Your personal take on “The Problem of Evil?”

[Whateverist]

You can't get to morality from intellectual considerations alone. Without something like a conscience there would be no basis for finding gratuitous harm repulsive - which most of us do. I accept that basic belief as well. A separate god to connect the dots would be convenient. An actual eternal other would even be nice. But I think I'll have to make do with a psyche that is greater than myself which gives rise to my sense of identity. It provides me with much for which I am grateful and it is a mystery. That will do.

[Esquilax]

It certainly looks like I'm begging the question doesn't it :-)

But let me say just a little more about that. Let’s leave God out of this for a moment. I believe the conscience exists and that it tells me good from bad. To me that is a ‘properly basic belief’. It is not grounded in anything, but is the ground for other beliefs I have. I take it as axiomatic. Or to put it another way I presuppose that my conscience does know right from wrong. Though that belief is basic (i.e. ungrounded) I find that it helps to make sense of my life. Though I can’t prove it, I trust it. So I wouldn't for example take the opposite presupposition, that everything my conscience tells me is good is actually bad, and then act on that reversed assumption.

The question begging comes when you assert that the conscience represents god's will, because now you're being circular: god is the source of morality, and I know what's right and wrong due to my conscience, which is a barometer of god's will, who is the source of morality... and around we go.

It's also just a factually untrue statement, because our consciences can provide mutually exclusive moral definitions for the same action, meaning that it simply cannot be the result of god's will. This is why we still debate large social issues like abortion, euthanasia and so on; because our consciences are providing different moral feedback about the same scenario.

Other people seem also to report a sense of conscience. So though I can only validate my own conscience through my life experiences, it seems reasonable to assume that other people can do likewise. To put it another way, I don’t think I'm the only one who has a conscience.

But the content of that conscience varies from society to society, immediately marking the idea that it's all the work of a singular entity as doubtful.

Where God fits in for me is that ‘the God hypothesis’ is one that joins a lot of dots for me; it makes sense of my life, from the sense of the numinous (a deeply intuitive sense of what many people have called ‘god’), to the sense that some things really are right or wrong, and to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” So ‘God’, in some respects, is the framework, the paradigm that connects lots of individual bits and pieces of knowledge and experience for me. I could be wrong, but I take the risk of trusting in this God that I think there is. So I believe that God is the fount of my conscience because that simply makes most sense to me. It’s inductive, if you like, answering the question “what is the best model that fits all the data I have?” It’s subjective, it’s intuitive at least in part, it’s not without risk, but I'm still convinced that's is a good reason for me to believe in my God. I trust God with my life.

So despite being, from what I can see, a sensible and rational person in most aspects, you abandon that entirely when it comes to your god claim. That's a pity. As I said earlier, the level of explanatory power a thing has, especially a thing that is defined as just being able to do anything, has no bearing on the reality of that thing. I get it, magic solves everything, but that doesn't make it so, and frankly, without a "how?" answer, a "what?" answer just reeks of making things up.

On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that evolution occurs, research on the evolution of morality that indicates it also exists in other species, and studies that indicate the extent to which it can be manipulated and changed. Plenty more evidence than we have for a god, even if it doesn't explain as much yet.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's clear that any possible god is at best amoral, assuming omnipotence on his part.

[downbeatplumb]

I reject god not because he is evil or that he allows evil to happen.
I reject god because it obviously is the child like mythology of a bygone era. It has no place in the modern world and it is an embarrassing fact that some people still cling to these delusions.does not exist

So evil things happen because there are evil people, often given the excuse to carry out evil by Abrahamic religions I am thinking of ISIS here.

[XK9_Knight]

It's not our fault you haven't bothered to look into the evolution of morality. That stuff is out there, and the concept itself is extremely simple to grasp; our survival niche is cooperation and group building. Moral standards derive from this as a mechanism for keeping the group afloat. Simple, though not perfect, and aided in no small measure by our nature as biological entities with predictable responses to external stimuli.

