"In a world without God...why does evil exist?"
Christian professor Dr. Dan Lambert is using my book for a class introducing the students to atheism at John Brown University, which is an evangelical college. I've mentioned this before. His students wanted to know my answer to the above question.
Dan's full question is this:
However, just because there isn't any ultimate evil doesn't mean there isn't suffering for which we think is unnecessary. On this view evil is suffering, intense suffering, suffering that turns our stomachs. If your students have a hard time contemplating this then don't use the word "evil" at all. Just use the word "suffering." I don't like to suffer. I don't want my loved ones to suffer, nor do I want their friends to suffer. As a human being who is part of the natural world who can reflect on this world I can have a say about the sufferings of myself and others. Since I don't like suffering I want to help alleviate the sufferings of others. I think that by doing so it increases the amount of pleasure for me in this world, since a world that doesn't have as much suffering is a world where I and the ones I love can have more pleasure. And pleasure, holistic Aristotelian pleasure, is it's own reward needing no additional justification.
Dan's full question is this:
Many of them want to know how you answer the problem from an atheist perspective. So, in a world without God, created and sustained by purely natural laws and evolving as scientists explain it, why does evil exist?The short answer is that objective or ultimate evil does not exist. Everything that happens is natural. Nature destroys people on whom the existence of millions of lives depend as well as it destroys people who want relief from their painful existence. Nature is indiscriminate in its dealings with us without any meaning or purpose. This best fits what we experience, I think.
However, just because there isn't any ultimate evil doesn't mean there isn't suffering for which we think is unnecessary. On this view evil is suffering, intense suffering, suffering that turns our stomachs. If your students have a hard time contemplating this then don't use the word "evil" at all. Just use the word "suffering." I don't like to suffer. I don't want my loved ones to suffer, nor do I want their friends to suffer. As a human being who is part of the natural world who can reflect on this world I can have a say about the sufferings of myself and others. Since I don't like suffering I want to help alleviate the sufferings of others. I think that by doing so it increases the amount of pleasure for me in this world, since a world that doesn't have as much suffering is a world where I and the ones I love can have more pleasure. And pleasure, holistic Aristotelian pleasure, is it's own reward needing no additional justification.
118 comments:
Honestly, John, I didn't comprehend your response.
First to say that there is no ultimate evil is utterly wrong for Evil is evil and cannot be good. There is no subjectivity when it comes to evil or good. Secondly, to say that evil is a product of natural laws and to demostrate this you use the term "sufferings" as synonyimous to evil is a very dubious attempt at responding at Professor Dan students. All evil produces sufferings but not all sufferings are results of evil. I may fall in love with a cutie girl and suffer anguish at missing this girl I desire so much, am I suffering out of evil or out of love?
And to use the phrase "natural laws" as an attempt to shrug off anything so called an onmipotent deity does not work here, John. Try something better next time.
Hey John, thanks for posting this piece of our discussion. I have invited my students to post in response as well.
Dan
Edson, in the problem of evil, the term "evil" is used to refer to things that cause unnecessary suffering. Not the more narrow modern usage in which evil is synonymous with malevolent. The problem with the question submitted was that they didn't define which usage they intended and I suspect they didn't, in fact, have it very clear in their own minds. In discussions of the problem of evil its all too common to see people switching between the two usages of the term---often not really realizing that they're doing so.
I really wish philosophers would stop calling it the problem of evil and refer to it as the problem of unnecessary suffering instead.
It would avoid a lot of confusion.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you talk about Nature and how it affects humans - could you give me an example?
I also agree with the first commenter about suffering - not all of it exists because of evil, and the result of some sufferings can be good. I think you need to further define it so that it doesn't sound misleading.
The question itself seems kind of odd to me. In a world without God, why does evil exist?
Isn't that kind of like asking, "In a world without faster-than-light travel, why does grass exist?"
I don't see why the two need to be related at all.
Ellis makes a good point. However your suggestion of calling this aspect of badness (which is actually what is being talked about)"unnecessary suffering" equally misses the mark. It too refers to the presumed outcome of evil -suffering. And yet you had hit upon the real issue in your run up. Malevolence. Its not the results that make any given act evil. It is intention.
John
To be an Atheist, you'd have to say
"The short answer is that objective or ultimate evil does not exist".
But how does that explain why even John Loftus or Matt Feeney aka feeno, know it's creepy to rape, molest, torture, or harm those we can dominate physically.
I've read on this site before, and I'll paraphrase, that the reason we treat each other nice is so we can get along with others in our group. Therefor helping us survive.
Giving credit for our "goodness" to evolution.
Is that the best answer out there?
I feel I've gotten to "know" a couple of you guys (Atheists) a little, you all seem to know right from wrong as well as anybody else.
And it's been proven, that some of you are actually more "morale" than a lot of us "fundies".
If evil doesn't exist than no one, not even society/govt. has a right to tell me how to act. Who cares if I butcher my neighbor, maybe I wanted his boat or his old lady. What happened to survival of the fittest? (tho I'm not fit, I can kick all my niehbor's asses.)
If your answer is that in a civilized society we must keep the peace by being fair and treating each other with respect, then define peace, fair, and respect with out coming back to good or evil. I don't think it can be done.
Something or someone put a morale code inside of us.
Do evolutionists believe we have a conscience?
Hope you enjoyed Memorial Day weekend. Thanks Veterans. Peace out, feeno
I've always found it useful to distinguish between suffering and evil. Suffering is what we think it is.
*Evil* is the infliction or continuation of suffering by a conscious being who understands the effect of his or her actions.
Thus, a cheetah taking down a gazelle may cause the gazelle to suffer, but it is not evil because the cheetah has no real understanding of the harm it is causing. A human torturing another human is evil because the torturer knows quite well that he his causing suffering to someone else.
Thus, evil depends on the ability to see things from someone else's point of view ... and doing bad things anyway. I find this to be a much more satisfying definition than simply "evil = suffering".
IdahoeEv, I see your point and agree but we're just talking nomenclature at this point. For evil in your sense decribes an action that is wrong for conscious beings to do, and I think it is wrong to cause unecessary suffering. The intensity of our more serious wrong deeds may best be described as evil though.
Hello John, I'm one of the students of Professor Lambert. I have to say I have enjoyed your book so far. However, I have a couple of questions. In your book, you talk about how Einstein equations combined with Olber's paradox have shown the universe to be finite (p. 266.) However, the scientific community has not reached consensus about this matter yet. Why do you assume this to be true? (This is not relevant to Debunking Christianity but is just a curiosity that I have)
Now, you also talk about the different theories that try to harmonize science with Genesis. I have to say that I agree with you in the fact that they are all flawed. However, how about making a "mixture" of them. You can combine, for example, the Concordist Interpretation with the Literary Theory. The result would be an interpretation in which days represent millions of years. Also, there wouldn’t be a problem with the chronological order in which God supposedly created because those passages would only show that God in fact created. Isn’t this theory plausible? Please, tell me what you think.
Kind Regards
Hi Carlos, the consensus is that big bang theories have won the day and I gave reasons why scientists think so. This doesn't say anything against Smolin's views or the potential multiverse.
As far as combining theories in Genesis goes, have at it. Once you admit parts are literary then concordism flies out the window I think. You are now subjecting the Genesis text to a god of the gaps argument where your exegesis is dependent on the findings of science. But then, that's what I claim, that science sets the boundaries for how we interpret the Biblical text, now didn't I? That's what you are already doing, isn't it? I think it's possible to accept the literary viewpoint and still be an evangelical, like Henri Blocher does, so why not just follow his lead?
Why would people be attracted to and follow men like Charles Manson and Jim Jones? 900 people go to Guyana and then submit to a mass suicide???? This goes WAY beyond calling evil simply "unnecessary suffering"! Please do not be so naive. Evil is an active and diabolical force.
John,
I just wanted to post and say I have a really enjoyed reading your book in Dr. Lambert's class. I am enjoying the experience of "being tested" and being able to think logically to defend Christianity. I will admit that my perception of atheism before reading your book was quite different than it is now, in a good way. I have never really considered a lot of the points you discuss in your book. While I don't have anything to argue at the moment, I just wanted to post and say thank you for the opportunity to read your book.
Thanks APollock. I wish you well. Your prof is unique and gifted. I'd love to sit in that class myself!
I'm not sure that I would be willing to grant that objective evils don't exist in the absence of a deity, mainly because the question becomes: "But do objective evils exist?"
This basically yields the Moral Argument:
1) If God does not exist, objective evil does not exist.
2) Objective evil does exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
I would rather hold that objective moral values (including evil) DO exist and (with the failure of Divine Command Theories) find their foundation elsewhere, plausibly in persons or agents.
Though, this might yield the question, "But why does evil exist *in the world*?" That is, why are there some ACTUAL things that are evil (rather than evil being a non-exemplified property or value)? However, I don't think we should expect otherwise in a universe which is indifferent to the existence of good and evil, but we ought to expect differently in a universe where good is preferred to evil in some way.
Legal scholar Charles Fried has a pretty useful secular definition of evil.
Evil happens when one person or group of person denies the personhood of another person or group in order to achieve self-interested goals.
Neurologically healthy people have a theory of mind -- I have a sense that you have emotions and experience pain much as I do. Evil as stated above can happen when the theory of mind is ignored or not present.
What if the question was put instead in another way like "In a world with God why then does evil still exist?"
I mean check out our good christian friend Harvey , getting his kicks here from tryin ta upset Atheists !!. :)
Surely the same answer for both is we are just humans learning and simply are not at all (perfect).
Its Human group experiences and the conclusions of their majorities etc which decide in the end whats suggested to be bad harmful or injurious or "evil" etc.
Which is why in some human societies some things are deemed to be unacceptable, when in some other different society elsewhere on our planet it might be thought there to maybe not be at all.
It seems also quite natural to me that in certain instances many societies seem to have come up with much the same conclusions for what might be right or wrong etc.As no matter where ever in the world we might actually come from we are still the same humans experiencing much the same emotions etc,so naturally for instance we might easily all be expected to conclude much the same like that its best to not steal or lie or murder etc etc.
We all kind of use our experiences to form something like a kind of simple equation to find our answers and ideas.
So then would we really expect it very likely to find many societies of humans that for instance were not at all disturbed or emotionally effected by being ripped off by some bloody thief?
I doubt it! so im not really surprised at all that in most places worldwide its quite commonly found theft is generally disliked.
But would i expect to find the same conclusions worldwide with regards to such things as for instance marriage.
No i personally dont think so.
It might be much more easier for the society i personally live in to only feel the need for everyone to only have one wife.But somebody else in some other tribal situation elsewhere might find it actually to be more sensible to have more than one.
Surely if God was supplying morals about such things then it should be expected these tribal folks consciences would then naturally be racked with the guilt of being morally wrong.
And yet you had hit upon the real issue in your run up. Malevolence. Its not the results that make any given act evil. It is intention.
There are two sources of suffering recognized in most philosophical discussions of the POE. Moral evil (which is not limited to malevolence) and natural evils (things in the natural world which cause suffering---genetic disorders, harmful microbes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc).
And as to intention: surely you've heard the aphorism about what the road to hell (metaphorically speaking, in the case of us nonbelievers) is paved with.
I think objective morality can be attributed to the equivalency of natural laws and mathematical truths. Humans are most interested in self-preservation and being in community or relationship with others. So, anything that brings pain or threatens humanities need for survival and community indicates that something is evil. A common Christian objection to this view arises from the notion that moral laws are personal in nature and need a personal Law Giver in order to communicate these truths. How would naturalists respond to this?
