tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6888936685613721330..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: On the absurdity of an atheist using the argument from evilLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68188633664710656732014-03-02T14:36:37.638-05:002014-03-02T14:36:37.638-05:00I disagree with Larry. Almost all believers across...I disagree with Larry. Almost all believers across all religions tend to think that their personal God is an epitome of kindness. Even though some Gods can turn violent (as in Hindu mythology), they take up that avatar to deal with unruly elements in the society. But God is expected to remain kind and not inflict suffering as long as people remain good samaritans. Yet, perfectly innocent people meet with gruesome accidents or fall seriously ill or tragically lose a beloved family member. I personally know many people whose belief in God was eroded by such inexplicable acts of evil. Therefore, evil is a strong argument against the public's concept of God as a loving fatherly figure. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04852803503240037336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14689488021157912212014-03-01T20:04:40.532-05:002014-03-01T20:04:40.532-05:00No, but I would accept that he believed he wasn...No, but I would accept that he believed he wasn't a misogynist. You would certainly not get far in argument with that person by beginning with the premise that he was a misogynist. You could however try to demonstrate to him that his two statements were mutually contradictory.<br /><br />The cases are indeed similar. Your example is a misogynist who doesn't believe he's a misogynist. Theists believe various things that are incompatible with their beliefs about the nature of god. But they do believe all those things.<br /><br />The usual statement is "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent: pick two"; but theists are generally unable to jettison any one of those characteristics, and so evolve complicated, though ultimately futile, rationales.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29277838495952181032014-03-01T18:38:46.631-05:002014-03-01T18:38:46.631-05:00So if somebody were to say, "I am not a misog...So if somebody were to say, "I am not a misogynist, but women are too emotional and stupid to do a man's work, and by the way in our current society nearly all rape claims are false, merely made up by evil women to keep men down and in constant fear", would you stop at the first comma and accept that they really are not a misogynist?<br /><br />If not, how is this situation different from taking apologists at their word without caring about what they <i>actually</i> believe?Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49749341752361652672014-03-01T10:31:30.171-05:002014-03-01T10:31:30.171-05:00Nobody (at least nobody here) is claiming that the...Nobody (at least nobody here) is claiming that theological arguments make sense. Internal contradictions are par for the course in theism. But demonstrating a contradiction is not demonstrating that they don't really believe that.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61890389634310968222014-03-01T09:06:21.297-05:002014-03-01T09:06:21.297-05:00Some of the arguments here presume that a dominant...Some of the arguments here presume that a dominant notion of god is that he must be and act exactly as the believer wants him to at all moments. But how many theists openly insist upon this? By definition, it is god who is control and in the main it is not for us to question events, as they pertain to a greater plan to which we may not be entirely privy or at least currently appreciative.<br /><br />Perhaps the argument from evil carries some sort of weight from a theological perspective but part of this overall discussion concerns theists in general, and only a vanishingly small percentage of believers could be said to be theological or much in the way of philosophical.<br /><br />If we turned to a practical rather than theological point of view: consider a believer loosing a child to illness, violence, or accident. I imagine this might well shake the faith. How could a god (their god), if he really existed, allow such a bad thing to happen? But I could see these feelings being temporary.<br />Built into the belief system is that the only pathway to getting back what was lost (that is, reunification in the afterlife) is continued faith. Indeed, the lost child does not cease to exist, but is quite in the protectorate of the lord. A powerful consolation to bereaving parents. Forget that even, who among us is even ambivalent toward the loss of our own life and existence, the only thing we have ever known.<br /><br />So, whatever the misery, suffering, and perceived evil of this world, it is all toward a greater plan. In the end, the lord will make all things perfect and right.<br /><br />Now, I have never been a theist so I don't have personal experience in these matters nor do I have data documenting the reasons for loss of belief when it occurs.