Your personal take on “The Problem of Evil?”

[Michael]

Thanks Esquilax,

I think I'd probably be repeating myself in replying to most of those points, so I'll leave things as they stand. I did want to pick up on just one point though. You said....

But in a world where the moral system cannot be changed even by the being whom you believe created that system, then evidently the system and determinations therein are not a product of the law giver

I see no reason why stable morality can't be the product of a law giver. Indeed I would expect a stable law giver to give a stable law; that makes more sense to me than capriciousness.

[XK9_Knight]

Holy cats! Do I dare go off on a tangent… YES! I’ll keep it at the bottom and in a hidden tab, so it doesn’t detract too much from the main point of the thread (Although, I think it’s just Esq and I in here now… and maybe Michael?)
(Das... dass Michael rite dare, dats him.)

Absolutely not. Our society is in no way optimal, and the easiest way to demonstrate that is to show the gradual improvement and changes to morality over time; we had to learn that burning people as witches was wrong, we had to learn that slavery was wrong, etc etc. Our moral sense is constantly changing and improving with the input of new evidence: there is no presumption that we have it right, or even the best we could possibly make it.

My point is that the compulsion itself doesn't exist absent education by society at large. Even in your example with your nephew, he had to be taught not to perform an action via negative reinforcement. Now, though I do hope his moral upbringing consists of more than operant conditioning, the fact remains that your nephew didn't feel any compulsion to avoid the immoral act; there is no morality switch inside kids that gets flipped to "on" once they grow to a certain age, this stuff has to be imparted to them. Kids model behaviors and morals they are taught, they aren't just waiting for the moment their adult moral sense turns on. There's a vast library of child psychological study to verify this.

Uh, yeah, I knew that. I mean duh…


Lol! I would have to concede your point if only because this (what you’ve just stated) is the extent that I myself thought it through, but I still can’t shake “that” feeling; the feeling that these are nothing more than “just so” stories.

Mr. Scientist: “The reason you like blonde bombshells is because fair skin and blonde hair were indicators of sexual vitality and health.”

Me: “OH, THANK YOU MR. SCIENTIST! Thank you for that DEEP insight! I’ve got a hypothesis for you”

“The reason I like blonde bombshells is because they are fucking hot. Care for another ‘just so’ story?”


One last ironic thing, there was a tremendous amount of economic pressure to keep slavery. But it was the abolitionists, the Christians, who tore down that institution. I think your assumption that we are on a moral upward trend negates cultural pressures. I won’t say that Christianity isn’t without it’s ‘moral stains,’ but you have to admit that religion plays a significant role in morality.

*Warning Tangent!*

---

Rather than have a messy “quote, then I say something, quote etc.” I’m just going to insert my comments in bold.

… [I find] presuppositionalism… to be the enemy of rational thought…

On your view, what is “rationality.”

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 disagree profoundly, the only false thing here is this “dichotomy” you bring up. You believe science, right (of course you do!)? Science is steeped in presuppositions! The aims, methodologies and presuppositions of science cannot be verified by science. We have to accept that our senses are reliable and give us accurate mind-independent information about the world and not information about our own sense impressions.

Science must assume that mind is rational, and that the world itself is rational in such a way that we can know it. Science must assume uniformity of nature (as I mentioned earlier), science must assume one can infer from past cases to all such future unexamined cases.

I could go on along these lines for a while, but my point has been made that “presuppositions” are not a defeater of science or “rational thought.”

I recognize the utility of axioms, but listing god among them is attempting to slip in something that's not like the others.

Do explain?
I won’t pretend to know everything about “properly basic beliefs,” but I do have some grasp of Plantinga’s model, which basically states “man has an innate sense of ‘the divine,’ and there are proper circumstances that would lead him to the conclusion ‘God exists.’”

Seems how many people have come to accept God?

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.

When you say things like “we all have some form of uniform idea of the past,” or “nature has a long history of behaving as it does,” these are “just so” stories; these aren’t things you’ve provide empirical evidence for; this is faith at it's finest. Secondly, this part about “measuring the mind” via technology is misleading. What scientists are measuring are “brainwaves,” not “minds.” So unless you hold to a materialistic view of the mind (which I would assume you do?) I would be inclined to disagree.

…

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.

That's funny, it would seem you didn’t provide any evidence of the past?
What will you count as “valid evidence of God?” I always hear atheists ask for “evidence” but I’ve never heard them define what they mean apart from materialistic standard which begs the question.