Sarah
Why would people be attracted to and follow men like Charles Manson and Jim Jones? 900 people go to Guyana and then submit to a mass suicide???? This goes WAY beyond calling evil simply "unnecessary suffering"! Please do not be so naive. Evil is an active and diabolical force.
This is exactly why I prefer the term "problem of unnecessary suffering".
You are misunderstanding what the POE is talking about. You still have the contemporary usage of the term "evil" which refers to moral evils in mind when the POE is a term that was coined during a time when the word had another meaning.
Its like how the term "objective" has two separate and completely different meanings:
a. unbiased
b. existing independently of any observer.
In a similar way the word "evil" has historically had to very different meanings:
a. malevolence
b. unnecessary suffering or something that causes it (as in smallpox is a natural evil)
You're making the mistake of assuming that we mean that evil in the first sense is limited to unnecessary suffering---when in fact we mean the reverse. Usage B includes A as a subset but you seem to be thinking that we mean that A is limited to B (which would, of course, be an absurdity).
I really hate having to have this semantic discussion every time this topic comes up.
Evil happens when one person or group of person denies the personhood of another person or group in order to achieve self-interested goals.
I don't think that's the only time evil occurs (depending partly on whether you're defining evil as "morally reprehensible" or "malevolent"---both being fairly common, though distinct, usages).
Much evil has been done with good intentions.
If I were a college professor grading a paper and someone gave the following as a valid syllogism:
1) If God does not exist, objective evil does not exist.
2) Objective evil does exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.I would take points off because 3 doesn't necessarily follow from 2, logically speaking.
None of these replies answers why people obey the orders of diabolical men like Charles Manson and Jim Jones. Why would people be talked into committing murder, and suicide, if some external evil force was not at work? There is nothing natural about Jonestown nor the Sharon Tate murders. There is a SUPERNATURAL form of evil that you are refusing to acknowledge.
@DenCol
You need look no further than mental illness. You don't need Satan for someone to have a chemical imbalance of some sort.
A common Christian objection to this view arises from the notion that moral laws are personal in nature and need a personal Law Giver in order to communicate these truths.
I don't consider moral truths to be laws in anything resembling the literal sense used here. I need no external lawgiver to tell me that kindness is intrinsically worthwhile and worth valuing and acting on. I need only look at human life in a rational, sensible fashion to recognize that truth.
If it is a law (not a term I use) its only such in the most metaphorical way.
None of these replies answers why people obey the orders of diabolical men like Charles Manson and Jim Jones. Why would people be talked into committing murder, and suicide, if some external evil force was not at work....here is a SUPERNATURAL form of evil that you are refusing to acknowledge.
I wish it was true that human beings couldn't perform such evil without an external agent pushing them to it.
But I see no reason to think that's the case.
Justin,
Mental illness does not answer why the FOLLOWERS of these men would commit such hideous acts at their bidding!
It is not he evil of the men themselves that I am so concerned with. It is the fact that OTHER people would be atrracted to these men and submit to their evil wishes and commands. How do you expalin that fact?
Um, not to sound stupid, but why not? Do you have some sort of proof that these were all otherwise sane individuals who thought one day that, hey, killing sprees are all in good fun?
Take a good close look at the dynamics that led to the Jonestown massacre. One man then convinces 900 people, some willingly and others through manipulative force, to commit mass suicide. And many of these were well educated people. How does one religious nut gain so much power, to be able to dominate and control others minds and wills, to the point of obeying a directive to commmit suicide? There is nothing natural about it.
"Do evolutionists believe we have a conscience"
Yes. Which is the problem. "Conscience" is, for most human beings, not something that we think about objectively much.
The ability to feel sympathy for others, the desire to care for others, build relationships and be a part of a family, the feelings we have when we see starving children or great violence... these are all such a hard wired part of who we are that it's very difficult for many people to see the world otherwise
Christians have this conscience, atheists have this conscience. The only people who don't are sociopaths. So perhaps you can understand why it's so hard for many atheists to even understand what is being asked when Christians tell them to give a "real" account of morality, or say things like "Who cares if I butcher my neighbor, maybe I wanted his boat or his old lady. What happened to survival of the fittest?" These kinds of ideas are so against our basic conscience that we have a hard time understanding why Christians honestly believe we would all be raping murderers without God.
Also, "evolutionist" happen to know an awful lot nowadays about how altruism and "conscience" in general would evolve. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/#5
Therefore, it seems to me that the basic explanation of good and evil that most atheists would hold some version of says simply that we have consciences. We are concerned with others, can feel others' pain, understand our interconnectedness and develop moral systems accordingly.
But Christians don't think this is good enough, because the atheist hasn't demonstrated why conscience/empathy is something we should follow and value, rather than perhaps monetary self interest.
I think the answer is simply that life with a conscience is immeasurably better than life without one. Think about your loved ones, your best friends, even your pets. Now imagine being able to feel nothing for them, to have no real understanding of their feelings, to only care about yourself and feel an emotional deadness with regards to others. It would be a pretty boring, meaningless and ultimately perhaps even self-destructive life to live without a conscience.
Sure, there are obligations, often times incredibly difficult ones, associated with having a conscience, and cultivating moral reasoning that flows from one's conscience. It's not all fun and friends-- it's also an obligation to help suffering people, and relate to people in a responsible and altruistic way. But I certainly wouldn't want to live without that ability-- would you?
I think that when you see that conscience is an objective good for individual humans, as well as humanity in general, then you have arrived at about as "objective" an understanding of good and evil as anyone could hope for, God or no God.
(for more on the inherent goodness of conscience, and the lives of those without it, check out "The Sociopath Next Door" by Dr. Martha Stout: http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243364989&sr=8-1)
DenCol said..." Justin,
Mental illness does not answer why the FOLLOWERS of these men would commit such hideous acts at their bidding!"
Dencol the many many well known imperfections of humans that can actually be experienced and observed is absolutely no simple acceptable answer,yet for some reason for you the idea of supernatural forces being at work are ????
"Take a good close look at the dynamics that led to the Jonestown massacre. One man then convinces 900 people, some willingly and others through manipulative force, to commit mass suicide. And many of these were well educated people. How does one religious nut gain so much power, to be able to dominate and control others minds and wills, to the point of obeying a directive to commmit suicide? There is nothing natural about it."
How does one religious nut gain so much power to be able to dominate and control others minds and wills.
Check it out http://www.factnet.org/Children.html
It's worth pointing out that one doesn't have to believe in a creator to believe in a spiritual view of the world. Perhaps there is a course in nature that allows for the unfortunate things to happen to all of us... call it yin and yang or good and evil, but semantics aside, the presence of a creator doesn't necessarily determine either fortunuate or unfortunate events. I don't believe evil or most descriptions of god. So the real question is: In a world without god or evil, why do I exist? ;0)
Jonestown cannot be explained by simple cult dynamics. There are 1000's of cults, but they are not committing mass suicide at the leaders request! Your web site had no answers for the mass suicides of Jonestown.
"Jonestown cannot be explained by simple cult dynamics"
Why not? You haven't given a good reason why this cult can't be explained the same way we explain other cults... you just keep insisting that it must be due to "supernatural evil"
Human beings will often do seemingly crazy or unethical things if a person of authority tells them to... even people who aren't in a cult... ever hear of the Milgram experiment? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
In a cult, people sublimate their own individuality to the leader, who becomes an authority who must be obeyed and believed no matter what. They come to believe certain metaphysical beliefs and doctrines of the cult deeply, no matter how dangerous or ludicrous they may seem to outsiders. They learn to act as a group at the commands of their leaders. Serious brainwashing techniques and isolation from the world are often used in cults as well, making the situation even worse.
What further ingredients could you possibly need for things like Jonestown? It seems to me that if you have a species that's susceptible to things like cults, and you have a world with a lot of them (1000s, as you say), then you can expect things like Jonestown from time to time. I don't really see much of a role for the devil to play here... just human psychology operating on individuals exceptionally susceptible to cult influences
To Ellis:
"And as to intention: surely you've heard the aphorism about what the road to hell ... is paved with."
Absolutely. And these turn out to be the nastiest kinds of evil; because they are so ambiguous, mixed with the mirey clay of good. As when an incompetent doctor, trying to do good, kills his patient. But most of the time, suffering is not caused by good intentions but malicious ones.
Establishing a god as the ultimate source of how we define good and evil simply pushes the question a step back and into an infinite regression. Ultimately, the Eurythro's dilemma is where such questions end. To me this is no different than answering "Who made god then?" with the special pleading that god exists outside of time and thus was never made but always existed. This is exactly how christians resolve the Eurythro's dilemma - simply saying good is part of god's nature. Either way, the fact that "evil" exists is more of a proof that a omnipotent benevolent god does not exist, than that he exists and created evil (the devil) to begin with....
What about Charles Manson, or Adolph Hitler? Their's is a "natural" evil?????? How does their mind control and manipulation so strongly influence their followers? Is that how atheists are born? Are you REALLY thinking for yourself, or is Bart Ehrman etc influencing you to the point of mind control?
Wow John, this is a hot one! Too fun.
But how does that explain why even John Loftus or Matt Feeney aka feeno, know it's creepy to rape, molest, torture, or harm those we can dominate physically.Feeno,
Would you want any of these things done to you? Of course not. As conscious beings who have the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, we feel creepy when we think about doing these things to others.
However, moral decisions are much more complex due to the fact that we can act irrationally and can be influenced in ways we can't always grasp. In addition, modern life often puts us in situations which we are often poorly equipped to gauge the possible risks, assess rewards and make accurate comparisons.
The following TED videos help illustrate this
Predictably Irrational: Our broken moral code
Are we in control of our own decisions?
Our mistaken expectationsIf evil doesn't exist than no one, not even society/govt. has a right to tell me how to act. If you decide to buy a house in a developed community, you do so with the full knowledge that you will be expected to meet specific requirements and expectations. In many cases, this includes a homeowners association which defines very specific limitations and requirements that must be met, such as noise levels, upkeep, landscaping and limitations on building additions. Should you be unwilling to meet these requirements, it would be unwise to purchase a home in this community, as they can be legally binding and you can be sued in a court of law. However, you may find these limitations when applied to your neighbors advantageous. Therefore, you gladly accept them for yourself.
While the number of factors increases dramatically, we can expand this idea from living to a particular to living in a particular city, state and even country. In each case, you gain a particular set of benefits and are held to a particular set of expectations.
For example, in the US there are laws against the private recreational smoking of marijuana. If you are caught, there is a very good chance you will be prosecuted and convicted. If you think this law is unfair, you can attempt to change the law or you could move to The Netherlands, where smoking small amounts of marijuana is illegal but almost never prosecuted. Or you could move to Belgium, Spain or Portugal, where the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use has been completely decriminalized. However, should you leave the US, you would loose specific rights you current hold as a US citizen.
How does one religious nut gain so much power, to be able to dominate and control others minds and wills, to the point of obeying a directive to commmit suicide? There is nothing natural about it.
So you say. What makes you think that? You're position seems pretty naive:
"Wow! What a weird thing to do! They must have been under demonic influence."
Sorry, that there are plenty of plausible naturalistic answers. Sheer human stupidity, group conformity, the impulse to submit to dominant and charismatic personalities being obvious mundane factors.
hello Mr. Loftus I am Pedro and I am a student of Dr. Lambert. First of all let me say that i have enjoyed reading your book and you make many critical comments about Christianity which I myself have considered. In any case i would like to comment on some of your statements.