<br />But nevertheless, it is for reasons such as these that I don't think that the argument from evil or suffering is a potent challenge to beliefs of most of the people who would claim to be religious. It may carry philosophical weight, but the concerns of bereaving parents (as just one horrible example) or of most theists/people in general are not exactly of an academic nature. SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70909245256534051632014-03-01T06:10:49.402-05:002014-03-01T06:10:49.402-05:00well, I thought it was, but Steve's comment se...well, I thought it was, but Steve's comment seemed more about the response of humans to suffering and our appropriate response to those who do not show compassion, rather than whether the existence of evil (or suffering) is a cogent argument against the existence of god. <br /><br />But I guess my original post is responsible for this minor derailment because I wasn't directly commenting on the utility of the argument from evil. Rather, I was communicating my dislike of the word evil. If the religionist thinks that good things come from god, a purpose-driven result, he might just as well conclude that evil comes from satan (among several possible rationalizations) and is another purpose-driven supernatural circumstance. <br /><br />Meanwhile, from outside this narrow human experience and in the rest of the biome, the cosmos and wide universe, the concepts of good and evil, justice and injustice fall away. If an asteroid hits the earth tomorrow, is that good or evil, is it justice or injustice? It is none of these things. If a cute little duckling is snatched away by a seagull, is that good, evil, justice, or injustice? Again, none of these things. Of course this doesn't preclude humans having an emotional response to these scenarios.<br /><br />I just think that the term evil keeps the argument in the realm of the teleological supernatural, at least to the theist, though I recognize not to the non-theist. Its a minor and idiosyncratic concern, perhaps.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74557807373271128542014-02-28T23:41:40.992-05:002014-02-28T23:41:40.992-05:00But if god is incapable of coming up with a world ...But if god is incapable of coming up with a world that is at least as good as ours but doesn't contain cancer then that is a very very odd definition of omnipotent, which is usually taken to mean being capable of everything that is logically possible. To me, that is merely a cop-out.<br /><br />And I do wonder why so many people who would not take somebody at their word when they argue that they aren't anti-Semitic in the same breath as calling "the" Jews greedy Christ-murdering conspirators do take others at their word when they claim to believe in an omnipotent god in the same breath as describing that god as incapable of rather mundane things, or in an omnibenevolent god in the same breath as describing that god as throwing a decent person into everlasting torment for failing to believe.<br /><br />Yes, the first one really is anti-semitic despite their denial. No, the second one really does not believe in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god despite their claims. Look at what they <i>really</i> believe and say!Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37166893994191831852014-02-28T23:25:48.366-05:002014-02-28T23:25:48.366-05:00OK, now I'm confused. This isn't a discuss...OK, now I'm confused. This isn't a discussion of human compassion. It's a disucssion of the argument from evil. Isn't it?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15047948346828686572014-02-28T20:24:05.129-05:002014-02-28T20:24:05.129-05:00sorry, should have said "pointless addition t...sorry, should have said "pointless addition to THE discussion" meaning a discussion concerning human compassion and empathy...not a pointless addition to "any" discussion. As it happens I am quite interested in discussions of whether gods exist, not that I ever get much of a clear idea of what the average believer thinks god is in the first place.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61540097343137606322014-02-28T19:56:06.219-05:002014-02-28T19:56:06.219-05:00That latter entity is merely a pointless addition ... <i>That latter entity is merely a pointless addition to any discussion.</i><br /><br />It would seem to be a central part of any discussion about the existence, or lack thereof, of gods. If you just aren't interested in discussions of whether gods exist, that's fine. So why post on the subject?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17142513327811691432014-02-28T19:43:05.159-05:002014-02-28T19:43:05.159-05:00Then replace the word with "suffering"
...<i>Then replace the word with "suffering" </i><br /><br />No thank you. It doesn't change the argument or make it better. That is, if we are still talking about an argument for the existence or non-existence of god. But I think you are talking about something else, like the human senses of compassion and empathy. As for me I regret so much as stepping on a insect or even a plant and avoid doing so whenever I can. But this is a somewhat different issue than the one I was referring to and I'm still pretty sure none of it has any bearing on the existence of gods. That latter entity is merely a pointless addition to any discussion.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91513465343196693452014-02-28T19:33:36.642-05:002014-02-28T19:33:36.642-05:00I'm with Steve. There's no reason you can&...I'm with Steve. There's no reason you can't be a strong atheist about some gods and a weak one about others. Why would you have a requirement to the contrary?