The problem of Evil: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The problem of Evil » The problem of Evil

The problem of Evil
(the Epicurean paradox)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

The problem of Evil

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 12/18/05 - 04:57 AM:	#101
Raziel wrote: I'm not sure how comfortable I am taking an atheist's side in this debate (though I'm only sort of doing so), but here goes... Near as I can tell, PB is responding to some of your earlier posts that claim the problem of evil is not invoked by atheists as an inconsistency within theism. I don't remember any such claim of mine, about how atheists view the problem of evil (which is different from a claim about what the PoE is). I remember claims to the opposite -- such as when I say that the merit of the Augustinian solution is that it solves the apparent inconsistency (this presupposes that there is an apparent inconsistency). I think his point is this: if your arguments rely on premise P1 (in this case that the problem of evil is not invoked as an inconsistency), and your opponent does not hold P1 then your argument will not convince them. I know that. I said that, as well. The point is that the apparent inconsistency is solved, and that the atheist is faced with two choices -- he rejects P1 and keeps on being an atheist while accepting that the theist view is not inconsistent, or he embraces P1 and therefore accepts a theist-inclined worldview. What he can't do (if he wants to be consistent) is to claim that the theist view is inconsistent. It may very well be wrong, but it isn't inconsistent. Of course, that is precisely what the atheist does, because he does not want to reduce this to a conflict of opinions. He wants, somehow, to prove that there is something wrong, illogical, irrational, with theism. This psychological drive is quite understandable, but not very rational, and it does not lead to good reasoning. Furthermore, he states that most people invoking the problem of evil do not do so in a way consistent with P1. In other words, they do not hold P1--rather they do, in fact, invoke the problem of evil as an inconsistency within theism. As such, arguments relying on them holding P1 do not work against such people. What is non-sensical about that? It's pure modus ponens, as far as I can tell. Even after your far too generous reading of his point, it is still nonsensical, because it fails to acknowledge (a) the irreducibility of the disagreement about the premises and (b) that the opposite view is not inconsistent within its premises. His original point, remember, is: "...most of the contexts in which I've seen Epicurus' problem of evil come up do in fact invoke it as an inconsistency within a certain type of theistic framework. If all of your arguments rest on this not being the case, all one has to do is invoke such a usage and your arguments fall apart." As if we could solve disagreements by invoking established usage . Though you have implied that their work is irrelevant. No, I have implied that the solutions are ineffective. I've said nothing about their work, and by the way when I say that the Christian must be proud about the Augustinian tour-de-force it means that it excels among its genre -- which means that there is such a genre . The Jewish version is probably fleshed out enough to overcome the problem of evil and it was a version of the free will theodicy. So actually, this point supports PB's claim that others had been in the vicinity of Augustine's philosophy, not your claim that no one else came close. However, Augustine certainly brought the idea in line with other metaphysical issues that others had ignored (if only because metaphysics had not developed to the point of raising those issues before). But I don't think we can end with Augustine. Brilliant as he was, minor revisions have been necessary to keep the free will theodicy viable (though I think they have been easily and effectively made). I agree with all of this. I broke up the paragraph because the second half seems to be in a minor disagreement with the first . The merit of Augustine is quite obvious. That he used material from the Platonic as well as from the Jewish thought is also obvious, which does not -- obviously -- detract from Plato or from Jewish thought. I don't see how my posts can be construed as that. It is as if by saying that Einstein solved some problems in physics, I were implying that Newton was a dunce. I was not. Yet, Einstein did solve some problems, and so did Augustine, and we shouldn't obfuscate on that. He didn't retract anything, as far as I can tell. Rather it seems like he agreed to use your definitions of words rather than his and rephrased as such. You have a habit of characterizing peoples statements to suit your purpose regardless of what they actually meant and confusing issues through semantic muddling until the original point is lost. These seem like rather dishonest tactics that should not be used by a person claiming the moral high ground. Which is probably why I refrain from claiming the "moral high ground" . Honestly, Raziel, I don't really care about your interpretations of my posts -- you are free to read them as you wish. If you say that "I have a habit of characterizing people's statements to suit my purpose regardless of what they actually meant", you probably have your reasons to believe in that, but what it means is that I shouldn't be spending my time with you. And what it means is that you are claiming the moral high ground. If you want to see me as dishonest, fine by me, good luck and farewell . (I don't see why so many people want to rescue this Mariner from "dishonest tactics"... if I see someone using dishonest tactics, I just try to avoid threads with that person, mostly because I am often very uncharitable with them, being quite sensitive to dishonesty (and to people who interpret my words to suit their purposes ) and I don't like it. I don't like to be uncharitable. I don't find any pleasure from telling people that they are dishonest.) The free will theodicy works fine. We can make an argument that morality is meaningless without choice, therefore, free will is necessary. Another route I am familiar with is to say that good and evil define each other. Perhaps this deals with Mariner's whole "problem of good" argument, though it seems the relativist could adapt this to his own needs and actually use it against Mariner. However, I'm not particularly an expert on that theory so I shouldn't go to far into depth on it. It's good to see something on the subject . I agree with all of that, particularly about the relationship between free will and morality. When the atheists at large finally accept that the Augustinian solution... solves the problem , then we can discuss the far more interesting aspects of the nature of morality, of goodness and evil, etc.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