You say with regards to evil that objective or ultimate evil does not exist. It seems to me (Feeno seems to make this point as well) that if evil does not exist then morality becomes pointless. By this I mean that we may still choose what actions to do but in the end there is no point to do it because there is no ultimate choice to make. We will not be doing good or evil with our actions since these two do not exist so who cares what we do and why should we be rewarded or punished for them?
Another problem I have encountered is that you claim that clearly the Big Bang theories have won the day but to me it seems there is still a large gap to be filled. A huge problem with the big bang is the uneven distribution of matter in the universe which has 'theoretically' been accounted for by dark matter.( scientists fill this gap in the theory by claiming the existence of dark matter)To me it seems there is still not conclusive evidence for the existence of dark matter. scientists have searched for many things that would verify its existence but to no avial. like I said theroretically it makes the big bang work but it yet has to be proven to exist. In the end to me it seems that claiming the big bang theory works is as probable as the existence of a supreme being, maybe not the way christians define him but a supreme being none the less.
DenCol said..."Jonestown cannot be explained by simple cult dynamics. There are 1000's of cults, but they are not committing mass suicide at the leaders request! Your web site had no answers for the mass suicides of Jonestown."
No agreed ! Dencol, not all cults are committing mass suicide.Some do many other things instead.
But that doesnt prove it has nothing to do with mind control or brainwashing etc, does it Dencol??
For personal faithful reasons i understand you most likely will not ever even allow yourself to consider it might be anything other than this suggested evil you have been taught about.
Still much studies have been done by (many) people educated in these matters,and according to the findings of these folk it seems they feel evidence is available to prove it.
Maybe you feel i should change my mind and listen to people such as yourself,educated by people of faith.Quite likely only convinced with the use of a certain amount of fear tactics also for any disbelief,which in itself i suggest is even a small part of this very mind control aspect ive mentioned.
The educated people who suggest how these matters might happen have good evidence to actually prove and back up what they say,you would have me disregard this for your mere faith with little or absolutely no evidence able to be supplied to back up the claims.All you have is some ancient old book written by people with little actual knowledge who once quite stupidly even explained lightening with fantasies about supposed god/s.Why? simply because they knew no better back then!!.
Dencol as a atheist personally i actually think its even quite a good thing for the future of humanity that faithful folks continue to be publicly seen as rather all to often much like a ostrich with its head stuck in the sand.
Because while you sit there floundering, most folk these days dont bother to take much notice other than realizing more and more that faith without good evidence really seems to be a great recipe for great ignorance as well.
I suppose some how you think very little investigation was done with situations such as the ones you have mentioned ?.And whats more your mind is made up that absolutely no good evidence has ever likely been found to help prove the studies that (many)have carried out.
No ! once again it just simply all comes down to very many people not wanting to believe in supernatural evil forces,right??
But most of the time, suffering is not caused by good intentions but malicious ones.
You think so? When I look at the world I see an awful lot of evidence to the contrary. People performing genital mutilation on their daughters don't do it because they hate their children. They do it out of ignorance and uncritical adherence to tradition.
I think a good case can be made that more harm is done in this world out of lack of rationality and critical thinking on the part of people of good will than out of malevolence.
The effect of Catholic policy regarding condoms on the AIDS epidemic in Africa being an excellent example.
In the end to me it seems that claiming the big bang theory works is as probable as the existence of a supreme being, maybe not the way christians define him but a supreme being none the less.
The fact that the doctor performing an autopsy on a body may not be able to determine how he died does not make the body any the less indisputably dead.
Which I mention to give an obvious illustration of the error you appear to be making:
That we don't know everything about an event does not entail that we have reasonable doubt that the event occurred.
Not knowing why the distribution of matter is the way it is does not in any way count against the likelihood that the Big Bang occurred.
Hey david. you say that "Not knowing why the distribution of matter is the way it is does not in any way count against the likelihood that the Big Bang occurred." WELL my question is why then we theists cannot say the same thing about God. Not knowing why he does certain things does not in any way count against the likelihood that He exists. So which one is more probable? Both have certain difficulties.
Pedro said..."By this I mean that we may still choose what actions to do but in the end there is no point to do it because there is no ultimate choice to make. We will not be doing good or evil with our actions since these two do not exist so who cares what we do and why should we be rewarded or punished for them?"
What absolutely no point??,hell any hope of changing peoples choice of possible bad actions etc by our use of leading by good example equation likely will have no benefit to yourself or your future offspring ???
What?? we dont reward ourselves or the future of our offspring etc by making these good choices,or possibly even in a way maybe punish ourselves and our offspring as well if we choose to disregard these matters??
Without Gods there is no point??
If Charles Manson and his followers is a "natural", then why is he and his evil so well known and documented in books and movies? Is this a "normal" evil????? How did his followers come under his "spell"? Did he hypnotize them? Were they mere zombies? Who REALLY has their head in the sand??? NOT I! You are ignoring the obvious and refusing to look at a truly supernatural form of evil.
DenCol,
As someone highly interested in social psychology, let me say that cults are a mixture of complex social forces, but there is no indication of supernatural forces. I had a professor who compared cults to abusive relationships, and I thought the analogy was apt. Why do battered wives keep coming back to their abusive husbands? It stems from a sense of isolation, a lack of alternatives, a strong imbalance of power, and social conditioning. (Along with a strong desire to believe that "he's changed".) The same with religious cults. They are often socially isolated, they tend to push away family and friends so that they lack alternatives, and they willingly give all decision-making power over to their leader over a period of time. As well, many of the people who are attracted to cults and that stay in them are "needy" in some way - they've experienced some sort of emotional trauma or they feel a sense that "something's missing." They get pulled in, and immediately the social forces begin to work.
I'd encourage you to put some research into this matter, as it's not a valid argument to say "it's weird, therefore it's demonic forces." That's just being naive. It certainly is a complex and strange issue, but it's explainable. You just have to seek out the explanations.
The question is a laughable attempt by the theist to turn the problem of evil in the opposite direction. I feel the appropriate answer is:
Evil exists because there is no god to quell it.
And now that I read your most recent post, I think you're simply a troll.
Cult dynamics can explain some forms of mind control. But Charles Manson????? He was not in any church! He was not a pastor, priest, or man of influence or authority! He was just an uneducated convict. How does he become any kind of leader with great persuasive influence over others?? Where did he learn to dominate and mind control others to the point of gaining "worship"?
Actions are ultimately judged as good or bad by their consequences. Theists believe that actions have consequences both in this world and in some other world beyond death. Atheists believe actions have no ultimate consequences for the actor beyond this world. Not believing in an ultimate definition of good or evil in no way changes the consequences of people's actions in this world - it makes no difference whether the person's act were ultimately good or evil, the only thing we have to judge those actions by are their consequences in this world - both to the individual actor and to society/mankind as a whole.
On the whole cult thing - think about the average person out there. Now realize that half the people are dumber than that...
Who is responsible for mental illness, personality disorders, and chemical imbalances? Is a child responsible for the evils in which it was raised - ie child abuse/neglect, prejudice, broken home, anger, hatred, etc etc. All these things influence psychological and moral development and conditioning. But the "Road Less Traveled" and it's follow up, speak to another form of evil that defies all of the above criteria. Some form of evil that has no logical or natural explanation.
WELL my question is why then we theists cannot say the same thing about God. Not knowing why he does certain things does not in any way count against the likelihood that He exists. So which one is more probable? Both have certain difficulties.
The difficulties in the case of the Big Bang, though, is simply in not knowing everything about it. They are not difficulties that are inconsistent with the Big Bang having occurred.
In the case of God and suffering that's exactly the sort of difficulty we have.
Its not simply that we don't know something about God but that the possibility of the very existence of an explanation for why he would allow such suffering is implausible in the extreme.
Well, except for one: that he's fictional.
That accounts for it perfectly.
So why prefer an unknown, mysterious and implausible explanation over a clear straightforward one that explains the evidence completely?
So you would tell someone who has had their five year old child raped, murdered, and left in a ditch that is just a natural process of suffering. It's natural, and according to naturalism, their lives had no purpose or meaning anyway? That seems evil to me, there is nothing natural about anyone who would do that. To say that everything is natural makes it able to justify any behavior you choose. When we know there are certain things are wrong. Put yourself in that father's shoes. When it's your child, would you really believe it when a fellow atheist told you "it's alright John, her life had no meaning anyway, it's just natural?" Or since there are only natural processes, love could also be counted out of those processes right? So you would actually feel nothing when your child was killed? To say that everything is natural takes the value of human life away, so why bother with a moral code right? Do whatever you want... Would your "scholarly" beliefs really come into play when you actually had a circumstance that required you to live what you say you believe or, don't believe for instance.
blacksnap619 just do this one thing, okay. Since you asked me to put myself in that father's shoes let me ask you to put on mine. Let's say you awoke one day and concluded there was no God. That's what I did anyway. Then that same day someone does what you described to your daughter. Does it change anything at all? Would you not want him caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law the same as I would?
Of course you would. For you would be part of the natural process too.
DenCol said..."If Charles Manson and his followers is a "natural", then why is he and his evil so well known and documented in books and movies? Is this a "normal" evil????? How did his followers come under his "spell"? Did he hypnotize them? Were they mere zombies? Who REALLY has their head in the sand??? NOT I! You are ignoring the obvious and refusing to look at a truly supernatural form of evil."
Well Dencol first let me admit, im no expert on Charles Manson.
And whats more i realize wikipedia is maybe not always the best place to find answers.But still without me going into a whole lot of study elsewhere i think it still can provide some information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
It suggests Charles led what became known as the Manson Family, a (quasi-commune)
It seems he was rather messed up and that maybe his childhood also wasnt that great.
It seems he had learned some type of control technique's because i dont think its really all that normal that many women would likely allow 18 other females into the home.
It seems he might have had some training in these techniques as it is suggested "Manson established himself as a (guru) in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury, which, during 1967's "Summer of Love", was emerging as the signature hippie locale. Expounding a philosophy that included some of the Scientology he had studied in prison,[17] he soon had his first group of young followers, most of them female.[13]"
It seems he saw himself as some type of messiah as "For some time, too, Manson had been saying that racial tension between blacks and whites was growing and that blacks would soon rise up in rebellion in America's cities.[38][39] He had emphasized Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, which had taken place on April 4, 1968.[31] On a bitterly cold New Year's Eve at Myers Ranch, the Family members, gathered outside around a large fire, listened as Manson explained that the social turmoil he had been predicting had also been predicted by The Beatles.[34] The White Album songs, he declared, told it all, although in code. In fact, he maintained (or would soon maintain), the album was directed at the Family itself, an elect group that was being instructed to preserve the worthy from the impending disaster.[38][39]"
DenCol its fine by me if you think not,but at present even with the little knowledge i have of Charles to me it is suggesting some type of manipulation and mind control was very likely present.
To use mind control Dencol i really dont think one needs to be a pastor or priest and influence or authority can soon be learned.
You are wrong! ive always been quite willing to look at the idea of a truly supernatural form of evil etc and even still am if some good evidence arrives.
Where is the proof Dencol?.
Ideas such as mind control have not been around for anywhere near as long as this Christian belief,but strangely at least some decent evidence seems to have been found for real proof of mind control being about a whole lot more than some ancient faith.
For starters live humans today still relay many accounts of whats happening that unlike this faith belief Christianity,can still be cross examined along with the accounts of many other live humans as well that seem to back up these theories.
I didn't ask about what I would want done to whomever did it. I asked if you really thought that world lacked evil when things like that happen all the time and if it would bother you when it's something thats just "going to happen." The downfall of "naturalism" is that it makes humans into robotic machines and when asked a question like that, has to borrow from deism or even theism to find value in human life. You can't pick and choose and if everything is natural, it shouldn't bother you that it happened, if you really believe it. And it is not necessarily a natural process for people to want others persecuted because they did wrong to them.
