Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 5:13 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
#11
RE: The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
(May 23, 2017 at 11:51 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: For some people, great hardship strengthens their faith.

You're proving Aroura's point... some people do and some people. don't. It's all because of their specific nature... which they didn't themselves choose.

In other words... out of no free will of their own.

Friedrich Nietzche Wrote:The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.

Galen Strawson Wrote:(1) When you act, you do what you do, in the situation in which you find yourself, because of the way you are.

It seems to follow that

(2) To be truly or ultimately morally responsible for what you do, you must be truly or ultimately responsible for the way you are, at least in certain crucial mental respects. (Obviously you don’t have to be responsible for the way you are in all respects. You don’t have to be responsible for your height, age, sex, and so on. But it does seem that you have to be responsible for the way you are at least in certain mental respects. After all, it is your overall mental make up that leads you to do what you do when you act.)

But

(3) You can’t be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all, so you can’t be ultimately morally responsible for what you do.
Why can’t you be ultimately responsible for the way you are? Because

(4) To be ultimately responsible for the way you are, you would have to have intentionally brought it about that you are the way you are, in a way that is impossible.

The impossibility is shown as follows. Suppose that

(5) You have somehow intentionally brought it about that you are the way you now are, in certain mental respects: suppose that you have intentionally brought it about that you have a certain mental nature N, and that you have brought this about in such a way that you can now be said to be ultimately responsible for having nature N. (The limiting case of this would be the case in which you had simply endorsed your existing mental nature N from a position of power to change it.)

For this to be true

(6) You must already have had a certain mental nature N-1, in the light of which you intentionally brought it about that you now have nature N. (If you didn’t already have a certain mental nature, then you can’t have had any intentions or preferences, and even if you did change in some way, you can’t be held to be responsible for the way you now are.)

But then

(7) For it to be true that you and you alone are truly responsible for how you now are, you must be truly responsible for having had the nature N-1 in the light of which you intentionally brought it about that you now have nature N.

So

(8) You must have intentionally brought it about that you had that nature N-1. But in that case, you must have existed already with a prior nature, N-2, in the light of which you intentionally brought it about that you had the nature N-1 in the light of which you intentionally brought it about that you now have nature N.

And so on. Here one is setting off on a potentially infinite regress. In order for one to be truly or ultimately responsible for how one is, in such a way that one can be truly morally responsible for what one does, something impossible has to be true: there has to be, and cannot be, a starting point in the series of acts of bringing it about that one has a certain nature; a starting point that constitutes an act of ultimate self-origination.

There is a more concise way of putting the point: in order to be truly morally responsible for what one does, it seems that one would have to be the ultimate cause or origin of oneself, or at least of some crucial part of one’s mental nature. One would have to be causa sui, in the old terminology. But nothing can be truly or ultimately causa sui in any respect at all. Even if the property of being causa sui is allowed to belong unintelligibly to God, it cannot plausibly be supposed to be possessed by ordinary finite human beings. ‘The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so far’, as Nietzsche remarked in 1886:

it is a sort of rape and perversion of logic. But the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with just this nonsense. The desire for ‘freedom of the will’ in the superlative metaphysical sense, which still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated; the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one’s actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui and, with more than Baron Münchhausen’s audacity, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness.... (Beyond Good and Evil, §21)

Source:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwVariousStrawsonG.html
Reply
#12
RE: The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
The only person who really knows Bobby is Bobby.
Nothing in that story proves that Bobby had a great life.
His life, like a straight line, may have been boring and perhaps he never really experienced the highs and lows of life, to experience that feeling of being alive.
If you looked at a graph of the highs and lows in Bobby and Jamal's life without knowing the details, maybe you'd choose Jamal's life, if you had to pick.

As to the title, I don't believe in either. :-)
Reply
#13
RE: The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
(May 24, 2017 at 7:58 am)emjay Wrote:
(May 24, 2017 at 6:45 am)SteveII Wrote: First, I would challenge the premise that "all life is a test". I don't believe that to be the case at all. Life is the experiences and development of a person, the purpose of which is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever" as the catechism says.  A test implies that there is an unknown outcome to be determined. There is not--if life were a test, we would have failed long ago. So really it comes down to your response to God--which I don't think you can characterize as a 'test'. 

I don't think you are using the term justice correctly. Justice is an impartial, objective application of the law.  If all have sinned and fallen short, then justice is that everyone is guilty and must bear the consequences. It is only the free gift of salvation that can pay that penalty. In your scenario, one chose to take that free gift and the other to accept the consequences that were otherwise coming to both of them.

