For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I agree, but would hesitate to say the existence of evil PROVES that God exists. Proof has vague meaning without qualifiers. Anyway, without God the atheist is forced to relegate the definition to what is a personal preference. I’ve not heard convincing arguments otherwise.traceyb1 wrote:The problem of evil is not so much a problem for the theist as it is for the atheist. I am not denying that evil exists, because it clearly does, in various forms, shapes, and sizes. The question most atheists ask , if an all-benevolent God exists, is WHY does evil exist ? The fact that evil DOES exist proves that God cannot possibly exist.
Well, I do not deny the existence of evil, for it clearly exists, in a plethora of forms, shapes, and sizes. The question to be begged, then, is WHY ? Well, it is simple. Can anyone know what " good " is, without knowing what " evil " is ? How can anyone conceivably say " That is good ", without having the faintest idea of what " bad " is ? It makes no sense logically and conceptually. But if the atheist wishes to insist the presence of evil disproves the existence of God, then they will inevitably fall into a reduction ad absurdum : The fact that evil is present in the world means an all-benevolent God doesn't exist . But you can't have an idea of " good " without knowing what " evil " is. So if God doesn't exist, then neither does evil, since God is all-benevolent. If evil doesn't exist, then neither does good, and God. But evil DOES exist. Therefore, the fact that evil does exist PROVES that God exists. The atheist can't have it both ways. Either God exists because evil does, or evil doesn't exist if there is no all-good God.
Does it? Joel Marks has been - in the pages of Philosophy Now - quite engagingly arguing against such concepts.traceyb1 wrote: Well, I do not deny the existence of evil, for it clearly exists, in a plethora of forms, shapes, and sizes.
This character is not mentioned in the article at all. Unlike God, philosophers seem unable to take the horned one seriously. Yet these faithful Christians are confident that God will defeat Satan; that good will triumph over evil.
They are certain about what is good and what evil - there is only dark and light, no grey areas - and are pretty smug about knowing themselves to be on the winning side.
Well you would be wouldn't you?
MMasz wrote:I agree, but would hesitate to say the existence of evil PROVES that God exists. Proof has vague meaning without qualifiers. Anyway, without God the atheist is forced to relegate the definition to what is a personal preference. I’ve not heard convincing arguments otherwise.traceyb1 wrote:The problem of evil is not so much a problem for the theist as it is for the atheist. I am not denying that evil exists, because it clearly does, in various forms, shapes, and sizes. The question most atheists ask , if an all-benevolent God exists, is WHY does evil exist ? The fact that evil DOES exist proves that God cannot possibly exist.
Well, I do not deny the existence of evil, for it clearly exists, in a plethora of forms, shapes, and sizes. The question to be begged, then, is WHY ? Well, it is simple. Can anyone know what " good " is, without knowing what " evil " is ? How can anyone conceivably say " That is good ", without having the faintest idea of what " bad " is ? It makes no sense logically and conceptually. But if the atheist wishes to insist the presence of evil disproves the existence of God, then they will inevitably fall into a reduction ad absurdum : The fact that evil is present in the world means an all-benevolent God doesn't exist . But you can't have an idea of " good " without knowing what " evil " is. So if God doesn't exist, then neither does evil, since God is all-benevolent. If evil doesn't exist, then neither does good, and God. But evil DOES exist. Therefore, the fact that evil does exist PROVES that God exists. The atheist can't have it both ways. Either God exists because evil does, or evil doesn't exist if there is no all-good God.
I can't see why this would be true. I mean, surely BOTH Theists and Atheists *experience* evil, so in that sense it must "bring trouble" for both.Therefore, the problem of evil only brings trouble to the ranks of theists.
In the context of this thread, I understand the "problem of evil" as the "problem of understanding the concept of evil". I'm not talking about how theists or atheists experience evil, even though one might expect a correlation between the experience and the representation of it. The point is that the existence of evil challenges the theistic point of view that an all-benevolent god exists, but it doesn't challenge the atheistic point of view that no god exists.Immanuel Can wrote:I can't see why this would be true. I mean, surely BOTH Theists and Atheists *experience* evil, so in that sense it must "bring trouble" for both.Therefore, the problem of evil only brings trouble to the ranks of theists.