The Amish school house shooting a few years back for instance: those families of those children did not want the person that did that prosecuted or killed, nor were they angry. They were broken hearted, but believed God had a purpose which may sound fickle, but none the less, it gives them something you can't possibly have: hope.
And if I just woke up one day and concluded there was no God, as you did, which is not what it says in your book, then shame on me for not fully educating myself on the issue. But no, it's not the natural thing to want the culprit tracked down and tried for his life, it's the selfish thing to want because that means that your child's life was more valuable than whoever killed them. I have personal experience with death of immediate family and to want the person who contributed to their death possibly killed makes me no better than the act he committed, in my opinion.
And where does the law come from? if law is truly man made, and there's no God, then I don't care one bit what happens to any one else.If the same species that came rape and kill a little girl can also create laws with no form of redemption possible and all of it just be natural, I'm not abiding by them, also seems fickle.
blacksnap619, I answered you.
You said: You can't pick and choose and if everything is natural, it shouldn't bother you that it happened, if you really believe it.You know what a non-sequitur is? Your statement is a prime example. Why should I not be bothered by it? Why? Stop asserting things here. Offer an argument. Show me why I should not be bothered when suffering takes place. It's natural that I should be bothered by suffering, okay? And I am. What's the problem?
I think a good case can be made that more harm is done in this world out of lack of rationality and critical thinking on the part of people of good will than out of malevolence. -Ellis
Lack of rationality. Yet another source of unnecessary suffering. But not necessarily evil. The lack of rationality must be put into action in order to cause its harm. Some one has to intend it. Intent to harm is malevolent (except in cases of self preservation). Intention is the essential defining characteristic of evil.
I am in Dr. Lamberts class and I have also really enjoyed going through your book. It has helped me solidify my beliefs about Christianity.
I have to disagreee with you on the point you made that suffering and evil are different. They can easily go hand in hand. I as well do not see how the sufferings of the world such as the Rwandan genocide, gang rapes, the murdering of whole families, etc. could be considered natural. People had a choice to inflict the harm onto others. If someone were to murder my spouse for example I would certainly not dismiss that as being natural. It would silly to pass up pressing charges on whoever murdered my spouse because it was just "natural". It does not fit.
Hi John,
I am taking the class with Dr. Lambert and I had some questions for you about this problem of evil. First off, if you don't believe that evil can exist without God, then why do you always refer to it in your book as evil instead of suffering as you said in this post?
Second, you said in your book that if God really does exist, he should be the one to blame for all the evil in the world because he didn't make us perfect. I am assuming that you have kids since you mentioned something about them in your book, so whenever your kids do something that is wrong would that make you the one to blame since you didn't make them perfect?
Also, you talk about how God should have created humans with little or no free will, so do you allow your children to make decisions on their own without even any guidance whatsoever?
If everything is natural, it takes away the value of human life. If there is no value for human life, can suffering even be considered suffering?
I'm just regurgitating philosophy on naturalism, not asserting. But enough on that...
I'd say the biggest assertion being made here is to say that because of evolution, or because of "suffering" in the world, or one verse here and there in the Bible that you don't understand means that God doesn't exist. That's quite the assertion. And honestly, that's what I've gotten out of the book so far: opinions/assertions. Science and religion are two different things, one is not going to disprove the other. Science will just disprove uneducated long-held strict fundamentalist beliefs about the Bible, which I am completely open to because I want to know more about how its supposed to be interpreted. And for scientists to take they information they have, and search for a biblical interpretation that, with the evidence they have, can be proved false, doesn't make the Bible untrue either. You say in the book, "science justifies itself pragmatically" yet it's made up of theories instead of universal laws (recognized by countries/nations instead of scientists). And "Christians are backing down on what the authority they believe the Bible holds due to the onslaught of science" yet in, I believe it's chapter 6 you say that "Christians claim their beliefs gave rise to modern science" meaning they would be not backing down at all but claiming an authority over science. Which is it? Because I doubt that if Christians were backing down you would have written this book. An assertion is to say that Christians cause mass neurosis, environmental disasters, sexism, racism, etc and then claim that we are the ones with the superiority issues. I think it would cause much more neurosis for someone that spends their life trying to figure out how to disprove a book that has, for some reason even if true or false, been one of the most influential and long lasting books in history than to actually believe in God.
I'm still learning about all this stuff, and I might be in completely over my head, and I'm open to the fact that God may not exist, however, in reading your book it has so far convinced me that God has to exist, rather than the contrary. I actually really enjoy reading it. There are a lot of things that I think NEED "debunked" in Christianity, but just because you can debunk a religion (i.e. traditions, certain uneducated beliefs, etc which are mad-made) doesn't mean you can debunk God, especially if He is actually real.
(recognized by scientists instead of nations/countries). i wrote that backwards. my apologies.
Pedro, Chad, and cblanton, nice to see you here. As you can see things can move along at a quick pace here and I cannot keep up.
Pedro said: "...we may still choose what actions to do but in the end there is no point to do it because there is no ultimate choice to make. We will not be doing good or evil with our actions since these two do not exist so who cares what we do and why should we be rewarded or punished for them?"
I do. My wife does. My parents do. My children do. Me friends do. Or do you somehow think that they don't matter? They do, and I need them to have a good life. Without them life would suck, and since I'm thrown into this world I'm going to care about them and my country and the world because this world and the people in it are intertwined with me. We're in it together. Holistic happiness is the final justification that needs no further justification.
You also need a history lesson as I shared in the last chapter of my book.
cblanton, I'm not dismissing anything and I would certainly press charges for any crime done to me or my loved ones. I think you need a basic Ethics class taught in any local university. There are reasons to be good that don't need God. Click here.
Chad, when it comes to the problem of evil, so named because it's the standard nomenclature, where do I speak of evil. I think I always referred to it as suffering, at least that's how I framed the problem. When I do refer to evil it has to do with your view, not mine, in a perfectly good God and why he allows things that even a theist would consider evil. And the parental analogy doesn't fly for so many reasons I don't have the time to start. In the first place I did not create them, I sired them. And I never gave my kids too much freedom such that I didn't also think they could have it responsibly. I never gave them razor blades when they were two years old for instance, nor did I hand them a shotgun at five.
Cheers.
Hi John,
I am another one of Dr. Lambert's students. Your book has opened my eyes to a lot of issues concerning my faith that I have not seriously confronted in the past. Thank you for taking the time to answer some of our questions.
Would you explain a little more how everything that happens is natural? In chapter 12 of your book, you classify some evils as moral and some as natural. Are you suggesting that all immoral acts are completely natural (due to genes or human nature)? I just want to make sure I understand your argument.
Thanks,
Jill
jillmlippi, nice to hear from you too. I merely used the standard nomenclature there. But immoral acts are those acts that cause uneccessary suffering.
For people grasping to understand me may I suggest that before you comment further you read several of the posts under the rubric, "Atheism, Christianity and Morality" to be found on our FAQ sheet.
blacksnap619 said...
I want to know more about how its[the Bible] supposed to be interpreted.
Realize, blacksnap619, that the Bible has so many interpretations that there are no authorities on how it's supposed to be interpreted. There are only authorities concerning how they were taught to interpret it or the interpretations they have invented themselves. There is no right way to interpret it, and it sure as hell cannot not be made sense of being read literally.
Note that there are thousands of different Christianities few of which will agree with whatever Biblical interpretations you are yourself learning or making up. There is no Biblical Interpretation Clearinghouse to enforce some objective standard of hermeneutics. The Bible has less than a million words, but there have been trillions of words written analyzing its meaning in every era since it was pieced together at Nicaea.
How can it be that Roman Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses extract very different meanings from exactly the same set of words? One might even think that Pentecostals and Methodists do not read the same book. Mormons go so far as to make up another whole book to pick up where the Bible leaves off. Everybody's doin' their own thing when deciding what it means.
And in thinking about "how its supposed to be interpreted," I would ask why it is that Biblical literalists -- you know, the one's who claim to believe every single word in the Bible is true exactly as written, no interpretation required -- adhere to almost none of the Old Testament dictates about diet, sexual habits, dealing with menstruation, and using death and maiming as penalties for petty crimes. Calling themselves Biblical literalists and then ignoring much of their god's revealed wisdom certainly seems to be an odd approach to "not interpreting" the Bible.
So, when you say "I want to know more about how its supposed to be interpreted," understand that there is no supposed about it. It is whatever you, or any other reader want to make of it.
Hey John,
I wrote on your wall a couple weeks ago. I am in Dr. Lambert’s class. I have really enjoyed reading through your book. It raises a lot of questions that I myself have asked over the years. Like you, I have not had all of them answered. It has in the past, caused me to question what I believe and why I believe it. How have we come into existence? Why is their pain and suffering in the world? However, we have both come out on different ends of the spectrum. If, for example, we woke up tomorrow and there was no more suffering in the world would that be evidence enough for all people that there is a God? Probably not… I think it comes down to is what we believe to be true. In my own case the conclusion I have reached is that God does exist.
Gandy,
I mean check out our good christian friend Harvey , getting his kicks here from tryin ta upset Atheists !!. :)What did I have to do with anything? I knew that my name was somehow gonna come up in this post and 17 comments in here it is...how predictable...-LOL!
Anyway, I'm readin up on these comments...I'll leave it at that for now...
I'm another student in Dr. Lambert's class. Today we discussed chapter 14 and, specifically, your conclusion that the Creation account is merely a mythical story. What if the entire Creation account is, in fact, mythical? Just because a story is a myth doesn't diminish the truth it describes. I don't think of the Creation story as a literal scientific text book like some Christians do, but even if I take the account as a Hebrew myth, similar to Babylonians or other ancient peoples, why does that discredit the truths evident? Homer's and Virgil's epics are full of truths about the nature of human existence, even though they are categorized as myths.
I know this is a little late in the discussion, but I just wanted to point out that my previous argument structure is a valid syllogism:
1) If God does not exist, objective evil does not exist.
2) Objective evil does exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
It is of the form:
1) P -> Q
2) ~Q
3) Therefore, ~P.
This is the basic form of the modus tollens (aka proof by contrapositive, denying the consequent).
Now, the modus tollens only fails to be valid if P and Q fail to be bivalent (two-valued) (that is, P and Q are not truly 'propositions' in the logical sense).
But clearly ~"God exists" <-> "God does not exist" and ~~"God exists" <->"God exists". Similarly, we have that ~"Objective moral values exist" <-> "Objective moral values do not exist" and ~~"Objective moral values exist" <-> "Objective moral values exist".
Clearly the P and Q that I've described are bivalent (and should have obviously been so). These are truly *propositions* and not just sentences.
Now, I don't think the argument is sound, for reasons that I pointed out before and that others have addressed here. I just wanted to point out the mistake in an objection.
Perhaps because we live in a bilateral universe, this being everything having exact opposites, examples...light-darkness, up-down, hot-cold, over-under, atmosphere-vacuum, male-female, good-evil.
Perhaps there is a equal amount of good being done, as there are an equal amount of evil being done?
Perhaps we live in a balanced universe and we perceive good in the form of a god, and evil in the form of not-god and give it a name, Satan (not-god).
And of course when the Bible was written, the writers were thinking, what other being could accomplish such giant magical feats than a G-O-D?
It must surely be a G-O-D, because gods possess magical powers and great strength and control over weak humanoid beings, do they not?
And this god does great things for the sake of goodness, but a god must have an adversary, a nemesis, a foe to rebel against him, to test his strength, as all gods do, and this god must be no different then all other gods, except our god is the best god there is, the one we chose to believe in, and naturally we are going to side with the best god there is.