---

[FatAndFaithless]

Holy cats! Do I dare go off on a tangent… YES! I’ll keep it at the bottom and in a hidden tab, so it doesn’t detract too much from the main point of the thread (Although, I think it’s just Esq and I in here now…)

Absolutely not. Our society is in no way optimal, and the easiest way to demonstrate that is to show the gradual improvement and changes to morality over time; we had to learn that burning people as witches was wrong, we had to learn that slavery was wrong, etc etc. Our moral sense is constantly changing and improving with the input of new evidence: there is no presumption that we have it right, or even the best we could possibly make it.

My point is that the compulsion itself doesn't exist absent education by society at large. Even in your example with your nephew, he had to be taught not to perform an action via negative reinforcement. Now, though I do hope his moral upbringing consists of more than operant conditioning, the fact remains that your nephew didn't feel any compulsion to avoid the immoral act; there is no morality switch inside kids that gets flipped to "on" once they grow to a certain age, this stuff has to be imparted to them. Kids model behaviors and morals they are taught, they aren't just waiting for the moment their adult moral sense turns on. There's a vast library of child psychological study to verify this.

Uh, yeah, I knew that. I mean duh…


Lol! I would have to concede your point if only because this (what you’ve just stated) is the extent that I myself thought it through, but I still can’t shake “that” feeling; the feeling that these are nothing more than “just so” stories.

Mr. Scientist: “The reason you like blonde bombshells is because fair skin and blonde hair were indicators of sexual vitality and health.”

Me: “OH, THANK YOU MR. SCIENTIST! Thank you for that DEEP insight! I’ve got a hypothesis for you”

“The reason I like blonde bombshells is because they are fucking hot. Care for another ‘just so’ story?”


One last ironic thing, there was a tremendous amount of economic pressure to keep slavery. But it was the abolitionists, the Christians, who tore down that institution. I think your assumption that we are on a moral upward trend negates cultural pressures. I won’t say that Christianity isn’t without it’s ‘moral stains,’ but you have to admit that religion plays a significant role in morality.

*Warning Tangent!*

---

Rather than have a messy “quote, then I say something, quote etc.” I’m just going to insert my comments in bold.

… [I find] presuppositionalism… to be the enemy of rational thought…

On your view, what is “rationality.”

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 disagree profoundly, the only false thing here is this “dichotomy” you bring up. You believe science, right (of course you do!)? Science is steeped in presuppositions! The aims, methodologies and presuppositions of science cannot be verified by science. We have to accept that our senses are reliable and give us accurate mind-independent information about the world and not information about our own sense impressions.

Science must assume that mind is rational, and that the world itself is rational in such a way that we can know it. Science must assume uniformity of nature (as I mentioned earlier), science must assume one can infer from past cases to all such future unexamined cases.

I could go on along these lines for a while, but my point has been made that “presuppositions” are not a defeater of science or “rational thought.”

I recognize the utility of axioms, but listing god among them is attempting to slip in something that's not like the others.

Do explain?
I won’t pretend to know everything about “properly basic beliefs,” but I do have some grasp of Plantinga’s model, which basically states “man has an innate sense of ‘the divine,’ and there are proper circumstances that would lead him to the conclusion ‘God exists.’”

Seems how many people have come to accept God?

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.

When you say things like “we all have some form of uniform idea of the past,” or “nature has a long history of behaving as it does,” these are “just so” stories; these aren’t things you’ve provide empirical evidence for; this is faith at it's finest. Secondly, this part about “measuring the mind” via technology is misleading. What scientists are measuring are “brainwaves,” not “minds.” So unless you hold to a materialistic view of the mind (which I would assume you do?) I would be inclined to disagree.

…

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.

That's funny, it would seem you didn’t provide any evidence of the past?
What will you count as “valid evidence of God?” I always hear atheists ask for “evidence” but I’ve never heard them define what they mean apart from materialistic standard which begs the question.

---

You..are aware that most American abolitionists were originally secularists and deists, right? Not to mention all the enlightenment philosophers who were against slavery without any mention of Christianity or God. Also not to mention the fact that Christianity was one of the major driving factors that kept slavery around for so long? Your high horse ain't as high as you like to think dude.

[XK9_Knight]

You..are aware that most American abolitionists were originally secularists and deists, right? Not to mention all the enlightenment philosophers who were against slavery without any mention of Christianity or God. Also not to mention the fact that Christianity was one of the major driving factors that kept slavery around for so long? Your high horse ain't as high as you like to think dude.

