The Problem of Goodness and Hume's Hypothesis of Indifference.

David Hume offered us four choices about the moral nature of "the first causes of the universe." Either they are 1) perfectly good, 2) perfectly evil, 3) they are opposites and have both goodness and malice, or 4) they have neither goodness nor malice. Paul Draper calls the last choice the Hypothesis of Indifference, or HI.

Hume (through Philo) argues for HI in these words: "Mixed phenomena can never prove the two former unmixed principles. And the uniformity and steadiness of general laws seem to oppose the third. The fourth, therefore, seems by far more probable." [Dialogues, part XI].

When it comes to the opposite claims that "the first causes of the universe" are either, 1) perfectly good or 2) perfectly evil, it seems implausible to accept either of these extremes given the fact that we see both goodness and suffering in our world. This is what Hume calls "mixed phenomena," in that we see both goodness and malice in our world.

Those who argue that these causes are "perfectly good" have to explain why there is so much evil in this world, known as the problem of evil. Those who argue that these causes are "perfectly evil" have to explain why there is so much goodness in this world, known as the problem of goodness.

Let's consider the problem of goodness for Hume's second choice, placed in the context of a Supreme Being.

Why is there goodness, we might ask, in a world created by a malicious being? The answers provided would be the same ones that theists who believe in a perfectly good God use to explain the problem of evil, such as: 1) Goodness is the result of truly free actions. 2) Goodness is necessary for evil to exist. 3) Rather than this world being a place for “soul making,” it is designed for “soul breaking.” 4) Any good in the world will produce greater evils. 4) We may not know why this malicious Supreme Being allows goodness, but he knows what he’s doing.

But since the same arguments produce two opposite and contradictory conclusions, both conclusions are implausible…they cancel each other out.

To see this argued in greater depth, Stephen Law, the editor of Think, the Royal Institute of Philosophy Journal, has a dialogue called The God of Eth, which I recommend. He defends his argument from a further objection here, but I highly recommend you read his response to Richard Swinburne's objections here.

"Floods are judgment on society, say bishops"

This is shockingly ignorant.
This is a summary of a news article in the Telegraph. According to some senior Church of England bishops, recent storms and flooding that have left thousands homeless are due to “Gods Judgment”, whatever that is. He doesn’t come right out and say that God sent the storms to ravage innocent victims but he does say that he expresses his sympathy and that a problem with “environmental judgment is that it is indiscriminate". He asserts that moral decadence and lack of respect for the planet are the catalyst for the cause. He claims that western civilization is ignoring the teachings of the bible, cites homosexual friendly legislation as one example and describes “the Beast” in the bible as institutional power, a euphemism for Government, that sets itself up to control people and their morals.

Praise the Lord and bring on the Theocracy.

Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars

See the Biblical Archaeological Review's Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars. Both Bart Erhman and William Dever are interviewed, along with two others who remain believers. Erhman lost his faith because of the problem of evil. William Dever expressed himself in these words: I’m not an atheist. I’m an agnostic. I don’t know but I’m willing to learn. Right now the Christian tradition does nothing for me and the Orthodox Jewish tradition does little for me. In my own experience, I find this God so distant that it doesn’t make any practical difference. And, for me, I guess the final straw probably was the death of my son five years ago. If I had believed in God, I would have been very angry, but I didn’t and I survived. As the Yiddish expression says: “If God lived on earth, people would break his windows.” That’s been my experience.

They both claim they would still like to believe. They just cannot do it.

Interesting.

There is No Christian God!

I've already argued there is no Christian God because of the law of predation in the natural world. My argument is that had God created all creatures as vegetarians and kept us that way, a whole lot of needless suffering could've been avoided. This is a simple change we know is possible because we see it in the natural world.

Here's another reason why the Christian God doesn't exist.

God could've created all human beings as one race of people with one color of skin, and kept us that way. It doesn't matter which race or which color of skin, either. I see no reason why a perfectly good God wouldn't have done that, since there has been so much needless racial conflict because we are not all one race of people. There has been a great deal of needless suffering due to lynchings, beatings, hate speech, racial discrimination and especially race based slavery...lots of it. This is something that a good creator would've easily done differently, if he exists.

And even if God had not chosen to create us as one race, at least he would've told us that slavery was unequivocally wrong. He didn't even do that. One of the ten commandments could've been, "Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, or trade slaves." And if this additional commandment couldn't replace the commandment about honoring the Sabbath Day, or the one about not taking the Lord's name in vain, or if God couldn't have combined two of the other ones to make room for it, he could still have repeatedly said it until there was no denying what he meant.

