Perfect, Best of Possible, or Better than Nothing: Which criterion?
May 15, 2015 at 3:52 pm
(This post was last modified: May 15, 2015 at 4:52 pm by Hatshepsut.
Edit Reason: insert refs
)
The "Ultimate Why Evil" thread suddenly snapped shut; thus I've moved my response to parts of it here. As Stimbo says, this topic is loaded with speculation, some of which I engage in forthwith. An interesting preliminary problem, that of deciding what kind of world is needed as minimum for omnibenevolence remains unanswered, however, so I'll sum up at the end here.
As anyone can try toppling the statue of omnibenevolence, we can amend my sentence in post #32 (other thread, see top for link) with the impersonal "one" in place of "atheist." Note the latter word is there to make reference back to ChadWooter's post #23 clearer, not to rile you. However I don't apologize for it. Seems the religious aren't the only folks irritated by gadflies. Enjoy the day...I dig your username; indeed you do bite like the Tyrannosaur once did.
It might have been Americans distancing themselves from Mother England; I dunno. But look, I've committed the sin again.
Now interest perks up a bit. I'm not a religionist, so it doesn't matter whether religionists are open to new information, though I suppose some of them are. But penicillin can be dispensed with. In "City on the Edge of Forever," a Star Trek episode from 1967, the starship officers Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock travel back in time to 1930 where they don't belong and don't know how to get around: even their starship clothes draw awkward glances from passersby. They enter a rescue mission shelter where they are aided by a social worker named Edith, a fine lady in all respects. But then they discover that something has gone wrong with the flow of history, and that unless Edith dies in an auto-pedestrian collision, she will persuade Roosevelt to delay U.S. entry into World War II, giving Hitler enough time to acquire nuclear weapons. Resulting in a world where the swastika flies everywhere. At the crucial moment when Edith is stepping into the street, Kirk sees the oncoming car and rushes forward to save Edith, but Mr. Spock blocks him to allow the accident to occur.
The premises of any science fiction show are of course questionable, yet this one dramatizes why what seems best to us at the time it occurs may not be best with respect to what it will lead to in the future. Emotionalism is a poor guide to selecting the good. Which was ChadWooter's take in post #45, now illustrated a bit. On the other hand, we also can't know it's not the worst of all worlds, either. We may be in for a rough ride.
Your final point is excellent. We've been trending down the perfection ladder from "perfect world" to "best anyone can do." I think it could indeed be the case that the "best of all possible worlds" isn't minimal enough, and that one (theist or a-) who is attempting to demonstrate the possibility of omnibenevolence needs only show that the universe we have is better than nothing. This seems easier than showing it's the best possible, but as you suggest, the task may not be easy at all. For one thing, it's hard to compare something with nothing. I haven't read Candide, so I won't attempt that task here.
(May 15, 2015 at 9:56 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: First: "the atheists" don't have to do anything...
Second: you have a real problem with this shit...
As anyone can try toppling the statue of omnibenevolence, we can amend my sentence in post #32 (other thread, see top for link) with the impersonal "one" in place of "atheist." Note the latter word is there to make reference back to ChadWooter's post #23 clearer, not to rile you. However I don't apologize for it. Seems the religious aren't the only folks irritated by gadflies. Enjoy the day...I dig your username; indeed you do bite like the Tyrannosaur once did.
(May 15, 2015 at 11:26 am)Stimbo Wrote: Just don't get adding an unnecessary and illiterate 'z' ...
It might have been Americans distancing themselves from Mother England; I dunno. But look, I've committed the sin again.
(May 15, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: ...I will show that this is not the best of all possible worlds. Let us consider penicillin. When penicillin was introduced, that improved the world, as it reduced unnecessary suffering. If there were a God, that being could have introduced penicillin in 1800 ... Since God did not do so, we know that this is not the best of all possible worlds.
...
The religionist refuses to accept any evidence of anything on this issue.
...
The theist needs to prove that creating a universe is better than not creating one. Creating a bad universe is worse than nothing, and we have no reason to suppose that this universe is, overall, better than nothing. Think of all of the suffering in the world, of children starving to death, children being raped and brutalized, children burning in fires, children dying of all manner of painful diseases, etc., etc., etc. The idea that this world is better than nothing is ridiculous.
Voltaire had the proper response to these issues with his Candide. The idea that this is the best of all possible worlds is more worthy of ridicule than of argument.
Now interest perks up a bit. I'm not a religionist, so it doesn't matter whether religionists are open to new information, though I suppose some of them are. But penicillin can be dispensed with. In "City on the Edge of Forever," a Star Trek episode from 1967, the starship officers Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock travel back in time to 1930 where they don't belong and don't know how to get around: even their starship clothes draw awkward glances from passersby. They enter a rescue mission shelter where they are aided by a social worker named Edith, a fine lady in all respects. But then they discover that something has gone wrong with the flow of history, and that unless Edith dies in an auto-pedestrian collision, she will persuade Roosevelt to delay U.S. entry into World War II, giving Hitler enough time to acquire nuclear weapons. Resulting in a world where the swastika flies everywhere. At the crucial moment when Edith is stepping into the street, Kirk sees the oncoming car and rushes forward to save Edith, but Mr. Spock blocks him to allow the accident to occur.
The premises of any science fiction show are of course questionable, yet this one dramatizes why what seems best to us at the time it occurs may not be best with respect to what it will lead to in the future. Emotionalism is a poor guide to selecting the good. Which was ChadWooter's take in post #45, now illustrated a bit. On the other hand, we also can't know it's not the worst of all worlds, either. We may be in for a rough ride.
Your final point is excellent. We've been trending down the perfection ladder from "perfect world" to "best anyone can do." I think it could indeed be the case that the "best of all possible worlds" isn't minimal enough, and that one (theist or a-) who is attempting to demonstrate the possibility of omnibenevolence needs only show that the universe we have is better than nothing. This seems easier than showing it's the best possible, but as you suggest, the task may not be easy at all. For one thing, it's hard to compare something with nothing. I haven't read Candide, so I won't attempt that task here.
