimate explanations.

The evolutionary universe has no features in it that correspond to an objective basis for morality. That's why Peter Holmes can't be convinced; as an Atheist, he's certain that the universe has no such objective properties in it. All alleged "morals" are nothing more than odd, totally subjective phenomena that just happen to be generated by human beings. But the fact that they are has no prior explanation in his world. They might as well have not been...and they have no basis in fact.

One fact that is known to everyone alive or dead, including notably the Buddha, is that life is suffering; that is the bottom line of existence. Evil is that which is experienced by everyone, so everyone is forced to ride that particular unicorn. There is no escaping the wild gallopy buckings and shyings. Many break their necks when they fall off, and many brave hearts fail due to sheer exhaustion.

God is a human remedy for the evils with which we are all intimately acquainted.

Xians may be correct in their believing the Xian narrative. Both the Xian remedy for evil and the Xian myth have been around for centuries before the birth of Christ. The OT prophets were saying the general moral code that Christ said , including the big synthesis of ideas that is monotheism. However we do rather want our remedies for evil not to be propaganda, and religions are laden with propaganda. Augean stables.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

"Most" understand the concept "unicorn." It doesn't imply they can ride one.

I'll spell the problem out carefully. The problem for Atheism is not one of understanding evil but of justifying their valuation of something as evil, given that they believe they live in an inherently value-neutral universe, in which time and chance are the ultimate explanations.

The evolutionary universe has no features in it that correspond to an objective basis for morality. That's why Peter Holmes can't be convinced; as an Atheist, he's certain that the universe has no such objective properties in it. All alleged "morals" are nothing more than odd, totally subjective phenomena that just happen to be generated by human beings. But the fact that they are has no prior explanation in his world. They might as well have not been...and they have no basis in fact.

One fact that is known to everyone alive or dead, including notably the Buddha, is that life is suffering; that is the bottom line of existence. Evil is that which is experienced by everyone, so everyone is forced to ride that particular unicorn. There is no escaping the wild gallopy buckings and shyings. Many break their necks when they fall off, and many brave hearts fail due to sheer exhaustion.

God is a human remedy for the evils with which we are all intimately acquainted.

Xians may be correct in their believing the Xian narrative. Both the Xian remedy for evil and the Xian myth have been around for centuries before the birth of Christ. The OT prophets were saying the general moral code that Christ said , including the big synthesis of ideas that is monotheism. However we do rather want our remedies for evil not to be propaganda, and religions are laden with propaganda. Augean stables.

[Gary Childress]

The "Problem of Evil" has been claimed by many non-theists [atheists] to be the 'silver bullet' against the theists' claim God exists.

Over the years, theists had offered loads of defense against the Problem of Evil and all had failed.

What is the latest and strongest defense from theists [with references and links] to counter against the Problem of Evil.

I think the problem of evil is more of a "silver bullet" against the claim that God possesses the characteristics that deists have maintained. I mean, it seems to me that there could still be a God, just a god who allows evil to befall human beings from time to time, for whatever possibly incomprehensible reason. However, it also seems that the Abrahamic religions are suspect to whatever extent in their veracity as well since the story of Genesis doesn't appear to line up with what is currently known in the sciences.

[Immanuel Can]

Survey: 56% of Philosophers Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893

Well, that's bandwagon fallacy again.

I had mentioned it before, the above is merely a hint to show your claim cannot be absolutely conclusive given the above possibility subject to more specific verification and justifications.

You fail to understand: it's a fallacy. It's not even a "hint."

So what if 44% of the philosophers agree with Peter, and disagree with you? What difference does that make? None whatsoever. It just shows that a lot of philosophers can be wrong if the reasons they hold or the suppositions underwriting their belief are wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, that's bandwagon fallacy again.

I had mentioned it before, the above is merely a hint to show your claim cannot be absolutely conclusive given the above possibility subject to more specific verification and justifications.

You fail to understand: it's a fallacy. It's not even a "hint."

So what if 44% of the philosophers agree with Peter, and disagree with you? What difference does that make? None whatsoever. It just shows that a lot of philosophers can be wrong if the reasons they hold or the suppositions underwriting their belief are wrong.

Note in that survey only 23% are anti-realist.

The above survey does make a difference, it is at least a hint that you cannot be so 100% certain your view is the right one and that there is at least a strong case for my views.

Personally, I am very convinced your view re theistic morality is merely pseudo-morality grounded on an illusion. It is not based on justifications and proofs but merely based on faith.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The "Problem of Evil" has been claimed by many non-theists [atheists] to be the 'silver bullet' against the theists' claim God exists.

Over the years, theists had offered loads of defense against the Problem of Evil and all had failed.

What is the latest and strongest defense from theists [with references and links] to counter against the Problem of Evil.

I think the problem of evil is more of a "silver bullet" against the claim that God possesses the characteristics that deists have maintained. I mean, it seems to me that there could still be a God, just a god who allows evil to befall human beings from time to time, for whatever possibly incomprehensible reason. However, it also seems that the Abrahamic religions are suspect to whatever extent in their veracity as well since the story of Genesis doesn't appear to line up with what is currently known in the sciences.

"from time to time"??
Where have you been?
Evil [as defined] has been with humans ever since humans emerged along with evolution.

The only religion that explicitly condone evil and violence upon non-believers in the holy texts is Islam. But that is not the point here.

The 'Problem of Evil' is applicable to any God which is claimed to be omni-whatever and do intervene in the life of humans.

There are some theists, i.e. some pantheists who claimed a god exists and pervades reality but does not participate in the affairs of the universe and man. In this case, the Problem of Evil is not an issue.

[Gary Childress]

"from time to time"??
Where have you been?

I've been here on earth. Why do you ask?

Evil [as defined] has been with humans ever since humans emerged along with evolution.

Nowhere did I say it hasn't. Not sure what your objection is.

[Immanuel Can]

The above survey does make a difference...

Fallacies are just wrong. They're not "hints" and they "make" no "difference."

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you either that it's pretty much a half-way split, so isn't really conducive to anything, even as a fallacy.

But there it is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above survey does make a difference...

Fallacies are just wrong. They're not "hints" and they "make" no "difference."

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you either that it's pretty much a half-way split, so isn't really conducive to anything, even as a fallacy.

But there it is.

Hey! we have gone through that.

It is only a fallacy if that survey results is part of a syllogism to an argument.
Don't you understand what is a fallacy in practice?
You are deliberately pretending to be ignorant or is really ignorant?

A fallacy (also called sophism) is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves"[1] in the construction of an argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

I was using that survey results to throw doubts into your claims.