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: First 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

The problem of Evil

Paulnbama
Quipper

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2005
Location: Uh....here?
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 561

Posted 01/06/06 - 09:59 PM:	#151
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: But there are scientific theories that say the same thing--or at least something very similar. Particularly popular among astronomers (though this is relative as it is not particularly popular in general) is the theory that the Big Bang resulted from a "leak" in another universe. Now, I'm not quite sure what to make of this theory and I don't know a lot about it, but it seems to be similar to what you are saying in the above quote. I have a dream that one day, astrophysicists and metaphysicists all over this world will join hands in common bonds and thoughts and proclaim to the world that something came from nothing and that nothing is real. Just a little humor. Seriously I do believe science will have no choice but to admit it is finally stumped and come to a conclusion there is an invisible (super natural?) plane that this visible (natural) plane came out of.
Zoe: I know something ain't right. Wash: Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right, we'd be in jail.

Postmodern Beatnik
Or Is It?

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1464

Posted 01/30/06 - 10:53 AM:	#152
Paulnbaba wrote: I do believe science will have no choice but to admit it is finally stumped and come to a conclusion there is an invisible (super natural?) plane that this visible (natural) plane came out of. Fine, but my point is that if it comes to that, science already has a rival theory that amounts to a physicalist account of the same thing. Lance-a-lot wrote: Postmodern Beatnik: "Well, the concepts are relative" and "All of these options maintain a constant and unchanging good/evil distinction while allowing for differing opinions among societies." Lance-a-lot: Don't you see a contradiction? Well, not between the two statements you quoted. The way people conceptualize things can all be different without necessitating the lack of facts about the matter. Take reproduction, for example. There have been many theories about how living creatures can produce new little living creatures that grow up to produce more living creatures. Spontaneous generation was a theory, elan vital was another. People went about espousing these concepts with various levels of enthusiasm. Turns out they were all wrong. It seems that you cannot see the difference between there existing unknown moral truths and there not being any moral truths whatsoever. Which are you arguing: that we don't know or that there is none? The first is no problem for the objectivist. The second is not supported by the arguments you have presented. I agree that there are no moral truths, but our ignorance of them and our fabrication of alternatives does not prove the point.
"It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else." --Anthony Weston "If you can't imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don't understand it yet." --Anthony Weston

agentlopez
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 7

Posted 02/07/06 - 10:12 AM:	#153
A religious simple answer is evil is the absence of God as darkness is the absence of light.
Owner of http://aboveultimate.com/

Ophiuchus
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 38

Posted 02/08/06 - 09:41 AM:	#154
Agentlopez, I fear you miss the point. The question is not "what is evil" it is "how can their be both evil and an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God." Perhaps evil is the absence of God, but does that mean God is unable to eliminate it from the world (it is somehow necessary in a yin-yang like way)? If so, it seems God is not omnipotent. Of course, one response to this is to say that it evil is, in fact, necessary in just this way, but that those taking the Epicurean position are misunderstanding "omnipotence" to mean "the ability to do anything at all" rather than "the ability to do anything (logically or physically?) possible." If this latter sense is the correct one (as many take it to be) and evil is (logically or physically) necessary then no problem exists for God's omnipotence. But, there is another aspect to this God we are discussing: onmibenevolence. If God isn't all loving, fine no problem, but most take him to be so, and this is where the big problem comes in for Christians. After all, if heaven is perfect but evil is somehow necessary (because of what we've stated above, or free will, or some other route) then why is Heaven perfect? Perhaps, as Mariner stated, it is because no one who truly knew God would ever betray him (which any evil act would constitute). Okay, but then why is their evil? Why doesn't God just keep us up in Heaven with him and let us live our lives in his glory? Then there wouldn't be any evil whatsoever. Hip hip hooray! This connects with Camus' claim that Heaven is a morally repugnant concept. He argued that no amount of goodness in Heaven could justify the suffering we are put through if it is unnecessary. Heaven, for Camus, is like giving a child a gift after savagely beating him for absolutely no reason and thinking that makes everything better. I've never heard a good response to this, though there might be one (or two? or three?). I assume that both Mariner and Postmodern Beatnik have come across this issue (Mariner because he seems pretty into Christian philosophy and Beatnik because he seems to be an Existentialist of some sort), yet neither of them see it as a problem. Maybe if one of them returns they'll give me an answer. Or maybe someone still hanging around here will have one.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --Albert Einstein