Yes, my horse isn't that high. And yes, the church advocated slavery for a time; they, like many others were under economic pressures to keep it going. the point I made is that religion played a vital role in the abolition for independent reasons apart form secular thought.

[Chad32]

Maybe if your god actually disapproved of slavery, he'd actually help you overcome those economic pressures. I suppose I should find it relatable, seeing some christians go against the grain to better their world even without their god backing them up.

[Esquilax]

I see no reason why stable morality can't be the product of a law giver. Indeed I would expect a stable law giver to give a stable law; that makes more sense to me than capriciousness.

If the law is stable and the law giver can't change it, then the law is true independent of the law giver's proclamation on it: it isn't true because the law giver specifically selected it (if this was the case then the law is mutable depending on what the giver selects) but is true and then the law giver tells us this.

Stop examining the law giver and start examining the process by which it assembled the moral laws: if they are simply whatever it selects, then even if they never change, they are merely the opinions of the law giver and moral actions can become immoral actions just as easily as they first became moral ones. If the law giver knew what was moral out of a set of pre-existing moral laws and then handed them down, then it is irrelevant to the process of morality. There is not a third option.

XK9, I'll get back to you later, it's just four in the morning now.

[FatAndFaithless]

I see no reason why stable morality can't be the product of a law giver. Indeed I would expect a stable law giver to give a stable law; that makes more sense to me than capriciousness.

If the law is stable and the law giver can't change it, then the law is true independent of the law giver's proclamation on it: it isn't true because the law giver specifically selected it (if this was the case then the law is mutable depending on what the giver selects) but is true and then the law giver tells us this.

Stop examining the law giver and start examining the process by which it assembled the moral laws: if they are simply whatever it selects, then even if they never change, they are merely the opinions of the law giver and moral actions can become immoral actions just as easily as they first became moral ones. If the law giver knew what was moral out of a set of pre-existing moral laws and then handed them down, then it is irrelevant to the process of morality. There is not a third option.

XK9, I'll get back to you later, it's just four in the morning now.

I see you Euthyphro~

[XK9_Knight]

XK9, I'll get back to you later, it's just four in the morning now.

Can't wait!

[Esquilax]

Lol! I would have to concede your point if only because this (what you’ve just stated) is the extent that I myself thought it through, but I still can’t shake “that” feeling; the feeling that these are nothing more than “just so” stories.

Mr. Scientist: “The reason you like blonde bombshells is because fair skin and blonde hair were indicators of sexual vitality and health.”

Me: “OH, THANK YOU MR. SCIENTIST! Thank you for that DEEP insight! I’ve got a hypothesis for you”

“The reason I like blonde bombshells is because they are fucking hot. Care for another ‘just so’ story?”

Oh, really? That's the extent of your argument?

So, let's recap: I bring to the table over a century of research in psychology, evolution, and the intersection of the two, performed painstakingly and rigorously by great minds working with live subjects, and you respond with "I just don't feel that you're right."

Well, I don't know how to refute a stubborn feeling, nor am I required to. My position is well researched and based on observations of the real world, it's not going to be toppled by your feelings because it's not on the same level as your feelings. It's far better substantiated than that.

As to just-so stories, are you serious? We know things evolve, we know evolution selects for specific instincts and reactions, we know it does so within the context of sexual reproduction, and these are things that have been studied. Following the evidence from the beginning does lead us to the conclusion that attraction to signs of health is a trait that would be selected for. And your proposed alternative, that you're attracted to stuff because it's hot, is profoundly backwards. It's not even a just so story, it mistakes the reaction you have for the reason why you have that reaction. You might as well have just said that you're attracted to blondes just because.

One last ironic thing, there was a tremendous amount of economic pressure to keep slavery. But it was the abolitionists, the Christians, who tore down that institution. I think your assumption that we are on a moral upward trend negates cultural pressures. I won’t say that Christianity isn’t without it’s ‘moral stains,’ but you have to admit that religion plays a significant role in morality.

No, I don't have to admit that. In fact, I think it's the opposite, that religion hijacks and takes credit for pre-existing morality wherever it's convenient.We can approach this using the scientific method too: Since both secularists and christians found themselves to be against slavery, and since christians were also advocates of slavery and found biblical justification for doing so, evidently religion was not the common, active element that led to the abolition. We've just managed to eliminate it as the important variable here.