As to what's "easier" to understand... yes, "big man done it by magic" is probably very easy to understand, especially if you don't know how he did it, and don't care to know. But magic is just an excuse, it can be used to justify anything, making it effectively useless, and some of us have higher expectations for our justifications of things than just the claim itself, absent any kind of explanation or method.

Interesting turn, I think what you and Michael are disputing isn’t so much “a moral standard,” but “moral obligation.” I think it’s a tired analogy of God being the “law giver,” but it has its place; it “requires” of us, and we must “oblige.” Evolutionary morality is actually something I come back too often. I’m faced with the question of whether “moral law” is necessary if there were no way a society like ours were possible without our particular brand of morality. But, at other times I feel like evolutionary morality is simply a joke!

So despite being, from what I can see, a sensible and rational person in most aspects, you abandon that entirely when it comes to your god claim. That's a pity. As I said earlier, the level of explanatory power a thing has, especially a thing that is defined as just being able to do anything, has no bearing on the reality of that thing. I get it, magic solves everything, but that doesn't make it so, and frankly, without a "how?" answer, a "what?" answer just reeks of making things up.

On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that evolution occurs, research on the evolution of morality that indicates it also exists in other species, and studies that indicate the extent to which it can be manipulated and changed. Plenty more evidence than we have for a god, even if it doesn't explain as much yet.

Allow me to just diffuse this situation? Michael is expressing, perhaps a little poorly, his acceptance of God as being “properly basic.” Like the belief in the reality of the past, existence of other minds besides his own, or the continued regularity of nature, they cannot be empirically verified but they are nonetheless rational to believe. I think the conflict is (and I don’t mean to assume this about you, correct me if I’m wrong) that you Esquilax are an empiricist, “all claims can be scientifically verified.” And if I’m understanding you correctly, it is that altruistic behavior evolves into a “societal moral standard?” What I think Michael is driving at, as I mentioned above, is regardless of evolutionary moral standards, we are compelled to be moral; that there is a “requirement” placed upon us. So, really, I think this goes back to David Hume and when asked whether “ought” can be derived from “can.” I think you two fall into one of these two camps.



Also, let me just say I appreciate these thoughtful responses; those that stick around for more than a romp show a lot of maturity in my opinion; you guys are great.

Except Benny!

[Esquilax]

Interesting turn, I think what you and Michael are disputing isn’t so much “a moral standard,” but “moral obligation.” I think it’s a tired analogy of God being the “law giver,” but it has its place; it “requires” of us, and we must “oblige.” Evolutionary morality is actually something I come back too often. I’m faced with the question of whether “moral law” is necessary if there were no way a society like ours were possible without our particular brand of morality. But, at other times I feel like evolutionary morality is simply a joke!

In some respects we have a moral obligation even under evolutionary morality, it's just that the obligation is to our fellow evolved animals, rather than to some distant supernatural force. Our survival, generally speaking, is contingent upon the health of the group, and certainly our current level of comfort and convenience is due to the society we have built together. We're obliged to keep it all running if we want to reap the benefits of it, and to propagate charitable memes as a method of causing it to run better.

Now, one might be tempted to argue that it's easy to shirk that obligation, to which my immediate response is that it's even easier to shirk a christian one; that's why we have so many different belief systems. At least under secular models the punishment is immediate- either social or legal consequences- and proportionate to the crime.

Allow me to just diffuse this situation?

I really don't mean to come across as combative, there. I mean, I appreciate the spirit in which Michael enters these conversations, I think he's a smart guy and a refreshing change from some of the other christians we deal with here (that goes for you too, come to think of it) but I couldn't think of a nicer way to phrase this, because it literally is a temporary suspension of rational thinking, formed into a bubble around religion. "It just makes sense to me," or "it explains a lot of things,"... sure it does. But that doesn't make it true, and that's certainly not sufficient justification to believe in that thing. There are plenty of other things, that explain the same amount of stuff, that he doesn't believe in- hell, practically anything, given that it's very easy to create magic things- which hints pretty prominently that the acceptance of this specific thing over any other is more emotionally driven than anything else.