<br /><br />Are you saying that there are no gods in which you positively disbelieve and are willing to say that they almost certainly don't exist? Or is it merely that you don't care?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56060429989224641432014-02-28T19:30:50.891-05:002014-02-28T19:30:50.891-05:00You find me an example of #3 and I'll accept t...You find me an example of #3 and I'll accept that there is at least one. Find me a lot of examples and I'll accept "a lot". You are right that #4 and #5 are quite common, which is why I specified "capable of thought"; I didn't mean to imply that theologians were capable of thought, and I hope you didn't take it that way.<br /><br />I don't know of anyone saying that god isn't powerful and wise enough, just that this is in fact the best of all possible worlds. Disease and parasites are, for some reason, necessary. The idea that god isn't omnipotent or omniscient is, as I claim, unacceptable to believers.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80402526206236182272014-02-28T18:49:56.011-05:002014-02-28T18:49:56.011-05:00Ah, well I would say that weak atheism is my minim...Ah, well I would say that weak atheism is my minimum position for the entire set of god-concepts -- if someone has a god they want me to consider, then they should specify it, and we can discuss whether there is any evidence for it; if not then I will ignore it. But I'm a strong atheist about several of the god-concepts (even within Christianity there is more than one) of the orthodox Western monotheisms, and the Problem of Evil is one of the reasons.Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022832831084750602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67821111113686166632014-02-28T16:03:12.815-05:002014-02-28T16:03:12.815-05:00I believe you are mistaken. A lot of theodicy boil...I believe you are mistaken. A lot of theodicy boils down to (prettier phrasing of) #3 or #5. Just take those theologians who argue that maybe our current world is the best possible; in effect they are saying that god is not powerful and wise enough to create a world without cancer, neurodegenerative diseases and internal parasites. That is #3 right there.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34804524543415777082014-02-28T15:49:30.511-05:002014-02-28T15:49:30.511-05:00John Harshman asks,
But what's your evidence ...John Harshman asks,<br /><br /><i>But what's your evidence or argument for the nonexistence of god that doesn't rely in any way on a definition?</i><br /><br />I have never argued for the nonexistence of gods. <br /><br />The burden of proof is on those who postulate the existence of gods and I have yet to see an argument for the existence of gods that I find convincing. That's why I don't believe in gods (weak atheism). And that's why the argument from evil is irrelevant to me. It is not evidence of gods. <br /><br />I think I see where you guys are coming from. You want to prove the nonexistence of gods (strong atheism) and that's why the argument from evil appeals to you. I didn't realize that.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75875638575701907532014-02-28T13:40:08.303-05:002014-02-28T13:40:08.303-05:00Then replace the word with "suffering" (...Then replace the word with "suffering" (which many discussions of the Problem do anyway). And if you are at all compassionate, then you agree that the suffering of sentient creatures (humans and many other animals) is a Bad Thing -- something you will alleviate if you reasonably can, and that you will criticize other humans for deliberately or negligently causing. And without worrying too much about exactly which ethical theory you are justifying such judgements on.Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022832831084750602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63565931518923946372014-02-28T13:31:52.682-05:002014-02-28T13:31:52.682-05:00Are you also impressed with the "argument fro...<i>Are you also impressed with the "argument from goodness"?</i><br /><br />As a matter of fact, Stephen Law has made exactly this argument as a refutation of theodicy (see: http://journals.cambridge.org/repo_A72V8TEm; also as an essay in <i>50 Voices of Disbelief</i>). And yes, I'm impressed with it as such -- it makes an evil god look, if anything, *more* probable than a good one.<br /><br /><i>It's pretty clear that there are no Christians who actually believe in the imaginary god that you are describing otherwise they would have abandoned him a long time ago when they recognized that there was evil in the world.</i><br /><br />Do I need to remind you that you are talking to an ex-Christian here, who use to accept those rationalizations? Yes, I did, and orthodox Christians still do, believe in that God. And the Problem of Evil was one of the things that did it in, even if it took way longer than it should have. I knew it was a *big* problem, but theodicy is, as you note, an elaborate construct which manages to plaster over the obvious cracks. I imagined the problems would resolve as time went on, but after 20 years or so, that excuse starts to wear thin. It became cognitively easier to jettison the God-idea.