onlyOne
The One and Only

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 12/18/05 - 10:12 AM:	#102
hahaha!!! this is a philosophy forum?? how is it that we have talked for sooooo many posts, but we have not even established what God is. I know, i know, i know... [insert characteristics of God here] but, really, we are talking about God, like He is some guy. like the guy over on 5th street who is a really good guy and also really strong... he's really smart too!! lol! god by definition is infinite, right? so how can we talk about Him like he is some dude across town; some "thing" or other kind of finite entity, who is somewhere. this is delusional. we are talking about something which we have no clear understanding of. crazy! http://forums.philosophyforums.com/templates/defa... further, we are talking about a "problem of evil" but NO ONE has yet to provide us with the understanding of "evil" in it's essence. we are all talking about our individual conceptions/feelings about what is evil. what is evil?!? whence does it issue?? we need a better understanding of what the One is and how it is in relation to the Two; that is, we know this place to be founded in duality/polarity/complementarity (energy/matter, time/space, good/evil, positive/negative). this issue that we discuss here is contained within the Two. But the Two is only One, essentially. Not that the Two (the world) issued from the One, but that the Two is the One. so, the One is the Two. but who understands that Two is One. he who knows the One, knows all there is to know; the pinnacle of knowledge. he who knows is the paragon of goodness, he who is knows possesses the power beyond might; the epidemy of power in knowledge. what is the essence of reality? from there we may know the essence of "evil" and "good". if we do not know the One, how can we think that we can argue as we have been? you don't like this response, but that's ok... don't just try to "come-back" at me. please try to reconcile what it is you believe about God and evil and consider that you may have based it all on assumption, emotion, ignorance, or worse. ok. fire at will.
"from the first, not another is." "see the face you had before you were born" -hui neng "If mind moves itself, unmoving mind is self." -J.B. Bostick

ZenEthics
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2005
Location: Denton Tx
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 106

Posted 12/19/05 - 05:10 PM:	#103
onlyOne wrote: hahaha!!! but, really, we are talking about God, like He is some guy. like the guy over on 5th street who is a really good guy and also really strong... he's really smart too!! lol! god by definition is infinite, right? so how can we talk about Him like he is some dude across town; some "thing" or other kind of finite entity, who is somewhere. this is delusional. we are talking about something which we have no clear understanding of. God as a person is assumed in the Problem of Evil. The problem of evil is not directed at Spinoza's infinite god, It is directed at the monotheistic (omnipotent omniscient omnipresent) personal god(the God who "creates"). Although I agree it is irrational to treat an infinite being as a person, it seems most religions seem to think differently. The problem of evil is an argument directed at almighty creator based religions and assumes their framework(you have to assume the existence of a personal God to have the problem of evil coherent) onlyOne wrote: further, we are talking about a "problem of evil" but NO ONE has yet to provide us with the understanding of "evil" in it's essence. we are all talking about our individual conceptions/feelings about what is evil. what is evil?!? whence does it issue?? again assumed within the framework of the defending monotheistic stance. With Regard to the Abrahamic religions evil would be things like Satan, hell, sin(distance from god),suffering, malice, rage, sloth, rape, hate, homosexuality..etc etc.[/quote] Edited by ZenEthics on 12/19/05 - 05:23 PM
We are all the punchline to a joke that they wont let us in on.

ZenEthics
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2005
Location: Denton Tx
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 106

Posted 12/19/05 - 05:26 PM:	#104
Also could anyone spell out in detail how evil is necessary for free will to exist. Could the "almighty creator" not just simply create free will without evil? Doesn't free will exist in heaven without evil? Edited by ZenEthics on 12/19/05 - 07:19 PM
We are all the punchline to a joke that they wont let us in on.