"If this god shall be for us, then who shall be against us?"
The Bible god, the one god who loves us unconditionally, except if we do not believe in him, or his only begotten son, he shall cast us into a burning hell for all eternity, because he loves us so much.
Is this the same god that was going to kill Moses, until his wife cut off his son's foreskin and slung it towards him?
Is this the same god that wasted weeks, months, years, perhaps, hardening Pharaoh's heart and sending down great plagues of frogs, locusts, pestilences, turning rivers into blood and would not even lend a hand to help not one of his favorite people, to the over 6 million Jews who were tortured, maimed and buried alive by bulldozers?
All this all loving god would have had to done, would be to give Hitler a heart attack, a stroke, a hardened heart? No one would have to known it was the Bible god that took him out, but No! Of course it wasn't his will!
Is this the same loving god that allowed a little 9 year old girl, (Jessica Lumsford) to be raped and buried alive (while millions of people prayed for her safe return) and now dead, while her captor is alive and doing well in jail?
All this all loving Bible god would have had to done, was to give this precious little girl's attacker a heart attack, a stroke, a tree limb fall on him, or a hardened heart, but No! Of course it was not his will.
Is this asking too much from an all loving god?
If the Bible god is watching over everyone's well being, then he's definitely asleep at the wheel.
So we assign good things to a god and associate bad things with a devil and invent and build stories around them, to justify the moment of our own rationality or our unflattering un-rational, by this human reasoning, we have no one else to pass the blame to, except those invisible forces (our invented deities) who are pulling our strings and are controlling the whole universe, the Bible god is influencing the righteous and Satan is influencing the un-righteous...it's all so simple, like the nose on your face...lol
Hi John,
I am another student in Dr. Lambert's class and I have really enjoyed the class because we are addressing a lot of questions that I had previously asked myself, but I had never had the opportunity to discuss them like we do in class.
I was just wondering about something that caught my attention about chapter 14. According to what you state in the book there is "overwhelming evidence our universe originated from a big bang." However, there are still many scientists that do not believe in the big bang theory, and in fact, you mention some of the other theories that are supported by other scientists. Since the big bang theory, is exactly that; a theory, that means that, although there is evidence that may support it, it has not been proven 100% in a totally empirical sense. Would you agree on this? (If this is true, this would imply that, to some extent, there is also some faith required to believe in the big bang theory. Am I correct?)
You categorized the big bang theory as a "scientific fact." I believe that a scientific "theory" is very different from a scientific "fact." Do you really believe in the big bang as a scientific "fact"?
thanks,
Natalia
Steven Bentley, as a christian I would kick your a$$ if I were near you for insulting my God by equating oppositely with evil in a bilateral world (just kidding)!
Well your point has a merit but let me rephrase it this way. God is certainly outside the bipolar natural world he has created i.e of light vs darkness, good vs evil thing.
Someone along the forum asked, if God exist why evil still exist? My answer will appear to be paradoxic to many for evil is one of the cue for the existance of a christain God. It implies that we human beings are special creation such that we can recognize what is good and what is evil. Good and evil are somethings out of consciouness. A given animal do not have morals for its consiousness about these things is inactive. In short animals are living in bliss. Who will deny that birds are leading a happy life than we humans do?
Our sufferings are a result of superiority over other creation. We know too much and we suffer the consequences. That is the meaning of the Genesis story about Adam and Eve gaining too much knowledge and setting their consiousness active after "eating that fruit". Immediately after they knew right and wrong, their problems started. While an animal could suffer pains and live with it happily a human will suffer all kinds of mental torture of why he is suffering!
John proposed alleviating suffering in investing all efforts in sciences and technology to gain knowledge and means on how to solve human problems. This is even not a solution to the best, it is just a solution to the worst. I can notice that most Westerners are unhappy people while many third worlders despite their
problems are having a happy life.
Hi Natalia,
I don't presume to answer for John, but my two cents to your question
"You categorized the big bang theory as a "scientific fact." I believe that a scientific "theory" is very different from a scientific "fact."
is to ask you what is a fact? When does a theory become a fact.
My point is that Newtonian Physics worked just fine till we got new information in the form of the theory of general relativity, and some of our presumptions about physics had to modified (not overturned), and thanks to einstein we all enjoy gps and cable TV in very close to real time, then quantum mechanics came along and ideas based on General Relativity had to be modified.
My point is that sometimes close enough is good enough. You don't need 100% certainty to consider something a fact, you just need it to be reliable to enough to depend on to produce successful outcomes.
To expect 100% is unrealistic. Perfection is a goal not a reality.
Any conclusion based on the premise of an absolute runs the risk of being fallacious on that grounds that it demands impossible precision.
Dr. Lambert,
if you're watching,
have you discussed the topic of epistemology with your students?
How we know what we know and the various degrees of what is knowledge and what isn't?
For example you know to large degree that if you don't pay your credit card bill you will get in trouble, however, you don't know to a large degree that your chosen denomination is more correct than any other, or that even that you've got the right God do you?
Have you discussed how science goes about acquiring knowledge and comparing that with how a christian goes about acquiring knowledge that the christian God is the one and only?
Science uses strict protocols, and even the telephone company uses strict protocols to derive a large degree of certainty about any given problem so they can solve it decisively and hopefully efficiently.
From the origin of data, to the history of that data (data lineage), to its consistency, its verifiability, its reproduceability, to its reliability to make predictions and inferences about likely solutions, its all tracked, and documented and it can be assessed for quality assurance, quantified and measured.
That is how you derive quality knowledge, knowledge to a large degree of certainty.
To say that christians have knowledge about any of the topics in the bible is to equivocate the meaning of knowledge to make the word practically useless.
applying the general christian principles to acquiring knowledge, I could say I know everything with a large degree of certainty.
But applying generally accepted principles of acquiring knowledge, let alone scientific protocols, no christian could say they know anything about god with any certainty.
see, the tie-breaker between competing hypotheses is evidence. evidence that can be measured has more weight than evidence that can't. Evidence that can be produced, touched, smelled, seen, by more than one person has more weight that evidence that can't.
What evidence is the tie breaker between the various hypotheses of the Abrahamic God? If its so good, why don't the other religions accept it? Why don't you believe the koran where it says that Jesus survived his crucifixion? Why don't you believe the Jews when they say that Jesus did not qualify as the messiah?
What is evil?
What can be evil?
Is something produced as evil?
Does it become evil?
When does something become evil?
What qualifies as evil?
Can time and/or evironment change a thing from something other than evil?
What is the Scope and Definition of Evil?
Is that scope and definition objective?
Does the scope and definition depend on a context?
Who decides?
If God, then how does that knowledge get to us if he's going to remain silent?
If a thing has scope and definition then it can probably be measured, quantified and or evaluated, assessed and compared.
Can we do that with evil?
is it evil to stick a needle in a baby?
Is it evil to kill someone?
To kill a spider?
Is it evil to kill for sport?
Why or why not?
Why does something qualify as evil?
Can evil be useful? If its useful and leads to greater good, is it really evil?
Can good come from an evil proposition?
Can any of the components of something good be evil?
Is an act evil if the intent is not evil?
If a bear kills a human, is it evil?
Or is it just Chance?
It seems to me, evil is in the eye of the beholder.
now I'm standing by for the shower of mischaracterizations, strawmen and equivocation.
Lee, make that post into an article so we can discuss it without having to scroll down 80 comments.
Hi Park Dinger, Stuart and natalia, glad to have you here.
Park, once you say the stories are myths then you have to decide whether or not to believe the truths they contain. How do you decide? There are lots of mythical stories about gods fighting and bringing forth the earth. Why believe the Genesis account at that point? They are all on an equal playing field.
Stuart, if "it comes down to is what we believe to be true" then how were you led to believe what you believe in the first place? Examine that just as I did and apply the OTF to it.
natalia, what Lee said above.
Cheers.
@TKD
Not to clutter the discussion with our own personal thread, but...meh.
I still don't think the syllogism is valid because I'm pretty sure it's not purely bivalent, as in the source of evil might be mistaken. To borrow a concept from my first comment in the thread:
1. If grass does not exist, objective evil does not exist.
2. Objective evil exists.
3. Therefore, grass exists.
True? Yes. Valid syllogism? I think we can both agree not. It's still bivalent in the strictest of terms (either there "is grass" or not "is grass"), but that doesn't mean it makes sense.
Natalia, (and again not to answer for Jonh), the word "theory" as used in science is not the same as in everday parlance. For instance the notion of , "I have a theory as to who ate the cookies." is a hypothesis. Science starts with a hypothesis (a guess based on prior evaluations) which must be testable then works to see if it holds up or not by examining facts and evidence.
When you have multiple confirmed hypothesis you have the beginnings of a theory. Theory's actually explain facts and make predictions about the world. If however evidence/facts are found that run contrary to the theory, it has to be either updated or discarded in place of a new one.
The entire idea of "it's just a theory" is based on a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. It's not a guess at all, it's a collection of ideas that have undergone and survived critical scrutiny.
Hello, John. :)
I have had the privilege of taking Dr. Lambert's class alongside a philosophy class! This is my first introduction to philosophy, and I am really enjoying it and how much I can apply it to your book. In reading this series of comments, I did have a question for Lee Randolph, and then a couple for you.
"What evidence is the tie breaker between the various hypotheses of the Abrahamic God? If its so good, why don't the other religions accept it? Why don't you believe the koran where it says that Jesus survived his crucifixion? Why don't you believe the Jews when they say that Jesus did not qualify as the messiah?"
I am assuming from Lee Randolph's description of epistomology that he is an empiricist? Correct me if I'm wrong, becaus that would render the following statement void! :) If that is so, would he not agree with David Hume in his "Dialogues Concerning Nautral Religion" that the origin of the world [let us say whether it was created in 7 days, created through evolution, or caused itself with a big bang] can not ever be truly known, since there is no way to experience it? To follow the Abrahamic God would affect your entire worldview--I believe this the majority of idealists would choose this. To them, physical evidence is not required. But as someone who seems to be a naturalist and an empiricist, how would you explain through science the origin of the world unless you yourself found a way to create a new world?
If you are a naturalist, I was curious as to what your view was the question of "what is a human being?" For initially I would think that a naturalist would describe a human being as a mass of chemical bonds who acts and reacts according to the firing of neurons in the brain. Again, correct me if I am wrong.
Also, how does that play into the reason for emotions? Why do we think things are funny, cute, gross, creepy? Why do we have sympathy? Or justice, even? (Which is why I think people have been trying to ask you why a naturalist would have the need to believe in morality.)
I need to study Aristotle and his concept of pleasure, but would you agree with John Stuart Mill that the most moral thing to do is to provide the most pleasure to the most people? Or to do what makes the most people happy?
Turning that around a bit, you stated in a reply to Jill that "immoral acts are those acts that cause uneccessary suffering." The following statement is sick to me, but the person who is causing the unecessary suffering is deriving great pleasure from it. And, unfortunately, I feel as though the majority of the world derives pleasure from things that cause others to suffer, whether it be alcohol abuse, pornography, prostitution [both which feed the male demand for pleasure through sex, which in turn unfortunately fuels the sex slave trade today], drug use, etc. If that is what makes so many people happy, would it be right to them?
I hope all these questions made sense, and am very interested to hear your reply!
Arlene
So you would tell someone who has had their five year old child raped, murdered, and left in a ditch that is just a natural process of suffering. It's natural, and according to naturalism, their lives had no purpose or meaning anyway?
