The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[Foxaèr]

When it comes to humans and empathy, degree matters. Because intelligence matters.

The irony is that many of the least intelligent, or mentally disabled, people in this world have much more empathy than others.

[Minimalist]

Primates do empathize.

As with intelligence, it's a matter of degree.

Don't we know it!

[Gemini]

When it comes to humans and empathy, degree matters. Because intelligence matters.

The irony is that many of the least intelligent, or mentally disabled, people in this world have much more empathy than others.

I think the group of people you're referring to, who we consider "disabled," are orders of magnitude more intelligent than our primate cousins.

[robvalue]

I was under the impression that there's no such thing as good and evil.
No one in the animal kingdom sees it that way, do they?

When baby gazelle gets caught by the cheetah in the Savanna, the mother keeps running while the cheetah has a nice meal. That's nature 101.

We have developed social morals so we can live peacefully together.
We now define good and evil based on these current but ever changing artificial "laws".

Therefore good and evil are only relative terms based on when and where you are born.

I agree. Good and evil are not well defined, and so it requires some agreement between both sides of the debate.

I prefer to substitute suffering for evil, to make it more universal. God creates life forms with the capacity to feel suffering, then sets the rules so that suffering can occur to them. This would not be necessary for whatever "plan" God thinks he has, if he is all powerful; and it wouldn't reflect his character if he thought suffering was undesirable.

Of course, theists often say that people cannot "appreciate" happiness without the possibility/occurence of suffering. If that is the case, then this itself is a rule God created. It didn't need to, if it was all powerful. So it decided to make suffering necessary for happiness, so it could include it.

[Cato]

Steve,

Rob nailed the discussion early. This quickly becomes a strawman argument if you remove the omnibenevelent claim that precedes it. A vast majority of gods (all fictional of course) posses a side that can be considered evil.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I think theists make things impossible for themselves when they try to claim God is all powerful. It removes all excuses. If they dropped this part, then they could argue that this is the best possible universe, within god's limitations.

Of course, there's no way to actually arrive at that conclusion with no further information about God, but at least it's consistent with reality.

It's still not consistent with most of the holy books though, which have God explicitly taking credit for causing undesirable things, rather than acknowledging them as an unavoidable side effect.

[SilverFrog]

One topic keeps coming up all the time in this forum in almost every thread discussing God. It is the problem of evil in the world. It seems to be the position of most of you that the existence of God and the evil we see in the world is logically incompatible. I have never participated directly on this topic so I was wondering who might like to discuss it. 

First, we should distinguish between the intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil. The intellectual problem deals with the rational arguments for and against God/evil co-existing. The emotional problem deals with dislike of a God that permits suffering. Just to stay focused, I was hoping for a discussion on only the intellectual problem. Perhaps we can discuss the emotional problem later. 

The typical argument goes something like this:

1. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
2. If evil exist, God cannot exist
3. Evil exists
4. Therefore God does not exist.

There is no explicit contradiction so I am assuming you have implicit contradictions. Does anyone care to articulate them in a manner we can discuss? 

NOTE: I am in no way minimizing the real pain and suffering in the world. In fact, the real pain and suffering might be so intense for some that a discussion on the intellectual problem might seem callous. I apologize now. That is not my intent.

So, there we go Steve. A dislike of god is an emotional problem. It can in no way be intellectual or rational.
OK, this is the crux of you convoluted thinking.
Well, in that case I can tell you that I am an extremely emotional person.
I not only dislike the idea of your god, I hate with a passion everything he stands for.

[SteveII]

Okay, let's grant that God, defined as the greatest possible being, would be omnibenevolent. That would move it from a logical argument to a probabilistic argument. Is there sufficient reasons to think that God and evil co-existing is improbable. The conversation seems to be about natural evil (earthquakes, etc.). So does the presence of natural evil make the idea of an omnibenovent God improbable?

First, I would say that an omnibenevolent God would not cause natural disasters. So, are we to conclude that when events at the beginning were set in motion with our physical laws that God was therefore the remote cause of all future natural disasters?

What is a natural disaster? There is nothing inherently evil about a continental plate shift or a weather pattern developing. In fact, each of those events probably have positive natural effects for the environment. When humans suffer as a result, you are making a claim of what "ought not be". Additionally, people have the freedom to move in and out of harms way. How is is that God is responsible for human choices of when and where to be?

So really you are making the claim that God should not permit suffering as a result of natural disaster and it is illogical that an omnibenevolent God would do so. What "ought not be" "ought not be permitted". I am confused on a particular point: do you think God should prevent all natural "disasters", just those that harm people, or miraculously save people during such an event?

1. Being extremely limited in big picture knowledge, why do you think we can determine both what "ought not be" and what "ought not be permitted? God being omniscient (part of the definition) would see a big picture that we could in no way understand. You would have to prove that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to refrain from a) preventing a natural disaster or b) supernaturally intervening during one.

2. Christian doctrine increases probability that God allows human suffering as a result of natural disasters.
a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. A natural disaster may increase that knowledge.
b) God's knowledge includes the greatest eternal good (the maximum number of people freely choosing salvation from an eternal perspective).
c) Man's knowledge of God is considered an incommensurable good (and end in itself)

NOTE: some of the bullet points adapted from a debate between William Lane Craig vs. Kai Nielsen

To conclude, I think for the above reasons, it is probable that God and natural evil can co-exist.

[SteveII]

Given our understanding of morality, there is no question that a person who was able prevent a child from being crushed to death as a result of an earthquake, or who could prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths from a tsunami, and failed to act, would be immoral.

I think I addressed the main point of the first part of your post (at least enough to keep discussing it) in the post above.

Regarding this statement, you run in to a problem of where to draw the line on "permitted" suffering. Are you saying that it is God's moral duty to remove all suffering in a world of free people? How would that work? Can you rationally draw a line between natural evil and evil caused by people's choices and say that is where an intervention is permitted and that is where one is not?

[ApeNotKillApe]

Rape victims, so free in this world are they.