Many Chritian theologians argue that God was clear about slavery in the Bible. But such arguments are hollow ones. If they themselves were born into the brutal slavery of the South, and if their masters were beating them daily, wouldn't they wonder why God wasn't crystal clear about condeming slavery?

According to Sam Harris, when it comes to the issue of slavery, “Nothing in Christian theology remedies the appalling deficiencies of the Bible on what is perhaps the greatest—and the easiest—moral question our society has ever had to face.” Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Knopf, 2006), p. 18.

So here we have simple changes a good God should've done differently: Create us all as one race of people in a world filled with of nothing but vegetarians. Just think of the suffering that would've been avoided. There is no Christian God!

There is No Christian God!

The Discovery Channel is host to an eleven part series called Planet Earth, being aired on Sunday's.

You'll watch as a parasite grows out of an ant's head, how a polar bear preys on Walruses, how hunting dogs kill prey, and so on, and so on. Yes, this is a majestic earth, and wonderful in so many ways. But when you watch this series I want you to ask why God didn't create us all as vegetarians. To me the horror of the law of predation negates the existence of an omni-God...period. And I just don't see how anyone who watches what takes place every second somewhere around the globe can still think God is good. He isn't. The horror of predation in this world proves such a God doesn't exist beyond a shadow of doubt.

Mugger punches 101-year-old woman on video

• Man breaks woman's cheekbone as he punches her twice, takes purse
• Attack captured by a surveillance camera in apartment building lobby
• Police think same man mugged 85-year-old woman for $32

"God saved my life," she said.

That's one way to look at it.

video:
text:

Praise you in THIS Storm?

Last week a tornado ripped through central Florida, killing at least 20 people, and devastating several towns. Among the ruins were a number of churches; among the dead were some of their members. One of those churches, which was built to withstand 150 mph winds, was shredded by the 165 mph storm.

In one church building, 6 members were hiding out and 2 of them were killed when the Big Bad Wolf blew their house down (I'm sorry, "allowed" their house to be blown down - big difference there).

The pastor of one church said he was determined to have services on Sunday morning, " even if it means holding them in a muddy patch of grass near the church ruins."

I don't know about you, but if I was the pastor of a church that God just took a big celestial shit on, I wouldn't be so gung-ho about having services the next day. I might take a step back and say, "you know, maybe it's a hint that our sanctuary doesn't exist anymore."

I have read a few articles about the storm tearing apart the churches and I heard a story on CNN about it as well, and frankly, I'm disappointed with the level of journalism I heard. I thought reporters were supposed to ask the tough questions.

But where was the reporter asking that pastor, "do you think God was trying to tell you something?" or "Why do you think God allowed this to happen to you?" Not one reporter I heard was asking those tough questions.

Christians and Jews of the past would have immediately taken a great disaster like that and concluded that God was not happy with them. Anytime there's a disaster against God's people in the Bible, it's 90% of the time because of their sin. Why was it that throughout biblical times all those disasters were because of sin, and today no believer blinks an eye when God totally allows their church that hundreds of thousands of dollars of their offerings went into to get completely annihilated?

With modern Christians, those questions are just ignored. That's because, with them, God can't lose. If something good happens, it's God's blessing. If something bad happens, it's....well, it's not God's wrath. God is working for their good, and that's why he got rid of two members during the storm.

They believe God has absolute, miraculous power, and the same power that healed little Tommy of the flu, decided to hold off last weekend and allow two members who were trying desperately to survive by hiding out in the church to be killed by this storm for a good and loving reason.

I used that answer for years. Everything bad that happened to me was God's way of showing me a greater thing. God sat by, seemingly indifferent towards me, knowing full well I would give him the praise either way.

Casting Crowns has embodied this mentality in their song, "Praise you in this Storm":

I was sure by now, God You would have reached down
and wiped our tears away,
stepped in and saved the day.
But once again, I say amen
and it's still raining
as the thunder rolls....
I raise my hands and praise
the God who gives and takes away.

I'm sure there's a myriad of philosophical arguments and discussions about how God has the right to allow this kind of stuff, and how man is sinful and deserves it, blah, blah, blah. I'm not so sure. In fact, I don't buy it at all. If God is there, he's sick and twisted.

I can imagine one of his faithful singing that song while the roof is ripped from his house and his body is wrapped around a lightpole. Is this what God wants? I don't get it. I guess you just have to have faith.