No. Why would I tell them something like that? Life has meaning and purpose. I simply think it comes from the process of living it rather than being imposed by some external agent.
That seems evil to me, there is nothing natural about anyone who would do that. To say that everything is natural makes it able to justify any behavior you choose.
I don't agree. The naturalist can make argument at least as good as that of the theist that there are moral truths.
According to what you state in the book there is "overwhelming evidence our universe originated from a big bang." However, there are still many scientists that do not believe in the big bang theory, and in fact, you mention some of the other theories that are supported by other scientists.
There are only a very small minority of cosmologists who don't believe the Big Bang occurred. I think you may be confused by the fact that many cosmologist do not accept what's called the standard model of the big bang. They're generally disagreeing with a particular version of the theory---not, in almost all cases, denying that the big bang occurred (mostly the disagreement concerns the cause of the big bang and/or some features of how the universe developed after it occurred).
That anyway, is my understanding from my readings on the subject---I don't claim to be other than an interested, reasonably well-read layman when it comes to cosmology.
Russ:
After everything I said you're going to attack me for wanting to know how to interpret the Bible? If you study it, you will find that it's written as different literature, some in story form, some in biography form, etc. And in going back to the Koine Greek, you can interpret some different things than you can in English (more exact). So, pardon me for wanting to know how to appropriately interpret the book of my faith without taking it out of context, which is definitely possible.
I am assuming from Lee Randolph's description of epistomology that he is an empiricist? Correct me if I'm wrong, becaus that would render the following statement void! :) If that is so, would he not agree with David Hume in his "Dialogues Concerning Nautral Religion" that the origin of the world [let us say whether it was created in 7 days, created through evolution, or caused itself with a big bang] can not ever be truly known, since there is no way to experience it?
You are operating on a very naive understanding of what empiricism means. An empiricist can, and does, derive knowledge about the past from observational evidence---he doesn't have to have been there and seen it for himself---he can make inferences from present evidence to things that happened elsewhere and in the past.
Nor is an empiricist limited to believing only what he's observed with his own senses. I can be an empiricist and believe my friend when he says he ate at MacDonald's today.
Arlene,
If that is so, would he not agree with David Hume in his "Dialogues Concerning Nautral Religion" that the origin of the world [let us say whether it was created in 7 days, created through evolution, or caused itself with a big bang] can not ever be truly knownArlene, I'd say your assumption about Lee being an empiricist is probably accurate, and I am as well. And yes, I would agree with Hume, but with this clarification: We can never be absolutely certain about anything, but we can become nearly arbitrarily certain about a great many things.
Just because we can't be absolutely certain, doesn't mean that we can't get pretty darned close to being absolutely certain. Scientific theories (in the scientific use of the word theory) do pass the test of being certain enough to warrant saying that we know how many natural processes work to a high degree of accuracy. High enough accuracy even, to say that there just isn't very much wiggle room for some unknown aspect to have much of an impact.
Take, for example, Newton's theory of gravity vs. Einstein's general relativity. Even though general relativity supersedes Newton's theory, general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the low gravity, low speed limit, where the relativistic effects are tiny.
Hi Arlene,
I thought you were asking me a question but I towards the end of your comment it got a bit ambiguous as to who you were commenting too so I answered what I thought you wanted from me.....
I am assuming from Lee Randolph's description of epistomology that he is an empiricist?
I'm an Engineer. I solve other peoples problems all day long.
I am involved with philosophy when I get the chance to listen to a course or a podcast. Understanding the hard philosophical questions help me be a better engineer, make better decisions, make quicker decisions and keep my customers happy with successful outcomes.
But as someone who seems to be a naturalist and an empiricist, how would you explain through science the origin of the world unless you yourself found a way to create a new world?
Sometimes close enough is good enough. You don't need 100% certainty to consider something a fact, you just need it to be reliable to enough to depend on to produce successful outcomes.
To expect 100% is unrealistic. Perfection is a goal not a reality.
Any conclusion based on the premise of an absolute runs the risk of being fallacious on that grounds that it demands impossible precision.
If you are a naturalist, I was curious as to what your view was the question of "what is a human being?"
These kinds of questions are subjective and dependent on human boundaries. A human is whatever the consensus of humans say it is. If i disagreed, i'd be outside the norm and likely to not be taken seriously.
Also, how does that play into the reason for emotions? Why do we think things are funny, cute, gross, creepy? Why do we have sympathy? Or justice, even? (Which is why I think people have been trying to ask you why a naturalist would have the need to believe in morality.)
Why do dogs like to play, how can they possibly be happy? Its biological bases for behavior. Animals have emotions, rudimentary communication abilities and use logic. Believe it or not.
I am quite sure morality has more to do with the natural logical framework of economics than gods.
Arlene - continuing my previous post since I accidentally hit publish instead of preview.....
The point I was leading up to is that Newtonian gravity was known to a high enough degree of accuracy that Einstein couldn't just throw Newton out altogether, because to do so would contradict many things that we already knew to very high degree of accuracy.
So to move on to your second question:
how would you explain through science the origin of the world unless you yourself found a way to create a new world?The scientific theories that we have today have a high enough degree of accuracy (and certainty) that we can say a lot about questions of origins. We can say that the answers to origins questions are indeed highly constrained in many cases by our scientific knowledge, and we don't need to have created a world to be able to say a great deal about how ours came to be the way it is today. We know enough to be able to say fairly reliably that the earth formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago, that modern life forms evolved from simpler forms (and in some cases became more complex and sophisticated), less well understood is how life got started on this planet, but even there, we have some plausible guesses about how it might have happened.
Finally, I would turn that question around. You mention that "idealists" would disregard physical evidence to answer epistemological questions, but without evidence, how do they determine which of their ideas is right? They're stuck, because they have no way to verify anything. They can come up with the most wonderfully self-consistent explanations of everything, but without evidence to act as a validation mechanism, such ideas can be completely wrong and you have no way to correct them.
If you are a naturalist, I was curious as to what your view was the question of "what is a human being?" For initially I would think that a naturalist would describe a human being as a mass of chemical bonds who acts and reacts according to the firing of neurons in the brain.That is, I think the most simplistic description, but I think you would agree that it falls very short of the mark in terms of defining what we are and everything that we are capable of.
It's sort of like describing a thunderstorm in terms of the kinetic energy transfer between the individual atoms, which make up the air and water molecules, which make up the clouds, the winds, the lightning, etc. Such descriptions are useful in certain contexts, but aren't all that relevant to the big picture of what a thunderstorm is.
You always want to use the right description for the context within which you are working, even though there may be linkages to deeper and more fundamental principles, working within the more fundamental contexts isn't necessarily the most efficient, especially when dealing with emergent properties.
"No. Why would I tell them something like that? Life has meaning and purpose. I simply think it comes from the process of living it rather than being imposed by some external agent."
I asked Loftus because he claims strict naturalism, and naturalism contradicts itself. Well, not naturalism, but people who want to say that everything is natural and then say that human beings have life meaning. Naturalism down to the nitty-gritty says that there is nothing in a human being but a physical body which should eliminate emotion due to no value in human life. I can see your opinion, and can to an extent agree with you but you didn't claim that everything is completely natural.
"I don't agree. The naturalist can make argument at least as good as that of the theist that there are moral truths."
Maybe they can, but you didn't give me any. I guess there COULD be morals without a God, however they wouldn't exist in a completely naturalist society, they would have to come from somewhere.
Just to clarify, It appears that many of the visitors here seem to have an incomplete view of naturalism in regards to morality, etc.
For example, Blacksnap wrote...
If everything is natural, it takes away the value of human life. If there is no value for human life, can suffering even be considered suffering?You're conclusion that, if everything was natural, it would have no value is a non-sequitor. Just because something doesn't have cosmic, eternal value to an all powerful being, doesn't mean it must be completely void of value to everyone.
Nor would, as cblanton implied, the murder of someone's spouse due to natural causes require such actions to be tolerated and to go unpunished.
Instead, naturalism means there are complex, concrete series of events that ultimately result in a particular outcome. However, this in no way means we cannot take preemptive steps to prevent particular outcomes from occurring in the present or to prevent them from happening again in the future. In fact, it quite the opposite.
The knowledge of the results of a particular series of events is the very thing which allows us to take concrete actions to prevent an particular outcome from occurring. Making some vague supernatural force responsible makes the problem opaque - essentially shutting down any further attempts to understand it.
An example of this was the idea that epileptic seizures and mental illnesses, such as multiple personality disorders, were thought to be cause by caused by demon possession. However, we have discovered specific neurological causes for seizures, which in many cases can be completely controlled using medication. Had we continued to believe that evil supernatural forces were the responsible, these people would still be unnecessarily suffering from seizures today, as an exorcism would be ineffective treatment.
The Amish school house shooting a few years back for instance: those families of those children did not want the person that did that prosecuted or killed, nor were they angry. They were broken hearted, but believed God had a purpose which may sound fickle, but none the less, it gives them something you can't possibly have: hope. Ultimately, I see this as a selfish act.
Rather than see the shooting as the results of a concrete series of events, which we can try to understand better and try to avoid in the future, they would rather see the shooting victims a casualty in the ultimate battle between supernal force of good an evil.
Being all powerful and all knowing, God supposedly could (and eventually will) snap his fingers and triumph over evil. But since he has yet to do so, you assume there must be some important reason why he has not. Since God is supposedly always in control, you conclude he could have prevented the shooting, but intentionally decided not to. Therefore, their deaths were part of God's mysterious plan, which we can't hope to understand, or were a test of the shooters free will, which he failed.
You exchange a long-term deeper understanding of why things actually happen for short-term manufactured "meaning" which makes YOU feel better. The result is often unnecessary suffering that could have been prevented had we not suck our heads in the sand.
blacksnap619 said...
So, pardon me for wanting to know how to appropriately interpret the book of my faith without taking it out of context, which is definitely possible.
My previous comment to you was definitely not an attack. It was simple commentary on the impossibility of making clear sense of Biblical text.
If you are hoping to find "the correct interpretation" of the Bible, you are on a fool's errand. There are about 40000 Christianities today, thousands more have come and gone, and about a thousand new ones pop up each year. Much of the Christianity turnover is due directly to conflicting interpretations of the Bible. Sometimes a denomination splits over distinct takes on a single verse.
Anyone who tells you that there is ONE correct meaning to the Bible is lying to you. They will have their twist on it which they might assert is the correct one, but there will always be thousands of other different twists.
As a simple example, some Christianities contend that the Genesis creation account is 100 percent true as written, and they reject any result from science that conflicts with it. Other Christianities warmly embrace the empirically-derived results of science and they treat the Genesis account as a non-literal language construct like metaphor or allegory. Those are two deeply conflicting approaches. Is one of them wrong?
There are many Christianities which do not use the Bible as a point of reference at all. They recognize it as an antiquated relic with little relevance to modern life. So, rather than beating their heads against the same wall where millions throughout history have knocked themselves silly, they choose instead to allocate their time to activities that benefit people.
Don't you find it strange that of all the people who have spent their lives pouring over that book there is no consensus on what it means? Seems that an omni-this and omni-that god would at least be able to write in a way that could be comprehended. Sure you'll say that the problems interpreting it are the fault of people being imperfect. Well, if some god created man so flawed as to be unable to make sense of what that god wrote, then that god shouldn't hold them accountable for getting it wrong.
Put yourself in today's religious context. Yours is but one of thousands of Christianties. You can bet that regardless of what you're taught or what you make up about your Bible on your own there are lots of others who will see it differently. Your literal is another's metaphor. What you consider critically important verses are completely ignored by many other Christianties.