Mariner
Longing

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

Posted 02/08/06 - 09:45 AM:	#155
I don't see why this would turn Heaven into a morally repugnant concept. At best, this would turn earthly existence into a morally repugnant concept. Perhaps you can clarify.
"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

BubbaSwitzler
banned

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

Posted 02/08/06 - 02:13 PM:	#156
Ophiuchus wrote: Of course, one response to this is to say that it evil is, in fact, necessary in just this way, but that those taking the Epicurean position are misunderstanding "omnipotence" to mean "the ability to do anything at all" rather than "the ability to do anything (logically or physically?) possible." If this latter sense is the correct one (as many take it to be) and evil is (logically or physically) necessary then no problem exists for God's omnipotence. I think you will find that this is the most common Christian explanation. The mere fact that God creates humans with free will and that evil is defined as doing that which is contrary to God guarantees evil will exist as a consequence of free will, a logical necessity. Ophiuchus wrote: After all, if heaven is perfect but evil is somehow necessary (because of what we've stated above, or free will, or some other route) then why is Heaven perfect? Perhaps, as Mariner stated, it is because no one who truly knew God would ever betray him (which any evil act would constitute). Okay, but then why is their evil? Why doesn't God just keep us up in Heaven with him and let us live our lives in his glory? This is in fact a question I had been pondering lately (see my other threads). I've come to the conclusion that there exists something I call Christian Enlightenment. For one reason or another it is not posssible for God to create humans who are both of free will and ready to live the perfect life. Instead, we live our lives here as a preparation. Satan knows God well or better than anyone and chose to betray him. I suspect the ambiguity of this life is part of this Christian Enlightenment. Philosophy has argued that such Christian Enlightenement might be not only an individual matter but also a process for humanity as a whole. So far, this is the explanation that I find best fits the facts. Ophiuchus wrote: He argued that no amount of goodness in Heaven could justify the suffering we are put through if it is unnecessary. Poppycock. The mushing of a philosophical whiner. I've grown extremely disgusted with the modern attitude that suffering is evil and that God is a mean kid with a magnifying glass. I used to think it was just odd but now I can barely conceal my contempt for the argument (and the arguers). The more I think about it the less I am shocked by the suffering and evil in this world.
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

Ophiuchus
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 38

Posted 02/08/06 - 09:03 PM:	#157
Mariner wrote: I don't see why this would turn Heaven into a morally repugnant concept. At best, this would turn earthly existence into a morally repugnant concept. Perhaps you can clarify. Well, I think it's supposed to put us on the horns of a dilemma. If there is no God, no right and wrong, etc. then we're safe from the world being morally repugnant insofar as these can be said to lose their meanings in such circumstances. If God and Heaven do exist, I think Camus would see them as both morally repugnant. Earth for being an unnecessary evil and Heaven for being bittersweet. Again, I think the point is that there is something immoral about giving a child a gift to "make up for" an unwarranted savage beating (not that I think a child could ever warrant a savage beating). And it's not just the beating that's wrong but the gift-giving and the thinking that the gift-giving eases all pain. Obviously, when the analogy is made to Heaven, we're the beaten child and God is the parent doing the beating and the gift-giving. If this doesn't clarify enough just tell me to take another stab at it. BubbaSwitzler wrote: I think you will find that this is the most common Christian explanation. I figured so, that's why I think the second part is more the problem. BubbaSwitzler wrote: For one reason or another it is not posssible for God to create humans who are both of free will and ready to live the perfect life. That's an interesting response. So it would be another case of logical or physical impossibility? I guess this would get around the omnipotence issue. BubbaSwitzler wrote: Satan knows God well or better than anyone and chose to betray him. Hmmm... when I mentioned the thing about no one betraying God it was a bit of a reference to one of Mariner's earlier posts on this thread about how there could be free will in Heaven (especially since free will is needed to get out of the problem of evil) but no sin. Perhaps, however, it only applies to humans? Maybe we're all necessarily created imperfect but somehow this allows God to "build in" something that makes us recognize his perfection and give up sin once we're in his presence? I don't know how this would work, but maybe... BubbaSwitzler wrote: I've grown extremely disgusted with the modern attitude that suffering is evil and that God is a mean kid with a magnifying glass. Well, I'm not sure that this conjunction always holds. It seems you can say one without the other. God doesn't have to be mean for suffering to be bad. That's one of the Epicurean options, after all: that God is benevolent but not omnipotent. Either way, it seems that suffering is somehow inherently bad. Perhaps it is a lesser evil or a necessary evil, but it seems that if we could get all the good things out of life without suffering that would be a better world than one in which we do suffer. Then again, perhaps we just need to take another step behind ye olde shield of logical impossibility. Also, this attitude is nowhere near modern. Suffering is a major topic in various religions (though not always treated as evil per se, as in Buddhism) and goes back to times before Christianity. Maybe you are referring to modern manifestations of the topic? BubbaSwitzler wrote: The more I think about it the less I am shocked by the suffering and evil in this world. I must admit confusion about this statement. Care to explain?
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --Albert Einstein