Franky, P.E.T. and the Problem of a Good God.

This is my 1 1/2 year old Basset Hound dog. His name is Franklin J. Loftus, Franky for short. Any dog lover knows that dogs have character, and so does Franky. One thing about him is that he loves to be with us wherever we're in the house. If we get up and go somewhere he just has to follow us. He loves to touch us and to lay down beside us. He also loves to play. When he wants to play he'll start bringing in one of his toys, then another, then another into the room we're at. Before long all of his toys will be where we're at, and he demands that we play with him, so we do; one toy at a time.

One other thing about him is that he loves to please us. He likes to make us happy. When we're happy, he's happy. And this is a point I want to make about the problem of a good God.

My wife trained him to potty outside with very few mistakes by having him in a comfortable cage while we were gone. He wouldn't go in his cage. She also bought plenty of toys for him so he had enough of them to chew on so he wouldn't chew on the couch or shoes. She was great at training him. We have only had to yell at him a few times. When we did, he voluntarily went into his cage. We didn't hit him, spank him, or pluck out his eyes. We didn't burn him, bust his jaw, or break his leg. We taught him gently (for the most part), and we punished him within reason just to let him know we were not pleased. That was enough.

There is a child rearing method known as Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) that has been around for a few decades. Children are not to be spanked, but loved. Discipline is done by taking away priviledges alone. Again, no spanking (which stands in stark contrast to the Biblical injunction "spare the rod, spoil the child")! If this method is done consistently and in love these children are well adjusted youths and adults. [Just read the reviews of the revised editon of this book if you don't believe me].

If something can show the barbaric nature of the Biblical God it's my dog Franky along with P.E.T. While I reject the Garden of Eden story as myth, even if it happened, just compare how God teaches humans and compare that to how my wife taught Franky, or how parents could raise heathy children. The punishments do not have to be so draconian in scope, especially if the goal is to teach us to do better. Just God's displeasure alone could be enough. Just taking away priviledges could be enough.

Christians will respond that we cannot conceive what it's like for a Holy God to be slighted in the ways we do, and that because he is so Holy he must severely punish any indiscretion, with an everlasting Hell if needed. Well, Christians are indeed correct about this, if true. I cannot fathom having to send my kids to hell for anything, and I cannot fathom having to pluck out Franky's eyes for anything he would do wrong to teach him to obey. But that's what we see in the Bible. So the Bible provides me a reason to reject it along with the God described in its pages.

No loving parent would punish her children like the way God does in the Bible, and no good dog owner would train her dog like God purportedly trains us. It does not make any sense at all, even supposing God is Holy. For if God is so damn Holy, then he also knew he would have to punish us if we slighted him in the ways we do. And if that's the case he should never have created us in the first place, because he apparently has a problem with understanding finite creatures like us!

Even if God created us anyway, then he should be at least omniscient enough to know our sins for what they are on our level. We simply do not intend to commit an infinte sin against such a God! It's impossible for us to do. If God is to properly judge us and he knows our inner motivations, then he should see sin for what it is to us, and then teach us to do better. Any parent or dog owner would. We do not expect Franky to obey like a responsible adult, for instance. We judge him based on what he is expected to do as a dog, and good parents of children do likewise. We humans do the best we can with what we've got. We need help. We need trained. We don't need the severe punishments God purportedly sends us. Since an omniscient God should know what to expect from us just like we only expect Franky to behave on his level of understanding, it seems we're smarter than God!

Can any Christian make sense of how God purportedly treats us when compared to how my wife trained Franky, or how any loving parent could train her children? I'd rather be treated like a dog in my wife's house than a human being in God's world! My wife is better than God!

David Wood Still Baffles Me.

David Wood still baffles me. He has commented on what I wrote in this Blog entry of mine. Sandlestraps had the first comment there, and he is arguing the same things I am from his Christian Process Theology perspective against Mr. Wood. Here is my response to Mr. Wood (DW):

DW: (1) John gives tons of examples of how horrible and selfish human beings are.

Thank you. We must come to grips with what we are talking about when we’re talking about the suffering human beings experience at the hands of other human beings.

DW:(2) I would say that, if God is just, he isn't obligated to protect horrible and selfish people from pain.

That’s pretty much all of us, correct? That is, God is under no obligation to help any human being because we are all horrible and selfish people (in varying degrees). Would you say we deserve everything that we suffer? All of us? Including the 40,000 children who die every single day because of malnutrition, which could be alleviated by the food donations of good people, the elimination of tyrannical governments, and a good God sending manna from heaven?