Moreover, there actually was biblical justification for slavery; what reason do you have for assuming the abolition was the will of god? Given the dearth of evidence one could easily argue that the only way any christian could be anti slavery is by disregarding their religion to do so. This is the problem with talking biblical interpretations, and I find it curious just how often theists work under the implicit assumption that theirs is the correct one absent any kind of justification.

On your view, what is “rationality.”

Thoughts and observations that most closely conform to objective observations of reality and the laws of logic.

I disagree profoundly, the only false thing here is this “dichotomy” you bring up. You believe science, right (of course you do!)? Science is steeped in presuppositions! The aims, methodologies and presuppositions of science cannot be verified by science. We have to accept that our senses are reliable and give us accurate mind-independent information about the world and not information about our own sense impressions.

Science must assume that mind is rational, and that the world itself is rational in such a way that we can know it. Science must assume uniformity of nature (as I mentioned earlier), science must assume one can infer from past cases to all such future unexamined cases.

I could go on along these lines for a while, but my point has been made that “presuppositions” are not a defeater of science or “rational thought.”

So, you've essentially gone and restated the problematic assertion you made as though I hadn't said anything. Some axioms are justifiable and based on evidence, god as an axiom is neither of those.

Do explain?
I won’t pretend to know everything about “properly basic beliefs,” but I do have some grasp of Plantinga’s model, which basically states “man has an innate sense of ‘the divine,’ and there are proper circumstances that would lead him to the conclusion ‘God exists.’”

Seems how many people have come to accept God?

Basically, there is no evidence for god. Plantinga's model, where everyone secretly agrees with him, is very convenient, but it's not at all true. I'm a man, I'm part of Man, but I have no innate sense for god or anything divine, proving his claim wrong just out of hand. See, the thing about Plantinga is that... well, he's not very good. At least, not where his religious thoughts come in. His arguments for god are just awful, and it's likely here that he's mistaking presumptions he's had for an extended period of time as some sort of innate divine sense, and then applying that template over everyone. But he's wrong. I don't know how else to say it.

There is no evidence, when one takes the world from the ground up with no presuppositions as to its ultimate cause, that would lead one to believe in any god, let alone the christian one specifically. Meanwhile, it's plainly obvious, there is evidence to show, that the past exists, that nature will remain uniform, etc etc. Essentially, some axioms have universal applications, whereas proposing god as an axiom not only solves nothing, but will only be convincing to those that already believe in it.

When you say things like “we all have some form of uniform idea of the past,” or “nature has a long history of behaving as it does,” these are “just so” stories; these aren’t things you’ve provide empirical evidence for; this is faith at it's finest.

Oh? You don't agree that I can go to pretty much anyone and interview them and find that they agree that the sun rises in the morning and sets at night? I can't record that with machines? I don't have any recordings at all, both scientific and otherwise, that demonstrate observations of the past and evidence that nature has behaved the way it does for the entirety of recorded human history?

Now, it's not perfect evidence, but it's something, which is more than we can say for god. This is the dishonest equivocation that these kinds of argument tries to make, of pretending that something with imperfect evidence is the same as something with no evidence at all.

Secondly, this part about “measuring the mind” via technology is misleading. What scientists are measuring are “brainwaves,” not “minds.” So unless you hold to a materialistic view of the mind (which I would assume you do?) I would be inclined to disagree.

Absent any evidence that the mind exists independent of the brain, or that there's a soul, or whatever it is you believe in, there is no reason to believe that the mind is not tied to the brain, which is what the evidence tends to indicate.

That's funny, it would seem you didn’t provide any evidence of the past?

I'm not going to play games with you, we have a vast world filled with continuous personal experiences and recordings in writing, video, audio, that count as evidence of the past.

What will you count as “valid evidence of God?” I always hear atheists ask for “evidence” but I’ve never heard them define what they mean apart from materialistic standard which begs the question.

Just something, anything, that I can detect that points specifically to a god, your god, and not something else. Without some indication that there is more than the material world, how am I to believe that there's something beyond the material world? That's not begging the question, it's just refusing to play into a fantasy because someone else finds it preferable.

[XK9_Knight]

Oh man, I have begun my response for the last 2 hours and it is late. We will continue this tomorrow!

In the mean time, I have a book to recommend to you Esquilax...
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

I haven't read it, but I'm convinced it's the greatest book ever. :p
(I intend to get it here soon though. )

So excited!