I wish you well blacksnap619 as you follow in the footsteps of Augustine, Anselm, St. Francis, Luther and Pope Benedict seeking the "true" meaning of the Bible. If you read those five you will discover that they all came to distinct conclusions, just as I'm sure you will.
"Instead, naturalism means there are complex, concrete series of events that ultimately result in a particular outcome. However, this in no way means we cannot take preemptive steps to prevent particular outcomes from occurring in the present or to prevent them from happening again in the future. In fact, it quite the opposite." -non-sequitor...
What?
You said it perfectly, "naturalism means there are complex, concrete series of events that ultimately result in a particular outcome" if the series is concrete, you are not going to be able to prevent it. Now if you want to say the series may not be concrete, it could be preventable.
"You're conclusion that, if everything was natural, it would have no value is a non-sequitor."
Read Nietzche...and how he arose to nihilism because naturalism doesn't work.
"Just because something doesn't have cosmic, eternal value to an all powerful being, doesn't mean it must be completely void of value to everyone."
I didn't claim that. But by the time you weigh all the options, there is no credible foundation available for human beings to have come up with value on their own. And if we're naturally special without a god, why aren't animals, or are they?
"Ultimately, I think that is selfish." referring to the Amish school shooting. For what reason is it selfish to forgive and pray for someone who has wronged you? Seems like quite a mature attitude.
Russ,
Sadly, I already know everything you just wrote. It's pathetic that Christianity would claim to be "the way" and then not live by the book they claim. I hope to never be one of them. And I didn't say that there was only one interpretation of the Bible, but studying hermeneutics is extremely important and leads me to believe that there are ways to correctly interpret the Bible without taking it completely out of context, as many denominations do.
Ultimately, I feel that it's not the Bible's message that is debated in Christianity though, because the Bible's message is clear, God, Holy Spirit, Salvation through Jesus. That's the most important interpretation of the Bible and the rest is just extra to help us along. When the extra becomes what a faith is centered around, you're going to get disunity and until Christianity realizes that it's focus should be on Jesus/God instead of disagreeing on characteristics about him we're not going to get very far. So, I sadly agree with the majority of what you said.
And I will enjoy reading Augustine, Anselm, St. Francis, Luther and Pope Benedict who all reached a conclusion, as I hope to do. You enjoy reading Nietzsche, Ryle, Dawkins, and Marx who's beliefs lead to the most depressing life possible.
blacksnap,
You said it perfectly, "naturalism means there are complex, concrete series of events that ultimately result in a particular outcome" if the series is concrete, you are not going to be able to prevent it. Now if you want to say the series may not be concrete, it could be preventable.Just because we can point to a series of events leading to a given outcome doesn't mean that all outcomes are predictable and ultimately deterministic. You are conflating determinism with naturalism, and they aren't quite the same thing.
As intelligent agents we are able to analyze situations, make decisions, and sometimes change the outcomes of events to a certain degree. And it is our evolved intelligence that allows us to do that.
Your real problem here doesn't seem to be with naturalism per se, it is with a naturalistic origin of the mind, of intelligence. You don't like it, or are generally dissatisfied the naturalistic explanation. I won't disagree with you on that point, and I will only say that just because the naturalistic explanation is incomplete at best, it doesn't mean that you're justified in assuming a supernatural explanation for it.
IMHO, the supernatural explanation is far less satisfying and raises far too many unanswerable questions than the naturalistic one.
"You are conflating determinism with naturalism,"
You are borrowing from theism to make naturalism work, whether you realize it or not... neither of which, are the same thing.
.Just because we can point to a series of events leading to a given outcome doesn't mean that all outcomes are predictable and ultimately deterministic. You are conflating determinism with naturalism, and they aren't quite the same thing".
YOU were not combining theism and naturalism, my apologies, the other post was. I simply pointed out that that particular case was flawed. The description in the post was determinism, not naturalism, which is why I pointed that out to him.
But I've come to the conclusion after reading all of these posts that I'd much rather live my life worshiping a God who, if I'm right and He exists, gains me everything rather than posting on an internet blog that has so far, given me no valid evidence that God does not exist. Good day.
posting on an internet blog that has so far, given me no valid evidence that God does not exist.You're asking the wrong question then, because no such evidence can ever exist. The only evidence we will ever have that there is no God at all is to continually find that the universe doesn't need intervention from such a being to operate in the way we see it. I think that case has largely been made even though there are a lot of open questions, but it doesn't ultimately rule out a creator in some form.
The real question you should be asking is whether or not the evidence that we have today really supports any human conceptions of god... I don't think it's possible to make a positive claim on that subject that is not extremely weak and fraught with problems of one sort or another.
You said it perfectly, "naturalism means there are complex, concrete series of events that ultimately result in a particular outcome" if the series is concrete, you are not going to be able to prevent it. Now if you want to say the series may not be concrete, it could be preventable.I sense we're still not on the same page.
In this context, a concrete event is a well defined event that behaves in a predictable way. It's not opaque or "magical"
For example, Epileptic seizures are caused by large numbers of misfiring neurons in specific regions of the brain. These misfirings can be caused by physical injury to the brain, scar tissue from brain lesions, or even mutations in genes that control complex interactions between neurons. In some cases, seizures can be triggered by exposure to lights flashing at specific frequencies.
This is in contrast to the idea that seizures are caused when people are apparently randomly possessed by evil demons, which cause them to convulse at times of their choosing. The reasons why a demon would select a particular person, along with the means or frequency in which it causes convolutions is not explained.
As such, the supernatural doesn't really explain anything, it merely attempts to account for things.
"Ultimately, I think that is selfish." referring to the Amish school shooting. For what reason is it selfish to forgive and pray for someone who has wronged you? Seems like quite a mature attitude.
I was referring to the decision to assume God has some special reason to allow the shooting to occur. Sure, it might make people feel better, but what does it do to actually help prevent the event from occurring again?
I didn't claim that. But by the time you weigh all the options, there is no credible foundation available for human beings to have come up with value on their own.Again, you seem to be confused. Naturalism only implies value does not exist outside the consciousness of natural beings. Any positive framework that provides meaning, such as philosophical Buddhism is not naturalism.
A claim that only God could explain what we observe (people making value judgements) is an argument from ignorance. We see no evidence that supports such a claim.
ladies and gentlemen,
from reading the posts and subsequent responses and applying what I know about the subject, I have concluded that if "evil" exists (which I know it does) that an atheist cannot know it APART from the objective standards of religion and in this case, since this is the site trying to debunk Christianity, the Christian religion in particular.
Anyone can know "good" and "bad", but to judge something as "evil" ushers an objective standard into the equation that an atheist is not willing to admit that comes from religion or belief in God in particular. "Evil" can describe and act but not without describing the inherent nature of what is being addressed. That realm of nature passes the material into the immaterial realm and is only determined of judged by and through the objective standard of religion and religious values.
An atheist can only determine what is preferred (good or bad) or that is culturally commensurate. An atheist cannot judge the intrinsic "evil" or "good" of something because those elements are spiritually desctiptive terms and do not involve metaphysical naturalism, cannot be scientifically measured and or reproduced under scientific methods.
Example, "evil" people cannot produce a more "evil" child etc. "evil" cannot be crossgerminated like plants and animals who can be bred to reflect desired attributes.
I propose that the ONLY way an atheist perceives something as "evil" is through religion and the values that religion sets forth. Without religion and God human nature cannot consider anything as "evil" because metaphysical naturalism does not distinguish the difference between "evil" and "good". There is no "evil" gene or no "bad" gene. There is only cultural standards who's concepts are derrived from objective standards found within religion and religious systems.
As stated, the Lion cannot be considered "evil" because he eats a gazelle. Neither can the chimp, who took the lady's face off be considered "evil" because of his actions. Why? Because their standards for behavior are not socio-ethical, neither are they introduced to any religious codes that objectively state, outline or condemn their "evil" acts.
There is a lot more to say but chew on that for a minute.
"An atheist cannot judge the intrinsic "evil" or "good" of something"
I don't understand why the theist is in any better position here.
The concept of "intrinsic good" mean good in and of itself, without need to refer to some "extrinsic" reason for it being good. An "intrinsic good" is good in and of itself, it's own reward, like the holistic Aristotelian pleasure John talks about
If your belief is that something is good or evil because God makes it that way, sets up the standards, infuses things with goodness or somesuch, then your belief is that good and evil are EXtrinsic to the particular thing under discussion. In your view, the good or evil of things comes from outside them, from God.
This is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the idea that there is INTRINSIC moral worth--- moral worth that applies because things are good or evil in and of themselves, intrinsically, whether there is an external God or not.
If you believe in INTRINSIC moral worth, then God is completely irrelevant to the concepts of good and evil.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett,
Harvey, you claim to know that evil exists, yet you fail to recognize it in yourself, your sacred texts, and in your fellow religionists, especially in the Christianities and even more so among your personal favorites, the Fundamentalist Christianities. You can accept any repulsive barbaric behavior as good, moral and just, provided it is justified with religious reasoning. As such your religion keeps you from being moral. It frequently prevents you from being good and it permits and often endorses you committing acts that civilized man would categorize as evil.
On this blog you have said that you know that witches are real, demons are real and that people can be influenced and possessed by them. You've claimed to have witnessed supernatural rituals designed to drive such entities out of the possessed, even though you've never provided any evidence to support that claim.
At this moment in time there appears to be quite a flare up of witchcraft and demon possessions among the Fundamentalist Christianities, most notably the Pentecostals, in Nigeria. Lucky for the locals that they have some real professionals to deliver them from this evil. They call them pastor, and preacher, and minister and reverend. Being one of these ace evil fighters yourself, Harvey, I wonder how you would fight this rampant evil.
Your fellow Christian Fundamentalist clergy in Nigeria battle these vile forces by performing or inciting the following acts. Exorcisms using various acids, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and the ol' standby, bloodletting. Publicly burning people alive - infants, toddlers, young, old. Those moral paragons, the Christian clergy, have convinced parents to commit the most cruel and inhuman acts against their own children. Abandoning them. Cutting off limbs. Driving spikes into their heads. Crushing them with vehicles. Dousing them with acids. Blinding them.
This is Fundamentalist Christianity doing what it really and truly believes is best for the community. This is happening due only to religious belief of your favorite kind, Harvey. It must make you feel good to know that those wonderful preachers and ministers and pastors and reverends are following their faith, doing God's work and vanquishing this tangible evil.
Every non-psychopath would call these acts inhuman, cruel, morally repulsive. Frame them in the religious language of fighting demons and witches, and, voila!, they are moral, justified and necessary.
Clearly, your religion blinds you to obvious evil.
Millions of African people are dying of AIDS because many Christianities, among them Roman Catholicisms and Christian Fundamentalisms, disguised as "aid" workers, deny the people access to condoms, proven to reduce the likelihood of transmitting HIV by a factor of 10000. Before AIDS is under control in Africa, Christianity will be complicit in more total deaths than were seen in World War II. What's more, these poor Africans are being lied to by clergy. They are being told that condoms actually cause AIDS.
If you're one of those anti-contraceptive types who see everything, including human life, as second to dogma, then your religion again has blinded you to an obvious evil.
When Fundamentalist clergy shower their congregations with vitriolic lies to denigrate science, the intent is to inculcate ignorance of that body of ideas that form the bedrock of modern life. This is an act of evil intent. This is a self-serving maliciousness aiming to keep the misinformed in the pews and the collection plates full. This is not looking out for their best interests.
Your Bible tells you to kill non-believers, kill those who work on the Sabbath, kill stubborn and rebellious children, cut off hands for petty crimes and affronts.