Are you supposing it's easier to *accept* the existence of evil from an Atheistic point of view? But again, I can't see why that would be. Is it easier for an Atheist to watch a loved one die than it is for a Theist? Do they feel less physical pain than Theists? Do the experience less suffering, or do they cope better with suffering?
A wrong basis it seems, as demonstrated by the paradox of an all-benevolent god that permits evil.Immanuel Can wrote:Are you supposing it's easier to *identify* evil from an Atheist point of view? Again, I can't see why. The Theist has at least a basis upon which to substantiate a definition of evil;
Yes, they have. They can base it on a cultural convention, a socially constructed category. So, if a given society says that some kinds of acts fall in the category of evil, every instance of that act will be judged as evil.Immanuel Can wrote:but Atheists have no objective basis upon which to support a judgment that something is "evil."
I have never claimed that.Immanuel Can wrote:Are you supposing it's easier to *combat* evil from an Atheist point of view? I can't see that it is.
Not only that would be a false generalization, but also an Ad Populum fallacy. It is also implying that members of a minority are less humanitarian for being part of that minority.Immanuel Can wrote:If it were, the educative, charitable and humanitarian efforts mounted by Atheists would surely dwarf those created by Theists; but as we see, the precise opposite is the case.
And just exactly why an atheist has to think the universe has been prearranged in a particular way? I don't get it. Isn't he/she an atheist precisely because he/she thinks it has not been prearranged? Do you mean the word "contingent" is not part of everyone's vocabulary?Immanuel Can wrote:Are you supposing it's easier to *explain* evil from an Atheist point of view? I can see that it's somewhat different, but not any easier. The Atheist has to ask himself why the universe happens to be arranged in a way so antithetical to his well-being (i.e. evil), but has nothing he can tell himself but "Bad luck" on that score.
Kind of an irony, because if a supernatural world exists, everything is permitted.Immanuel Can wrote: "If God is dead, everything is permitted"? (Без бога всё позволено).
But nothing can be *wrong* in an Atheist universe -- at least not in an evaluative, moral sense. Everything simply "is." (See David Hume.) You cannot rationally indict God for allowing "evil" if you can't even explain what "evil" really is. You've rendered the word meaningless yourself then.A wrong basis it seems, as demonstrated by the paradox of an all-benevolent god that permits evil.
No, they have not; because "cultural convention" is straw and wind.Yes, they have. They can base it on a cultural convention, a socially constructed category. So, if a given society says that some kinds of acts fall in the category of evil, every instance of that act will be judged as evil.
Not at all: it's a purely empirical claim. There are many good ways to measure it. For example, go count the number of medical, educational and charitable institutions established by Atheists and Theists. Or go to the street missions, the prisons, the Developing World, or anywhere else where people are suffering, and count the numbers of compassionate Atheists laying down their money, their security, and even their lives for the underprivileged; and while you're there, count the Christians.Not only that would be a false generalization, but also an Ad Populum fallacy. It is also implying that members of a minority are less humanitarian for being part of that minority.
Actually, I didn't have to say "evil exists": you did. You claimed God was guilty of it. And if so, I presume you must believe you have seen a thing called "evil," or else you'd be accusing God of nothing thereby.And just exactly why an atheist has to think the universe has been prearranged in a particular way?
In your theist universe, moral rules are supposedly obtained from the experience that mortal human beings have had with the divine entity, in other words, by revelation. But that only works one on one, between one human and the divinity (see Thomas Paine). As soon as one mortal talks to another mortal to say what he/she claims are the moral rules given to him/her by a divinity, we are in the realm of common human experience, where assertions can be either true or false. Those notions of good and wrong, no matter what the claim of their origin is, will conform a human moral system, understood and experienced in a human context, socially constructed. If it were not, I mean, if it were the perfect expression of what the divinity had devised, we wouldn't see different notions of good and wrong, completely dependent of sociocultural contexts. But that's exactly what we find: different notions across different societies in time and geography, most of them never aware of how the moral systems of the others are or were conformed. Moral diversity and moral relativism make even more problematic the idea that morality came from an all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowingly, personal god.Immanuel Can wrote:But nothing can be *wrong* in an Atheist universe -- at least not in an evaluative, moral
sense. Everything simply "is." (See David Hume.)
Well...isn't that funny, that cultural conventions are straw and wind, but the bearded guy in an invisible realm, that's just such a concrete, tangible thing.Immanuel Can wrote:because "cultural convention" is straw and wind.