How exactly is this “just” from your perspective as a Christian? I don’t see it. God purportedly created us, correct? Do you see an inconsistency within your own beliefs with a supposedly “just” God creating us in such a way that we would be so horrible and selfish in the first place? Do you see an inconsistency with a supposedly “good” God who created us with more freedom to do such things than we could actually handle? If God is as good as one of us horrible parents, he would do the same things we would do, by not giving our children more freedom than they can handle. Good parents do not grant 10 year olds permission to drive the car to the store, nor will they give them a razor blade until they know their children won’t hurt themselves or others with it. Why? Because it’s the ethical thing to do, that’s why, and it's based upon YOUR ethics. Such an ethic can be found within the text of that Good ‘Ole Book you love, which purportedly came from your God.

DW:(3) John objects: "But if God is good, he would still give us a perfect world."

If he could’ve done this as an omnipotent being, then yes he should’ve done do. I have argued that God could’ve created us with imperishable bodies in a heavenly world in the first place. Even if this present world isn't perfect, why isn't it better?..that's the real question. We all would expect a much better world than he purportedly created. You yourself must admit this isn’t the world you would expect if there existed an all-powerful omnibenelovent God. You are arguing against the goads here, and inside you know it. That’s what frustrates you so much, and why you are planning on doing your dissertation on this topic; because it bothers you…because you want to understand it yourself…because you don’t have the answers and you want to satisfy your own need to find them

DW:(4) This reflects his own values, not of mine or those of theism.

How so? I’ve argued from the moral code you yourself believe in the Bible. Good parents act better than the God who teaches them how to love and care for their children.

DW:(5) Hence, John is yet again presupposing his own values in his argument.

Again, not so. You really ought to ignore the ignorance over at Triablogue. Let me add here that what I am doing is what Francis Schaeffer did when he tried pushing someone to see the implications of what that person himself believed. That’s what I am doing with you. The fact that you reject my pushing you in the direction I am, doesn’t mean I’m arguing outside of the things you believe, at all. You simply misunderstand the nature of what I’m doing, as I think you also misunderstand what your beliefs commit yourself to.

DW:(6) But this means that his argument only works if he's using it against someone who has the same values John Loftus has.

Again, not so. You misunderstand this, and I am very surprised that someone like you doesn’t see this for what it is. You should know better than to throw up freshman type of arguments like these. I’ll expect you to do better as you become more familiar with the relevant literature. But as I said, your objections here are worthless (sorry but they are). Why don’t you think about what I just said here, instead of firing back? I’m trying to help you, but you need to step up a level before I can do so. For until you admit this whole line of reasoning is baseless and wrongheaded, you will not make a Christian contribution to the problem of evil at all.

DW:(7) This is one reason why theists aren't affected by John's argument.

Another reason might be because some theists are blinded by their faith, while another reason might be because some theists are not (or cannot) make the proper distinctions that are necessary (see above).

DW:(8) Thus, John either needs to reformulate his argument so that it doesn't presuppose his own values (e.g. that free will isn't very important, that there's nothing good about creating a world, that rebellion against God isn't very bad, etc.), or he needs to recognize that his argument doesn't work with anyone who has a different value system (i.e. most people in the world).

Exactly why can’t I wonder about the nature and value of free will from a Christian perspective? Christians themselves, if they are honest, do this, and they do so inside their own perspective. So why can’t I join in their conversation and argue what I do about free will? Plenty of philosophers of religion are atheists. Why can’t they argue about the internal inconsistency of the religious beliefs they reject?

Besides, 1) I’m asking for a reason why you believe free will is so important that God will grant human beings this gift even though Biblical morality would argue no one should give someone a gift if he knows said person will abuse that gift? Why does your God forbid one thing and yet do something else here? 2) I’m asking you for a reason why you believe God created this world even though you believe God is the all-sufficient One. 3) I’m asking you for a reason why our sins are such terrible things that God would punish us in the horrible ways we have had to suffer down through the ages. I can ask you for reasons why you believe these things and then question those answers, can’t I? Sure I can. You simply cannot respond by asserting that this is what you believe. That’s unbecoming the budding scholar you seem to be. You cannot simply assert the things you do here. You must make a reasonable case for your beliefs. The philosophy of religion is about defending what you believe with reasons. What are they? Not doing so will not advance any argument, and you’ll offer nothing to the Christian community who may look to you in the future for some answers in the face of the skeptical arguments. Surely you see this…surely.