<br />Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022832831084750602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14061693373303559652014-02-28T13:02:46.364-05:002014-02-28T13:02:46.364-05:00Your postulates 1-3 are unacceptable to believers....Your postulates 1-3 are unacceptable to believers. Postulates 4 and 5 are unacceptable to anyone capable of thought. So they don't work well as answers.<br /><br />The fact that there are other arguments against god, even if they are better arguments (which may or may not be the case), does not serve to invalidate the present argument.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74733517996069979032014-02-28T12:59:22.704-05:002014-02-28T12:59:22.704-05:00Your link isn't working.Your link isn't working.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35134141547958453712014-02-28T12:58:16.171-05:002014-02-28T12:58:16.171-05:00I can explain. The problem of evil is a slam-dunk ...I can explain. The problem of evil is a slam-dunk refutation of the sort of god that theists want to believe in. That 2500 years of theology is largely devoted to coming up with an argument that removes the problem, so far without success. The dilemma is that there's no possible argument that would actually work, but they really, really don't want to give up god. They keep up their spirits by imagining they have succeeded. Still, they realize deep down that they haven't, so they keep trying. John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76552616605380467472014-02-28T12:47:40.737-05:002014-02-28T12:47:40.737-05:00Cheezis H. Christ, Larry. This is you displaying c...Cheezis H. Christ, Larry. This is you displaying critical thinking skills? If anyone were postulating an omnipotent, perfectly evil god, the argument from goodness would certainly kill him off. Whether Christians really believe in their god is irrelevant to arguments against him. It isn't quite clear what would be required for "real" belief, but people certainly have the ability to rationalize contradictions and still keep their beliefs.<br /><br />There are two reasons to like the argument from evil: first, it disposes of a prominent model god; second, it appears to work at least some of the time in moving people away from theism.<br /><br />I don't in fact see how it's possible to make a rational argument against god without first postulating at least a few of his properties. Otherwise there's nothing to test or argue about. But what's your evidence or argument for the nonexistence of god that doesn't rely in any way on a definition? Why, I can easily prove that god exists, because I define it as a palm tree in my front yard, and I can send you actual photos.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5569692569489771012014-02-28T11:38:17.714-05:002014-02-28T11:38:17.714-05:00@G.D., Steve, John,
Are you also impressed with t...@G.D., Steve, John,<br /><br />Are you also impressed with the "argument from goodness"? It shows that an omnipotent, perfectly evil god is inconsistent with goodness in our society? Then there's the "argument form sadness," showing that a perfectly happy god can't exist. And let's not forget the "argument from stupidity."<br /><br />It's pretty clear that there are no Christians who actually believe in the imaginary god that you are describing otherwise they would have abandoned him a long time ago when they recognized that there was evil in the world. <br /><br />What's the point in debating the possible characteristics of imaginary beings with those who believe in them? The important point is whether any of those imaginary beings actually exist no matter what personalities you ascribe to them. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34714060828099575912014-02-28T07:21:27.513-05:002014-02-28T07:21:27.513-05:00Yeah I've never been impressed with the argume...Yeah I've never been impressed with the argument about evil. The very word is loaded with supernatural connotations and sets the argument in a place where theists are comfortable. <br />I say abandon the whole notion of evil in the first place and recognize simply that we live in a world where it is possible to experience things that we recognize as favorable or unfavorable and what does occur is ultimately a matter of chance events. The strings that are attached to the hands of gods and demons are invisible because they don't exist. SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37984997166064528602014-02-28T06:23:14.580-05:002014-02-28T06:23:14.580-05:00I'm in two minds about the problem of evil. On...I'm in two minds about the problem of evil. On the one hand, I can see it's appeal - that a property about a particular kind of God is incompatible with the world as we see it. If the choice is choosing between an omnipotent omnibenevolent deity and no deity at all to explain the amount of suffering in the world, it's fairly obvious which way one should go.<br /><br />On the other hand, academic theology has been done in various forms for some 2500 years now, by some of the smartest minds who ever lived. In that time, our conception of how the world works has radically changed, so it's hard (for me at least) to see why it is that the problem of evil is still the perennial issue in evaluating the existential status of God. I really don't get it.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com