Michael is expressing, perhaps a little poorly, his acceptance of God as being “properly basic.” Like the belief in the reality of the past, existence of other minds besides his own, or the continued regularity of nature, they cannot be empirically verified but they are nonetheless rational to believe.

This is presuppositionalism, and I find it to be the enemy of rational thought. It attempts to force a false dichotomy of solipsism or faith onto us all- either we ignore all our past experiences and don't assume anything will ever be the same as it was a moment before, or we all have faith in those things you listed. I recognize the utility of axioms, but listing god among them is attempting to slip in something that's not like the others. We all have some form of uniform idea of the past, we can measure the minds of others via technology, and nature has a long history of behaving as it behaves and not otherwise. In short, we do have evidence for those things that can be empirically tested, but more importantly, we have a lot to lose in terms of just being able to function if we don't adopt those axioms. Meanwhile, we have no kind of evidence for god that's anywhere near as clear as for the past, and we lose nothing by discarding it as an axiom.

It's not a very axiomatic belief, really.

I think the conflict is (and I don’t mean to assume this about you, correct me if I’m wrong) that you Esquilax are an empiricist, “all claims can be scientifically verified.”

I'm a little looser than that. My position, roughly speaking, is that without something I can test or sense for myself, I have no reference point through which the idea of the existence of a given thing could naturally enter my mind. If I can't in some way access or detect something, from whence comes the train of thought that would lead me to believe it exists?

And if I’m understanding you correctly, it is that altruistic behavior evolves into a “societal moral standard?” What I think Michael is driving at, as I mentioned above, is regardless of evolutionary moral standards, we are compelled to be moral; that there is a “requirement” placed upon us. So, really, I think this goes back to David Hume and when asked whether “ought” can be derived from “can.” I think you two fall into one of these two camps.

And my immediate response is, tell that to psychopaths. Or to any individual human placed within a situation where cheating without the possibility of repercussions arises. You can say we're compelled to be moral, but that's just not true, even as a general rule. Any person thinking of a compulsion to morality has clearly never spent a lot of time around young children, for example. The truth is, our society plays a much larger role in our better natures than you'd think.

[Tonus]

Some time passes, she heals a bit and is talking with us again, but now she’s challenged my mother to somewhat of a “debate” (and to be fair, my mother -bless her soul- wouldn’t be able capable of defending her faith against cottage cheese).

Then why does she believe?

[Michael]

Hi Knight.

I would hold to moral standards being real and, yes, that we are called to live by those moral standards. This is the 'law written on hearts' in scripture. And so the point of that is that God does, I believe, speak to all.

I don't find evolutionary arguments speak to 'good' and 'bad'. Because science doesn't deal with 'oughts', I don't find much of substance in science about 'morality'. At most science engages with 'behaviours'. There's nothing inherently 'bad' about murderous behaviour. Indeed it is common in biology. So when people talk about evolution of morality; I rather see something that is talking about evolution of behaviours that has had to be separated from any notion of there being real 'good' and 'evil'. It is not morality as understood by philosophers across the ages. The philosopher, the poet, and the theologian are exploring something that is largely outside of the purview of science. I say those things as a scientist who loves science (I just don't see science as the only way we ever know anything).

[Esquilax]

I don't find evolutionary arguments speak to 'good' and 'bad'. Because science doesn't deal with 'oughts', I don't find much of substance in science about 'morality'. At most science engages with 'behaviours'. There's nothing inherently 'bad' about murderous behaviour. Indeed it is common in biology. So when people talk about evolution of morality; I rather see something that is talking about evolution of behaviours that has had to be separated from any notion of there being real 'good' and 'evil'. It is not morality as understood by philosophers across the ages. The philosopher, the poet, and the theologian are exploring something that is largely outside of the purview of science. I say those things as a scientist who loves science (I just don't see science as the only way we ever know anything).

Can I ask, then, how notions of good and bad are defined, if they aren't related to actions and the consequences of them?

[ShaMan]

Once upon a time, homosexuality was considered 'evil' and slavery was considered 'good'. Now, they've switched roles. What is called evil today will be called good tomorrow and vice-versa. It's almost as though our morals are evolving along with us