That just shows that notions about good and wrong change constantly in relation to historical and social contexts. If societies that celebrate this ritual believe it is their moral obligation, but other societies consider it's wrong, how could the notions of good and evil come from god? Even religions and their doctrinal systems evolve along with society. In biblical times, it was OK to slaughter entire populations, murder children, rape women, slave enemies, etc., all commanded as moral goodness by the all-powerful, all-knowingly, all-benevolent god himself. Unless you don't believe the Bible, of course, which would turn this discussion meaningless.Immanuel Can wrote:Consider the case of female circumcision, the brutal mutilation of young females in the name of "purity." It's an ancient custom, dignified by time, firmly believed in by entire societies. I have no doubt that you share my revulsion at it. But what makes your society's condemnation of it, and their society's celebration of it any different? So we, as human beings, are all locked in whatever our society happens to dictate.
A modern atheist can resort to a system of values based on what defines a human as a product of natural and cultural evolution. One of such values would be, for example, individual rights and self determination, which encompasses the ownership of our own bodies and gender equality. Perhaps you wouldn't think female circumcision is a brutal procedure if it were carried out according to modern surgical procedures, if it didn't prevent women to have a free sexual life and if it were not imposed by adults on children (other than that it would not be much different from removing the uterus, tying the fallopian tubes or having plastic surgery), so actually your revulsion (as well as mine) might be associated with secular values, more than religious ones.Immanuel Can wrote: Little girls in Somalia must continue to be mutilated; and you have nothing moral to say about it? I do not believe it.
As explained, the atheist can find the source of those standards in his/her own human context. There are values found outside of religious contexts that imply notions of good and evil. Even some religious values are found revolting from secular perspectives. Countless societies have existed without any knowledge whatsoever of judeochristian moral systems, its myths and taboos, but still will have their own values and distinctions between right or wrong. The Piraha people from the Amazon are godless, yet they have their own values.Immanuel Can wrote: What you need is an *outside* transcendent standard to pass any such judgment. But the Atheist already holds that there are no such objective, *outside* standards.
If we want to get empirical, we can count how is the distribution of atheists vs. theists in prisons. I thought it was more or less the same as it is in the general population (around 97% to 3%), but in the USA it seems that criminal theists hold a bigger percentage. Don't take my word for it...go and look at the stats from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. So, if we bought your argument, we would have to assert that most theists are criminals because of their theism. But we don't believe that, because it's a statistical fallacy.Immanuel Can wrote:Not at all: it's a purely empirical claim. There are many good ways to measure it. For example, go count the number of medical, educational and charitable institutions established by Atheists and Theists. Or go to the street missions, the prisons, the Developing World, or anywhere else where people are suffering, and count the numbers of compassionate Atheists laying down their money, their security, and even their lives for the underprivileged; and while you're there, count the Christians.
But please, please...don't take my word for it...go and look.
True so far. But "moral rules" are not what Christianity is about. I should not speak for other systems of belief.In your theist universe, moral rules are supposedly obtained from the experience that mortal human beings have had with the divine entity, in other words, by revelation.
But that only works one on one, between one human and the divinity (see Thomas Paine). As soon as one mortal talks to another mortal to say what he/she claims are the moral rules given to him/her by a divinity, we are in the realm of common human experience, where assertions can be either true or false.
You've made a non-sequitur here. If the Divine Being reveals something, He can, presumably speak clearly, and if necessary, guarantee understanding. After all, He created "understanding." As for "social construction," it's the secular idea that morals are invented by human communities, which is precisely the point we're debating. You can't assume it true.Those notions of good and wrong, no matter what the claim of their origin is, will conform a human moral system, understood and experienced in a human context, socially constructed.
Non-sequitur again. There's no problem here at all. No religion claims the others are right: that's why they're their own thing. Even the putatively omni-tolerant ones like Hinduism and Buddhism maintain that though others might have some light, you're much better off being whatever they are. That's not usual. And, of course, Atheists insist on that too. What you're really pointing to is the fact that belief systems conflict; but that's only a problem if you expect everybody to possess exactly the *same* revelation, and in the same degrees, and everybody to be right. No belief system expects that, save Universalism. So you've now discredited the Unitarians...but that's about it.If it were not, I mean, if it were the perfect expression of what the divinity had devised, we wouldn't see different notions of good and wrong, completely dependent of sociocultural contexts. But that's exactly what we find: different notions across different societies in time and geography, most of them never aware of how the moral systems of the others are or were conformed. Moral diversity and moral relativism make even more problematic the idea that morality came from an all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowingly, personal god.
