I guess I might as well continue the conversation on this thread, although like I said, I have not pieced together my theology around the problem of evil. I'm sorta feeling it out in my mind right now. Maybe a little Q&A will give me a preview of complexities I have not yet considered.
With respect to subjectivity, I consider moral knowledge imperfect like all other forms of knowledge. If morality is part of the fabric of reality, the problem turns to how we are able to recognize it. So I will be crafting an explanation of how morality can be locally subjective, but universally absolute and why the inference of an absolute is necessary. By analogy, physical science provides a working model of material reality, but does not guarantee an exact fit with what is actually happening at the most fundamental level.
In my opinion, yes, because everything hinges on the definition of good, which is what I will have to address more fully. As for your second statement, questioning god is an essential part of the biblical tradition as witnessed by the stories of Abraham pleading against the destruction of Sodom, Jacob wrestling with god, and Job demanding an account from god. The members of this forum are correct to question god for his apparent atrocities; however, in doing so one takes on the responsibility for demonstrating why the god is in the wrong. And yes, it is acceptable to use his own words against him.
I hate that kind of churchspeak, too. And I'm not very fond of mysteries that must be accepted on faith. Some mysteries, like infinity and the void, are unavoidable, but things like the hypo-static union should not be left as unexplainable articles of faith.
Hopefully, this addressed you immediate questions until I have a chance to flesh it out more.
(March 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Chad, I understand that because morality is subjective it means evil just about doesn't exist for you.In a very restricted sense I do not believe 'evil' actually exists. While the word 'evil' is useful, I think it describes a lack of good, in the same sense that a hole is nothing except an area not filled with dirt. 'Evil' people like serial killers and terrorists lack humanity, for example. Tornadoes and earthquakes are morally neutral but impact us adversely because we lack the knowledge and foresight to avoid their damage.
With respect to subjectivity, I consider moral knowledge imperfect like all other forms of knowledge. If morality is part of the fabric of reality, the problem turns to how we are able to recognize it. So I will be crafting an explanation of how morality can be locally subjective, but universally absolute and why the inference of an absolute is necessary. By analogy, physical science provides a working model of material reality, but does not guarantee an exact fit with what is actually happening at the most fundamental level.
(March 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: What I'm wondering is this: does evil necessarily need to be objective for God to fail in the omnibenevolent department? In other words, take those that e.g. die before their 1st birthday and tell me, is there a perfect explanation as to why this can't remotely be 'bad'? (I.e. bad enough to start questioning God's properties).
In my opinion, yes, because everything hinges on the definition of good, which is what I will have to address more fully. As for your second statement, questioning god is an essential part of the biblical tradition as witnessed by the stories of Abraham pleading against the destruction of Sodom, Jacob wrestling with god, and Job demanding an account from god. The members of this forum are correct to question god for his apparent atrocities; however, in doing so one takes on the responsibility for demonstrating why the god is in the wrong. And yes, it is acceptable to use his own words against him.
(March 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Related or not, the answer 'God works in mysterious ways' doesn't cut it. Jesus is often described as 'the word of God alive' so either let me know how he works or accept that even the god(s) are a subjective human construct that moulds around a person's wishful thinking.
I hate that kind of churchspeak, too. And I'm not very fond of mysteries that must be accepted on faith. Some mysteries, like infinity and the void, are unavoidable, but things like the hypo-static union should not be left as unexplainable articles of faith.
Hopefully, this addressed you immediate questions until I have a chance to flesh it out more.