Test... development... what's the difference? Whatever you choose to call it, why should it be easier, right from the very get-go of life sometimes, for some people to find God and keep God than others? Ie why should some people be born with a metaphorical silver spoon in their mouth, in relation to life and/or in relation to God, whereas others are born into misery and real hardship from the outset? Even if we accept what you say... about being born unsaved in either case and having salvation as a free gift on offer to both... why should it be easier for one over the other to accept that free gift, when the only difference is the luck of the draw, where and what situation they've been born into?

See bold.  One person's life was significantly harder than the other, but why would you say it is easier for one to accept the gift? The outcome of the story was that Jamal was angry toward God about the hardship. God did not cause his suffering, so the source of his anger was that God did not intervene. But given the free will of everyone involved, how can we say that the greatest amount of good wasn't/isn't/will be achieved? Because of man's choices, Jamal and his family suffered for a finite time, but that is incomparable to eternity. God promises all throughout the Bible that he will be with them that call on his name--especially though adversity. A famous one comes to mind:

Psalm 23
A psalm of David.

1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
2     He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3     he refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
    for his name’s sake.
4 Even though I walk
    through the darkest valley,[a]
I will fear no evil,
    for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
    my cup overflows.
6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me
    all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the Lord
    forever.
Reply
#14
RE: The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
(May 23, 2017 at 11:51 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: For some people, great hardship strengthens their faith.

Yet for other people, great hardship makes them wiser, stronger, and a credit to humanity.  Why is god so much nicer to those other people?
Reply
#15
RE: The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
(May 24, 2017 at 8:42 am)SteveII Wrote:



"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
#16
RE: The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
God's obviously nonsense, but I can still take a shot at answering these anyway.

1) In the grand scheme, our time on earth as part of an everlasting existence is very small. 40 hard years as it relates to forever is not a long time. By design, I'd say. That's a good selling point to the poor. Things are bad now, but everlasting life is just around the corner!

2) Guessing how God judges people is just guessing. Perhaps a God, in it's infinite wisdom and whatnot, doesn't treat the two situations as apples to apples, and someone in Jamal's situation is given an amount of leniency that is appropriate given his situation.
Reply
#17
RE: The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
In the Bible (1 Corinthians 10:13) there is a promise God won't let you be tempted more than you can bear. There is no promise that you won't be given more than you can handle. The authors could just look around and see that's not true, they would have been laughed out of town in a world where half your children were likely to die before they reached the age of five, women often died in childbirth, and any injury could get infected and kill you; not to mention plagues, war, and natural disasters.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
#18
RE: The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
(May 24, 2017 at 8:42 am)SteveII Wrote:
(May 24, 2017 at 7:58 am)emjay Wrote: Test... development... what's the difference? Whatever you choose to call it, why should it be easier, right from the very get-go of life sometimes, for some people to find God and keep God than others? Ie why should some people be born with a metaphorical silver spoon in their mouth, in relation to life and/or in relation to God, whereas others are born into misery and real hardship from the outset? Even if we accept what you say... about being born unsaved in either case and having salvation as a free gift on offer to both... why should it be easier for one over the other to accept that free gift, when the only difference is the luck of the draw, where and what situation they've been born into?

See bold.  One person's life was significantly harder than the other, but why would you say it is easier for one to accept the gift? The outcome of the story was that Jamal was angry toward God about the hardship. God did not cause his suffering, so the source of his anger was that God did not intervene. But given the free will of everyone involved, how can we say that the greatest amount of good wasn't/isn't/will be achieved? Because of man's choices, Jamal and his family suffered for a finite time, but that is incomparable to eternity. God promises all throughout the Bible that he will be with them that call on his name--especially though adversity. A famous one comes to mind:

Psalm 23
A psalm of David.

1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
2     He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3     he refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
    for his name’s sake.
4 Even though I walk
    through the darkest valley,[a]
I will fear no evil,
    for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
    my cup overflows.
6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me
    all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the Lord
    forever.

What does any of this even mean? Which part of Jamal's life was God with him for, the part where his wife is raped or the part where his kids starve to death?
[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]
Reply
#19
RE: The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
(May 24, 2017 at 8:42 am)SteveII Wrote:
(May 24, 2017 at 7:58 am)emjay Wrote: Test... development... what's the difference? Whatever you choose to call it, why should it be easier, right from the very get-go of life sometimes, for some people to find God and keep God than others? Ie why should some people be born with a metaphorical silver spoon in their mouth, in relation to life and/or in relation to God, whereas others are born into misery and real hardship from the outset? Even if we accept what you say... about being born unsaved in either case and having salvation as a free gift on offer to both... why should it be easier for one over the other to accept that free gift, when the only difference is the luck of the draw, where and what situation they've been born into?