So, Harvey, not only does your religion not give you a special evil-detector, it actually blinds you to its presence and causes you to act in ways that are manifestly evil. Religion makes you evil.
Jbierly,
I am saying that an atheist cannot assess anything as "evil" without the standard(s) that are given through God and religion.
Anyone can assess good or bad and moral value based on culltural standards. That good or bad is subjective based on an individual's relationship to what is being assessed. That's not at issue.
However, beyond that, "evil" describes a condition further than the ability of metaphysical naturalism can both test, assess or measure, because "things" and actions, desires and tastes in and of themselves are neither "good" nor "evil".
That is pointed out clearly in the Christian worldview and atheists piggyback on those concepts to make value judgements regarding what is "evil".
Russ,
Set all the "la-la" of your conversation aside and tell me how do you arrive at the point that ANY of what you named in your post is "evil"?
You can say that actions are either bad or good and I'll accept that...but tell me, how you or any atheist arrive at the point that anything is "EVIL"?
What is the standard or basis upon which that assessment is made? My contention is that you have NONE and whatever standards you can offer under your chosen worldview is only reduced to relativistic statements and culturally commensurate understandings of what you "think" evil is. That is the whole point of what I'm saying. Stay on point. I'm not arguing the whole of Christianity.
Thanks.
Harvey,
Get your mind around this simple fact: most of humanity is not and never has been Christian. So, as far as atheists, or non-Christians, generally, piggybacking on your beloved religion to grasp for a definition of evil, you are sorely mistaken. Mankind has recognized malevolent behaviors as evil throughout recorded history.
"Evil" is a word, Harvey, a linguistic construct which encapsulates a set of ideas. Generally, evil is considered by some to be the vague idea of causing harm or misfortune. In the context of evil done by a mindful entity, real or imaginary, it is the same idea of causing harm or misfortune, but doing so as an intentional act.
We do not need religion to identify intentional malice or decept. Behaviors that are labeled as evil and the word itself have been part of the human lexicon since writing first appeared. The Iliad and the Odyssey by Homer reference it more than three thousand years ago, long before the invention of your Old Testament was under way, and the Chinese have references to such things that are much older yet. As for your concern that atheists have stolen the defintion of evil from your religion, understand that your religion stole most of its ideas, including that of evil, from the vast contemporaneous mythologies floating about the Mediterranean and Middle East regions.
You said,
However, beyond that, "evil" describes a condition further than the ability of metaphysical naturalism can both test, assess or measure, because "things" and actions, desires and tastes in and of themselves are neither "good" nor "evil".
If you want to argue for a disembodied free-floating supernatural "evil," Harvey, go right ahead, knock yourself out. You'll get lots of support from the Catholics who enlist a trained battery of paid exorcists. That notion of evil is exactly like the form of marshal arts in which the Master knocks people down without making contact. The videos are available online. It only works when everyone plays along. When the Master flails about while the students are blindfolded, nothing happens, nobody falls down. It only works when everybody consciously plays along.
That's how exorcizing evil, as you claim to do, Harvey, works, too. Casting out demons only works in the screaming, flailing social setting you set up. If everybody plays their part, a good time is had by all and everyone agrees to agree that they witnessed another triumph over some dastardly evil. Sadly, many people a year are killed during these frenetic, wild-eyed rituals.
So, have at it, Harvey. We've asked for proof before, but you always do the Christian thing of making up an excuse for why you are not accountable in that regard.
All the "la-la" of my comment points clearly to the fact that although you claim to know what evil is because your religion provides you with an "objective" definition of it, that information affords you no advantage in confronting it. More often it blinds you to heinous acts and motivates you to commit them yourself.
Every person who has ever lived is a cultural and situational relativist, and evil falls into that realm. Everyone. There is no absolute morality. A teenage boy and girl holding hands, common here in the US, would face a death sentence in Saudi Arabia. Muslim holy men see it as an evil act which would disrupt society if permitted.
Your holy book says "an eye for an eye" and "thou shalt not kill." Which is the absolute, Harvey? Then, is the other not an act of evil.
Is it evil to lie to people, as you do, Harvey, given that the consequences are that they will be ill-prepared to address the real concerns of a science-dependent society.
Harvey, please tell us what your exact absolute and universal definition of evil is, how it's exclusive to Christianity, and how you think it was original to Christianity.
Harvey-
"I am saying that an atheist cannot assess anything as "evil" without the standard(s) that are given through God and religion.
Anyone can assess good or bad and moral value based on cultural standards."
You miss my point. I'm not saying that "anyone can asess good or bad based on cultural standards". I'm talking about full blooded, objective, doesn't matter what time or place your in morality.
And I'm saying that, if you believe in such a thing, if you really believe in the OBJECTIVE, INTRINSIC moral value of certain things, then almost by definition you need to believe that this objective morality exists whether there's a God or not, and regardless of his opinions on the subject.
I see the view that there is objective, intrinsic good and evil, and the idea that moral values come from a God to be fundamentally incompatible views.
Either good and evil are things we can talk about as intrinsic properties, as things that need no further explanation or justification, and are the same across cultures, or good or evil is in the eye of the beholder.
Simply adding God as one of the beholders doesn't let you get from the second view to the first.
If "good" and "evil" are objective, intrinsic properties than they should apply across cultures and across the cosmos. They should apply whether God approves of them or not. Even if the universe were created by an evil or insane God, some things would still be objectively, intrinsically "good" and "evil" regardless of his opinions.
As I said in my original post:
"If your belief is that something is good or evil because God makes it that way, sets up the standards, infuses things with goodness or somesuch, then your belief is that good and evil are EXtrinsic to the particular thing under discussion. In your view, the good or evil of things comes from outside them, from God.
This is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the idea that there is INTRINSIC moral worth--- moral worth that applies because things are good or evil in and of themselves, intrinsically, whether there is an external God or not."
Russ,
You said: "Evil" is a word, Harvey, a linguistic construct which encapsulates a set of ideas.Since we're wrapping minds, as you say, all I'm asking Russ, is where those "ideas that the word encapsulates" comes from? It's really that simple but I think you provide at least one of the available answers with a lot of extra chatter as follows:
You said, "Generally, evil is considered by some to be the vague idea of causing harm or misfortune."that's kind of squirrly and noncommittal, but it is a form of Moral relativism. That's a step up from lee's Amoralism that he espouses. In other words, in your view, "evil" is culturally commensurate? Society dictates what is evil and what is not.
The question then is how are universal value concepts of evil maintained? I mean in just about all societies that I know of, murder (the taking of innocent life) is criminal and condemned.(for example) How is that so and upon what basis does that principle exist?
The rest of your post is a rant once again against Christianity and adds nothing to the conversation at hand, so knock yourself out.
One point though, you claim since Christianity isn't everywhere that certainly it can't be a standard for morality. Christians have never claimed that Christianity is everywhere but we always claimed that God is omnipresent. What effect do you believe that an onmipresent deity would have on the standards of morality of mankind in general?
By the way my original premise is still in tact. If there is "evil" noone can guage it without and apart from religion and God in particular.
Harvey, you said,
The question then is how are universal value concepts of evil maintained? I mean in just about all societies that I know of, murder (the taking of innocent life) is criminal and condemned.(for example) How is that so and upon what basis does that principle exist?
Human beings genetically are one particular species of animal with universal cognitive capabilities, universal survival and reproductive requirements. As a consequence, human societies and cultures are extremely similar in structure and function, and the language constructs that have evolved to describe these universal interests are also very similar. These universal concepts are maintained, that is, they remain relatively constant, including ideas associated with deleterious behaviors one might call evil, because the needs of people and their cultures are relatively constant.
You mentioned murder, Harvey, which you defined as "(the taking of innocent life)." This definition is your own take on murder, but observe it is not the legal definition of murder where you live. If you hunt and kill someone you know to be guilty of homocide, you are still a murderer.
In the context of acts observed to be detrimental to life and society, murder is widely outlawed when it involves one's in-group, but for the murder of those in the out-group, things are not so cut and dried.
To take an example involving US Christians, consider the murdering by Christians of doctors who perform abortions. From a secular standpoint, the murder is a criminal act, but a great many Christians do not condemn it. They do, in fact, condone and support it.
While you don't like having your Christianity thrown back in your face, from your sacred text, the Holy Bible, your god routinely massacred the innocent. The conquest of Canaan, Noah's flood, the smiting the innocent firstborns, and causing bears to kill more than forty children, for instance. You know the details intimately.
You, yourself, Harvey, will look at this and because it is in the context of your religion and your god, you will exempt these instances of the murder of innocents from the list of "criminal and condemned" acts. You conceive of murder as completely morally relativistic. Murder in Christian literature is completely context-dependent and morally relativistic. It is not considered a "universal value concept of evil."
This is not Christian-bashing, Harvey. This is simply creating a context we can share.
In one study of moral intuition, children from various cultures and religious traditions were told that a nameless invading army killed every single thing living in the conquered territory. Every child condemned the action. Another group were told the same story with the added detail that it was Joshua's army. This added bit made it far more likely that only those children involved in the Abrahamic faiths would view the events as acceptable. Religion had corrupted the children's innate moral sense. It had shown them instances where the killing of innocents was desirable.
You say we get our defintion of evil from your religion and your god, Harvey, but, as such studies show, that is clearly not the case. Your religion and your god defile the evolved sense of right and wrong that all human beings share.
You said,
By the way my original premise is still in tact. If there is "evil" noone can guage it without and apart from religion and God in particular.
It's true that there are acts that all human societies categorize as evil. However, categorizing an act as evil does not impede persons and societies from committing such acts when it suits their purposes. The behaviors and the related language existed long before your god and your religion were invented. A moral sense is even observed in many non-human animals.
Aside from asserting that humans have been imbued with a sense of what is evil by your god you bring nothing to the table, Harvey. The same exact unsubstantiated assertions could be made about Thor, Vishnu, or a sacred stone.
Harvey,
Here is an article related to our discussion of murder as the killing of innocents. It describes a whole country of people who follow your same god, but who must have missed the memo about killing of innocents being evil. Here, the killing of innocents - some mentally-handicapped, some committed petty crimes, some as young as 9 - is taken to be a moral good. This is morally abhorrent, but they see it as acting morally in accordance to their revelations from your shared deity.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355320443064445.html#mod=rss_whats_news_us
Hi Russ,
There is no "shared diety". Just because people say the follow or worship the "Christian God" does not make it so. I have very little in common with Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and a number of other so called "Christian" groups. Just because someone claims to be Christian, does not mean that we agree on any of their codes of conduct or moral choices. The label "Christian" does not mean jack.
DenCol,
Thank you for your honesty. To those of us outside Christianity what you say certainly appears to be the case.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, "The label "Christian" does not mean jack."
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said..."The question then is how are universal value concepts of evil maintained? I mean in just about all societies that I know of, murder (the taking of innocent life) is criminal and condemned.(for example) How is that so and upon what basis does that principle exist?"
Reasons i suggest can easily be found by looking at what most societies all generally have in (common),and most societies naturally (all) do enjoy the continued company of their family and friends etc.This they all do (have in common !).And when innocent lives are lost its only natural that in most every society this then naturally seems rather unfair and disliked.
And then when certain differing faith beliefs become the (uncommon factor) involved we then can also see differences in morals taking place as well, such as some people maybe not believing in using blood transfusions etc.
Strangely it seems "universal value concepts" generally only naturally exist in this case with regards to most societies (all) not liking losing loved ones,and then from that point faith beliefs etc take over making up the many extra differences we see depending on what group we are involved with personally wherever we are.
Post a Comment