Raziel
Lurking Girl

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Location: Probably lurking this thread right now...
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 12/19/05 - 10:01 PM:	#105
Mariner wrote: Raziel: Near as I can tell, PB is responding to some of your earlier posts that claim the problem of evil is not invoked by atheists as an inconsistency within theism. Mariner: I don't remember any such claim of mine. Then allow me to remind you: Mariner wrote: Note that the Problem of Evil is not invoked as an inconsistency within theism. (from post #9) I don't care if you relinquish this claim--I won't attack or mock you for it. But I think this is what was being responded to. Mariner wrote: Raziel: I think [PB's] point is this: if your arguments rely on premise P1 (in this case that the problem of evil is not invoked as an inconsistency), and your opponent does not hold P1 then your argument will not convince them. Mariner: I know that. I said that, as well. No you didn't. You said PB was being nonsensical (see your post #91). Mariner wrote: Furthermore, he states that most people invoking the problem of evil do not do so in a way consistent with P1. In other words, they do not hold P1--rather they do, in fact, invoke the problem of evil as an inconsistency within theism. As such, arguments relying on them holding P1 do not work against such people. What is non-sensical about that? It's pure modus ponens, as far as I can tell. Mariner: Even after your far too generous reading of his point, it is still nonsensical, because it fails to acknowledge (a) the irreducibility of the disagreement about the premises and (b) that the opposite view is not inconsistent within its premises. First, I do not think my reading is too generous, but we will have to wait for PB to return before I put too many more words in his mouth. Second, the statements you mark (a) and (b) may have something to do with why an atheist like PB thinks the limits of philosophy lead to agnosticism. (Note to PB: I'm very curious on this issue, please address it in your next post.) Mariner wrote: [PB's] original point, remember, is: "...most of the contexts in which I've seen Epicurus' problem of evil come up do in fact invoke it as an inconsistency within a certain type of theistic framework. If all of your arguments rest on this not being the case, all one has to do is invoke such a usage and your arguments fall apart." As if we could solve disagreements by invoking established usage. Ummm, PB is not talking about established uses. I think he just used too fancy a way of saying, "If your arguments rely on me believing x and I don't believe x then your argument is unconvincing (unless you persuade me of the truth of x)." Mariner wrote: Raziel: Though you have implied that their work is irrelevant. Mariner: No, I have implied that the solutions are ineffective. Hmmm... on re-reading the relevant posts, I conceed that nothing you have said is necessarily inconsistent with this claim. Perhaps I was being uncharitable in this case. As I cannot be sure, I retract this criticism. Mariner wrote: Raziel: The Jewish version is probably fleshed out enough to overcome the problem of evil and it was a version of the free will theodicy. So actually, this point supports PB's claim that others had been in the vicinity of Augustine's philosophy, not your claim that no one else came close. However, Augustine certainly brought the idea in line with other metaphysical issues that others had ignored (if only because metaphysics had not developed to the point of raising those issues before). But I don't think we can end with Augustine. Brilliant as he was, minor revisions have been necessary to keep the free will theodicy viable (though I think they have been easily and effectively made). Mariner: I agree with all of this. I broke up the paragraph because the second half seems to be in a minor disagreement with the first. I disagree. I think the Jewish version overcomes the problem of evil as stated by Epicurus. However, development of that particular issue and other metaphysical lines of thought brought up new issues that Augustine patched up quite well, in addition to offering a more robust free will theodicy. That was all I meant. I apologize if it was unclear. Mariner wrote: The merit of Augustine is quite obvious....Einstein did solve some problems, and so did Augustine, and we shouldn't obfuscate on that. I agree. It seemed, however, that you were implying that previous work was hopelessly futile and Augustine made some miraculous breakthrough not even imagined by his predecessors. This would be an absurd claim. It seems you are saying you were not making such a claim, however, so then I have no complaint in this regard. I am happy we clarified the issue, though. Mariner wrote: (I don't see why so many people want to rescue this Mariner from "dishonest tactics"... if I see someone using dishonest tactics, I just try to avoid threads with that person. Yes, well, you happen to be on some threads that interest me, and I'm not going to avoid them just because you're there. I'm not sure people necessarily want to rescue you from dishonest tactics. I'm sure they hope you will stop using them, thus improving thread quality, but I also think it is important to call people on such so that all involved in the argument (including those just spectating) can recognize what might seem like coherent points for the dodges that they sometimes are. It's the reason we highlight fallacies in other philosophers' arguments, as well: to show that what seems like a good argument (for rhetorical reasons) is not (for philosophical reasons). Mariner wrote: When the atheists at large finally accept that the Augustinian solution solves the problem, then we can discuss the far more interesting aspects of the nature of morality, of goodness and evil, etc. Well, let's see what happens.
And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. [John 8:32] Until next time, help control the pet population: Teach your dog abstinence. [Stephen Colbert]