See bold.  One person's life was significantly harder than the other, but why would you say it is easier for one to accept the gift? The outcome of the story was that Jamal was angry toward God about the hardship. God did not cause his suffering, so the source of his anger was that God did not intervene. But given the free will of everyone involved, how can we say that the greatest amount of good wasn't/isn't/will be achieved? Because of man's choices, Jamal and his family suffered for a finite time, but that is incomparable to eternity. God promises all throughout the Bible that he will be with them that call on his name--especially though adversity. A famous one comes to mind:

Psalm 23
A psalm of David.

1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
2     He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3     he refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
    for his name’s sake.
4 Even though I walk
    through the darkest valley,[a]
I will fear no evil,
    for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
    my cup overflows.
6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me
    all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the Lord
    forever.

So does your position boil down to [variable] shit happens in life but God's only promise is salvation? That that is the free gift that is on offer to all but there is no promise about reducing actual suffering in this life, on account of it being down to the free will of others, and that life is only a blip compared to eternity? What of suffering that is not due to the free will of others, such as natural disasters and being born handicapped in some way... ie suffering that is neither the person's fault or any other person's fault? The point is, the suffering is variable, even taking into account the free will of others as one possible get-out clause, and the more someone suffers, the harder it is to accept and keep the faith. Therefore people receive the same offer but on different terms... some are never tested with real suffering or loss, whereas others experience both through no fault of their own or others.
Reply
#20
RE: The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will
(May 23, 2017 at 7:24 pm)Aroura Wrote: How do theists justify the fact that people have different experiences, not under their own control in anyone's definition of free-will, and maintain that God is Just.

Let's play pretend.  

Little Bobby is born in a nice western country.  He is never hungry, goes to nice schools, and is taught about the glory of God and Jesus.  He marries and has a wonderful, healthy family.  12 grandkids, all joyful.
He has some minor illnesses, but nothing major until whatever ends his wonderfully full life at age 89.

Little Jamal is born in a developing nation to a poor family, he is born with a major disability.  He is often hungry, but his family scrapes by.  His only education is in a hut by a foreign priest.  He's lucky to have it at all.
He also is taught about the glory of Jesus and God his entire life.  He goes to church, and is model. He volunteers in his community, shares what little food he has, etc.  He maries, has kids, and then his wife is raped and murdered and his children die of starvation in a war dropped on his country that he aboslutely nothing to do with, when he was just trying to live well and get by.
He loses his faith, and dies in a ditch at age 45.

Now, let's even pretend that all of life is a test, and God will give every person a chance, after death, to recognize his glory and accept him.  So even nonbelievers, fallen away believers, people of other faiths, etc, all get this sort of second chance to make this supposed choice.

If Jamal is so angry and upset by the fact that God allowed his family to suffer that he disavows God even after meeting him after death, but Bobby gets a straight ticket to heaven because he never had a reason to doubt OR to be upset at God, how is that anything remotely JUST?

There's a couple ways to respond to this.

First, Christianity doesn't claim that anyone's salvation is JUST, remotely or otherwise. Salvation is a function of mercy and grace, not justice. As both Bobby and Jamal are sinners, pure justice would be that both are condemned. If one or both are saved, that's a function of grace. As grace is by definition unmerited, it's nonsensical to complain that it's not just. Of course it isn't. That probably doesn't make sense to you. The Bible acknowledges that - "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing."

Second, I disagree that Jamal would be condemned in this situation. Peter denied Christ three times, and was restored. There's a reason that's included in Scripture, and other accounts of people failing in faith and being restored - David is a good example. As an unsaved human, you put all the emphasis on the human. But, God is sovereign, and if he wants to save Jamal, he'll save Jamal.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Evil God and anti-theodicy FrustratedFool 32 2141 August 21, 2023 at 9:28 am
Last Post: FrustratedFool
  Do people make evil? Interaktive 7 701 August 8, 2022 at 2:11 pm
Last Post: onlinebiker
  Atheism, Gnosticism & the Problem of Evil Seax 86 5570 April 7, 2021 at 9:25 pm
Last Post: Foxaèr
  [Serious] Good vs Evil Losty 84 9940 March 8, 2021 at 4:33 am
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  Bishop setting up group to fight off 'evil forces' and recite prayers of exorcism Marozz 14 2526 October 11, 2018 at 5:19 am
Last Post: OakTree500
  Why some humans are so evil: double standards and irreligion WinterHold 124 19704 January 28, 2018 at 5:38 am
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Why the Texas shooting is not evil, based on the bible Face2face 56 15452 November 16, 2017 at 7:21 am
Last Post: Little Rik
  The forces of good and evil are related Foxaèr 11 3542 October 2, 2017 at 9:30 pm
Last Post: Astonished
  If God created all the good things around us then it means he created all EVIL too ErGingerbreadMandude 112 20452 March 3, 2017 at 9:53 am
Last Post: Harry Nevis
  This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden Greatest I am 17 3781 November 29, 2016 at 6:10 pm
Last Post: ApeNotKillApe



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)