Chops
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2005
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 1101

Posted 02/08/06 - 10:53 PM:	#158
Ophiuchus, I dare say it is you who have missed the point of agentlopez's comment. If evil is the absence of God as darkness is the abscence of light, than evil cannot be said to exist as such (evil being a label we use to describe a deprivation, rather than an existing thing). As a result, the problem of evil loses meaning. Furthermore, the idea of a God that is less than omnipotent (one of your options) is incoherent, as God is deffinitionally omnipotent and anything that is not omnipotent cannot be God.

Mariner
Longing

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

Posted 02/09/06 - 03:50 AM:	#159
Ophiuchus wrote: Obviously, when the analogy is made to Heaven, we're the beaten child and God is the parent doing the beating and the gift-giving. But the beating is existence. Heaven is only the gift-giving. How come Heaven is morally repugnant, then? To claim that [material] existence is morally repugnant is not a new proposal. Gnosticism is the leading exponent of that theory. It is self-contradictory, in the sense that Camusian nihilism is not -- if one abandons the concept of morally repugnant things, it is certainly one way out. But it is also a way that eliminates the "problem of evil", isn't it? What is the problem of evil in a universe where nothing is morally repugnant? There are three simple options, as I see it, regarding the opinion of someone about the morality of existence and everything (I sound like Douglas Adams ): 1) It is good 2) It is bad 3) It is indifferent The problem of evil is only relevant for those who accept (1). There is an inherent self-contradiction in (2), there can't be a universe in which everything is bad, this would entail immediate suicide by anyone who believed in it. And believers in (3) do not care about the problem of evil. (They also have a tough time in behaving in accordance to their beliefs).
"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

Paulnbama
Quipper

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2005
Location: Uh....here?
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 561

Posted 02/09/06 - 05:45 AM:	#160
Ophiuchus wrote: But, there is another aspect to this God we are discussing: onmibenevolence. If God isn't all loving, fine no problem, but most take him to be so, and this is where the big problem comes in for Christians. After all, if heaven is perfect but evil is somehow necessary (because of what we've stated above, or free will, or some other route) then why is Heaven perfect? Perhaps, as Mariner stated, it is because no one who truly knew God would ever betray him (which any evil act would constitute). Okay, but then why is their evil? Why doesn't God just keep us up in Heaven with him and let us live our lives in his glory? Then there wouldn't be any evil whatsoever. Hip hip hooray! There is something to your argument and I think it has always confounded Christians as much as the causal agent confounds the atheists. It is of my opinion that there is something in our souls that need the fire of evil to purify us as gold for His use. It is a necessity of growth and maturity as spiritual beings. They that refuse it will be burnt and consumed. Those that except it (believers in God) will be burnt but only to produce a more pure product. His purpose will be manifested and in those days we will remember the evil and know it was to be for our ultimate good. Evil is not necessarily death of the body, this is a symptom but not the evil. We all will die due to the evil of sin. But a tree cannot grow until the seed first falls to the ground and is buried. God's nature is two-fold, perfect righteousness and perfect love. His righteousness requires payment for our wrongs. His perfect love makes a way for payment. Evil existed before our wrongs and we didn't suffer from evil until we did wrong. God originally made man innocent. No knowledge of Good and Evil. Just childlike innocence. Once we became knowledgeable of Good and Evil we lost innocence. You can never regain innocence, once lost it is lost forever. The only thing left that would appease God's perfect righteousness is to beget righteousness. So the payment was made through perfect love to make those that would accept it, righteous. In order to become as sons and daughters of God. We have a glimpse of this now in these rought unhewn bodies. We will come to the fulness of it after we leave these bodies and the evil that torments them behind.
Zoe: I know something ain't right. Wash: Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right, we'd be in jail.

Page: First 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.