BubbaSwitzler
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 2542

Posted 12/19/05 - 10:47 PM:	#106
ZenEthics wrote: Also could anyone spell out in detail how evil is necessary for free will to exist. Could the "almighty creator" not just simply create free will without evil? Doesn't free will exist in heaven without evil? Here is a start for a discussion on this question: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?i...
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 12/20/05 - 03:00 AM:	#107
Raziel wrote: Then allow me to remind you: (...) I don't care if you relinquish this claim--I won't attack or mock you for it. But I think this is what was being responded to. A great example of interpreting posts to suit your purpose, isn't it? Since I was addressing how other people in the thread, and not how all people in the world, were addressing the PoE up to that point. To be more specific, I was talking to periculum, who was defending the notion that there is no such thing as evil. In this case, obviously, there is no Problem of Evil, is there? And there is also no inconsistency in theism because any opinion about evil is merely an opinion without any universal standing. That was, as you pointed out, post #9. Forgive me for not having prophetic sight and adding the proviso that some people would later invoke the PoE from the traditional viewpoint . If you look closely, my next post after that one is already arguing the traditional viewpoint and discussing the [apparent] inconsistency. This is quite enough for me as regards your opinion of me. It is an often reiterated point of mine, in many threads, that conversation requires translation. You don't want to do it, you want to read what you want instead of reading what I wrote. Sadly, it's not a rare trait. Luckily, your opinion of me is not the main issue of this thread, and so it can be dropped now as we move to more relevant issues. Ummm, PB is not talking about established uses. I think he just used too fancy a way of saying, "If your arguments rely on me believing x and I don't believe x then your argument is unconvincing (unless you persuade me of the truth of x)." Then he ought to rephrase it. As it stands, that's what's written there. I don't really want to read that meaning into his words, but when he talks about "most of the contexts in which I've seen the PoE come up", and about how "all one has to do is to invoke such an usage", it seems he is invoking established usage. Perhaps my translation is faulty , but the only way to solve this problem is to ask for clarification. I've never seen anyone get clarification by accusing the other party of dishonesty. I agree. It seemed, however, that you were implying that previous work was hopelessly futile and Augustine made some miraculous breakthrough not even imagined by his predecessors. This would be an absurd claim. It seems you are saying you were not making such a claim, however, so then I have no complaint in this regard. I am happy we clarified the issue, though. So am I . Yes, well, you happen to be on some threads that interest me, and I'm not going to avoid them just because you're there. I'm not sure people necessarily want to rescue you from dishonest tactics. I'm sure they hope you will stop using them, thus improving thread quality, but I also think it is important to call people on such so that all involved in the argument (including those just spectating) can recognize what might seem like coherent points for the dodges that they sometimes are. It's the reason we highlight fallacies in other philosophers' arguments, as well: to show that what seems like a good argument (for rhetorical reasons) is not (for philosophical reasons). Quite reasonable. It's a pity that it is false; and even more sad that an accusation of dishonesty oftens derails a discussion. But hey, we can live with that. It's not the first time I've been called dishonest around here . It is, however, an odd approach to discussion, to begin by calling the other party dishonest before any other comment on the issue. I don't expect you to have lots of fruitful arguments by following this method. If you will allow a piece of advice, if I am participating in a thread with dishonest people, I try to keep focused on the issue and rarely attack the style of the poster. What's the use of that? He won't change it just to please you -- especially if he is being deliberately dishonest. Keep on asking about the subject, ignore the dishonesties, and if necessary, point them out (as you just said in this last quoted part), but not without losing the focus. I don't remember any instance in which I called the other poster dishonest before some such insult came from him first. That's another trait of dishonest posters, by the way -- they often "throw the first stone". Attack is the best defense, it seems. Incidentally, before any confusion comes up, I don't think you are dishonest. I just think you are reading my posts sloppily (as the part about post #9 shows), and that you are being a tad uncharitable in the interpretation of my posts as well as following an unproductive method of discussion. *** ZenEthics wrote: Also could anyone spell out in detail how evil is necessary for free will to exist. Could the "almighty creator" not just simply create free will without evil? Doesn't free will exist in heaven without evil? If evil is defined as disobeing the will of God -- which is the standard religious definition (note that it is not specifically Christian), and if free will means the ability to disobey God's will, then free will necessarily carries with it the possibility of evil. The possibility of evil, note. Whether the being will disobey the divine will or not is up to him (if he is a free being). In Heaven, no one will disobey God because they will see God face to face, and since God is Goodness (essential Goodness), no will, whether free or not, will turn from it after seeing it. Since what moves the will is apprehended Goodness. That's it in a nutshell.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