Absolutely right. Religions do not agree. And Atheists do not agree. And agnostics do not agree. In fact, there are competing communities of meaning. But we all know that...And nowhere else we find more contradictory notions about good and wrong than in religion itself, even in "sacred texts" that are said to be fundamental for the doctrine.
You've got a number of errors here, at least if you're trying to describe Christian Theism. One is that in at least free-will Theism (which was the subject of the original article) God does not create evil: rather, evil is the product of severed relationship between human beings and God, one brought about by their rebellion. Secondly, people do not redeem themselves: rather, the Creator sent His Son to do that -- that's fundamental to Christianity. As for "all-powerful" and "all-knowing," Christians believe both, but neither makes a problem for their view. The only way it becomes a problem is if you've got a Strong Determinist view of Providence. So congratulations, now you've challenged the Ultra-Calvinists: unfortunately for you, they're an extremely small and marginal group who hold to unconventional theology.One of such problematic contradictions is the paradox found in the notion of an all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowingly, personal god, that creates evil. According to Christian doctrine, a baby is born sinful without a choice, and has to redeem himself/herself to this divine entity for things he/she had never done, but orchestrated by the deity itself. Unless you don't believe the Bible, of course, or that god is all-powerful, all-knowing.
You need to read Anderson's article, "Thoughts on Oughts" in the last edition of PN. The Atheist saint, David Hume, conclusively proved you can't get an "ought" from an "is." The Atheist has only "is" statements to work from. He can say, "My society prefers not to genitally mutilate little girls"; but if they begin to do it, and all he depends on is cultural conditions, psychology and sociology, he is forced to reverse his moral position on that action and say "It's good to mutilate little girls." In other words, his Naturalist suppositions give him no tools for working on moral issues; they just make him a conformist.An atheist, on the other hand, can find perfectly reasonable explanations of the distinction between good and wrong in the natural and cultural conditions in which human existence has become rooted, in the mutual lends between psychology and sociology, in the relation between individual needs and social needs. Available at hand for the atheist is also the concept of ideology, which explains how real, human, unsatisfied needs, become idealized in a realm of fantasy populated by gods.
Because societies do not do what God wants. Many of them do evil...in fact, all do on some points. So now you've shot down constructivism as a source of morals. But you've not touched Theism.That just shows that notions about good and wrong change constantly in relation to historical and social contexts. If societies that celebrate this ritual believe it is their moral obligation, but other societies consider it's wrong, how could the notions of good and evil come from god?
Of course they will *have* them, but some of them will clearly be wrong. And one doesn't even have to be a Theist to know that. You just have to read Aristotle, and you'll see that the basic laws of logic produce that inevitable conclusion. When two things flatly contradict, then one may be right, the other may be right, both may be wrong -- but the one ironclad certainty, rationally speaking, is that *both* are not simultaneously right. Basic logic.Countless societies have existed without any knowledge whatsoever of judeochristian moral systems, its myths and taboos, but still will have their own values and distinctions between right or wrong.
That's simply untrue. The Euthyphro Dilemma is an old one, and good answers to it have been adduced. I find it amazing that Atheists cling to it so irrationally. It's been answered. But heck, I can go over it again for you, if you like.And don't lose sight that any judgement criteria already requires a distinction between right or wrong, between good and evil, but believers in all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowingly, personal god, cannot explain why there's evil in the first place, unless they are willing to sacrifice any of the attributes they consider essential to their god's nature. It's an unsolved paradox.
Oh, please, let's...did you actually check?If we want to get empirical,
Oooh. Let's. In the last century, Atheists killed more human beings than all the previous wars of history combined. The great Atheists Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and their friends have killed more than anyone...by far.And let's not look at the list of organizations promoting hatred and intolerance in the name of religion. Let's not look at the records of Catholic and Protestant churches in history, their Taliban-like fundamentalisms, their sacred genocidal wars, their suppport to slavery, racism, misogyny, etc