RE: Theodicy (my attempt at explaining evil and suffering)
February 20, 2012 at 12:46 pm
(This post was last modified: February 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm by NoMoreFaith.)
Please correct me if my summary is faulty, there was a bit of repetition;
The problem of evil, makes logical sense if we consider the world to be a platform for the human race to conquer adversity, and by doing so increase their spiritual worth in the eyes of a supernatural entity. The true test (or heroism) of such spiritual worth is through politics, and the willingness to oppose the prevailing view in order to do the supernatural entitys will.
Trying not to make value judgments on a God here or comparisons, hence the strained definition on supernatural. Hopefully this covers your point. Please point out if this is an inaccurate summary. It's simply easier for me to phrase my thoughts vs this summary than your whole post. I apologise if any terms I use are inaccurate, I don't have a classical philosophical education.
My main problem with this particular theodicy comes separately in two sides of evil. There is the determined evil (Evil perpetrated on purpose) and undetermined evil (Pain and suffering without a single or direct cause).
In terms of a determined evil, such as rape, murder, theft of the last chocolate in the box etc, is that in order to justify the moral good of correctly interpreting a God's will, we must have agents whom enforce the requirement to do so.
We are effectively saying, that an "evil" act, is inherently good in providing a situation for others to overcome.
If we accept this as true (and I'm sure we don't), does punishment only exist in order to keep "determined evil" to manageable levels? Too much evil and we can't overcome it, not enough and we can't be heroic enough, or the goldilocks "just right" amount of evil.
If we consider undetermined acts, such as a plagues of famine, or disease, a tsunami, we can see the bright side that at least we can support those less fortunate than ourselves?
I disagree on the basis of relative morality. Famine, plague, tsunami, majority of mankind in poverty is EXCESSIVE TO REQUIREMENTS for this theodicy.
Though I would agree famine and poverty are often politically caused, that's irrelevant to the point. How many people need to die in order for you to take a political stand for the oppressed?
Does 5 oppressed people warrant standing for gods views? One? A Thousand? A "Perfect" being should be able to calculate this rather precisely, but we are faced with devastation and pain that would engender political or charitable action if it was only a tenth as bad. We have to question the supernatural entities moral character at this point.
To be honest, even these are trivial criticisms of this view, and there's certainly more to be said, and as you said, it doesn't solve the issue of evil. It looks on the 'bright side', but what bright side of acting in accordance to the will of a supernatural entity, if we do so only to curry favour with it.
Heroism and Charity require empathy, and I do not believe this view values the simple act of empathy strongly enough as a reason to do 'good' beyond vying for the attention of a supernatural entity suffering from histrionic personality disorder.
The problem of evil, makes logical sense if we consider the world to be a platform for the human race to conquer adversity, and by doing so increase their spiritual worth in the eyes of a supernatural entity. The true test (or heroism) of such spiritual worth is through politics, and the willingness to oppose the prevailing view in order to do the supernatural entitys will.
Trying not to make value judgments on a God here or comparisons, hence the strained definition on supernatural. Hopefully this covers your point. Please point out if this is an inaccurate summary. It's simply easier for me to phrase my thoughts vs this summary than your whole post. I apologise if any terms I use are inaccurate, I don't have a classical philosophical education.
My main problem with this particular theodicy comes separately in two sides of evil. There is the determined evil (Evil perpetrated on purpose) and undetermined evil (Pain and suffering without a single or direct cause).
In terms of a determined evil, such as rape, murder, theft of the last chocolate in the box etc, is that in order to justify the moral good of correctly interpreting a God's will, we must have agents whom enforce the requirement to do so.
We are effectively saying, that an "evil" act, is inherently good in providing a situation for others to overcome.
If we accept this as true (and I'm sure we don't), does punishment only exist in order to keep "determined evil" to manageable levels? Too much evil and we can't overcome it, not enough and we can't be heroic enough, or the goldilocks "just right" amount of evil.
If we consider undetermined acts, such as a plagues of famine, or disease, a tsunami, we can see the bright side that at least we can support those less fortunate than ourselves?
I disagree on the basis of relative morality. Famine, plague, tsunami, majority of mankind in poverty is EXCESSIVE TO REQUIREMENTS for this theodicy.
Though I would agree famine and poverty are often politically caused, that's irrelevant to the point. How many people need to die in order for you to take a political stand for the oppressed?
Does 5 oppressed people warrant standing for gods views? One? A Thousand? A "Perfect" being should be able to calculate this rather precisely, but we are faced with devastation and pain that would engender political or charitable action if it was only a tenth as bad. We have to question the supernatural entities moral character at this point.
To be honest, even these are trivial criticisms of this view, and there's certainly more to be said, and as you said, it doesn't solve the issue of evil. It looks on the 'bright side', but what bright side of acting in accordance to the will of a supernatural entity, if we do so only to curry favour with it.
Heroism and Charity require empathy, and I do not believe this view values the simple act of empathy strongly enough as a reason to do 'good' beyond vying for the attention of a supernatural entity suffering from histrionic personality disorder.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