abba
Servant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Location: Sarasota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 432

Posted 12/20/05 - 11:08 AM:	#108
Mariner wrote: In Heaven, no one will disobey God because they will see God face to face, and since God is Goodness (essential Goodness), no will, whether free or not, will turn from it after seeing it. Since what moves the will is apprehended Goodness. This POV, as I have posted previously, is the essence of my one significant spiritual experience. I interpreted it as "no freewill in heaven" - & it took me 3 years to humble my prideful self to that realization. Mariner's Catholic view says the same thing, but with a slightly different slant... a slant that is consistent with other Catholic views of freewill - that any heavenly spirit would always and forever freely choose to do God's Perfect and Good will, so the question is moot.

angieaugustine
culture defines truth

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: Pacific NW
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 76

Posted 12/20/05 - 06:10 PM: Subject: relativity	#109
perhaps we should consider what "evil" actually constitutes. even augustine, who gives us a nice and clean synopsis of "evil" categories (ie moral evil vs. natural evil), does not completely take into account the relative nature of some types of evil. at the risk of playing the proverbial devil's advocate, allow me to explain. certain evils appear to be culturally determined, such as incest and cannibalism. whereas augustine would classify these actions as 'moral evils' because they are actions taken from one man against another, some cultures (specifically certain tribal or primitive cultural groups) would not view these actions as evil. in other words, we are standing on a slippery slope if we classify evil in terms of morality, because morality is most certainly a culturally relevant concept which is not a universal constant. however, the universal constant here is that all socio-cultural groups DO have some sort of moral code, and likewise these groups categorically define certain behaviors as evil; even if the behaviors differ from culture to culture, the idea that certain behaviors are somehow inherently evil or wrong does not. so it is worth our while to consider, then, the very root issue which is 'what is evil', and consider also whether or not this central tenet is necessary to solving the problem of evil.
"The religions of today are the sects and cults of yesterday", David Sloan Wilson in Darwin's Cathedral "The highest stage in moral culture at which we can arrive is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts", Charles Darwin

ZenEthics
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2005
Location: Denton Tx
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 106

Posted 12/20/05 - 06:50 PM:	#110
Mariner wrote: if evil is defined as disobeying the will of God -- which is the standard religious definition (note that it is not specifically Christian), and if free will means the ability to disobey God's will, then free will necessarily carries with it the possibility of evil. The possibility of evil, note. Whether the being will disobey the divine will or not is up to him (if he is a free being). In Heaven, no one will disobey God because they will see God face to face, and since God is Goodness (essential Goodness), no will, whether free or not, will turn from it after seeing it. Since what moves the will is apprehended Goodness. "since god is goodness essential goodness, no will whether free or not, will turn from it after seeing it" This seems to imply that God has a location and therefore is not omnipresent: If he were omin-present then everyone would "see the face of god" and all of existence would be heaven. Unless you are implying that God actually has a face which actually has a location which people in heaven actually get to see. Then maybe God would be omni-present but his face wouldn't be. Then my question would be why isn't the "face of God" omnipresent, and what purpose does it serve to hide the undeniable good righteousness of God? As you said will even if its free cannot turn away from the undeniable righteousness of God:you said that you can still have free will and be around God and never experience/choose evil: Why did God create a world where it is possible to be separated from him if in every instance being separated from him is undesirable? As the Problem of evil points out, I fail to see the inherent benefit in creating a world full of suffering outside of heaven. wouldn't an existence comprised in totality of an infinite heaven be infinitely more desirable than this world? Even if i agree that evil is necessary for free will to exist, it fails to explain: The ability of blind forces(nature) to create intense suffering. why do natural disasters exist? The ability of a will to influence evil over another will Satan(who is not quite all powerful but still much more powerful than humans) and his constant unchecked evil influence on humanity.
We are all the punchline to a joke that they wont let us in on.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.