h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi,

I gave you a summary of where we'd got to on the God: Fact or Fiction? thread, but I misrepresented Insight so am here to set the record straight. Thought you might like to read this post which I just made on that thread:

Hi Insight, welcome back.

This is a post in five parts:

1 Problem of Evil (I understand your view Math, but I'm gonna use the term "evil" for convenience as a generally well-understood term)
2 Free Will Defence
3 Prevention of Evil
4 Requests for replies to other posts - from Della and Insight please?
5 Apology

======================================================================

PROBLEM OF EVIL

"Post 1579:

The problem of evil has surely been discussed? It can't still be serving as a disproof to some people, can it?"

Your expression of incredulity suggests arrogance ("I must be right"), naiveity ("surely there's no rejoinder to the counter-arguments?")or deception (pretending there is consensus to avoid further debate).

The problem of evil DOES still serve as a disproof to some people. Not just on this thread but across the global community of philosophers. If you have a fully robust counter-argument - by which I mean one which proves the argument to BE false rather than proving the POSSIBILITY that it is false - then you should make a PhD out of it because you've succeeded where nobody else has. You will get international acclaim, the offer of a Chair at Oxford/Cambridge/Harvard/Yale, and a guaranteed place among the elect 144,000. For if you can rebut the problem of evil argument convincingly then many people will convert to a monotheistic religion and many who have left the church will return. To present said fully robust counter-argument you would need to show beyond doubt that it is a good thing (ie. consistent with a good God) that evil is allowed to exist. Go on then.

For different views on the problem of evil, see:

Richard Swinburne "Is there a God" and
Nigel Warburton "Philosophy: the basics"

Swinburne is Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford and believes in God.

Warburton is a lecturer in Philosophy at the Open University and does not believe in God.

Swinburne, who has published a complete book on the subject, openly admits that none of his arguments are water-tight, ie. challenges can be raised against every one.

An important element in his belief is the notion that many people claim to have experienced God - but as I have shown in my psychological imprint theory, there is an alternative explanation of this which is equally valid (post 790).

======================================================================

FREE WILL DEFENCE

Warburton presents a concise introduction to the arguments and counter-arguments. The most important argument against the POE is the Free Will Defence; however there are four core criticisms of this...

(I) IT MAKES TWO BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

"The main assumption that the Free Will Defence makes is that a world with free will and the possibility of evil is preferable to a world of robot-like people who never perform evil actions. But is this obviously so? Suffering can be so terrible that no doubt many people, given the choice, would prefer everyone to have been pre-programmed only to do good, rather than have to undergo such pain. These pre-programmed beings could even have been designed so that they believed they had free will even though they didn't: they could have had the illusion of free will with all the benefits that follow from thinking that they are free, but with none of the drawbacks.
This hints at a second assumption that the Free Will Defence makes, namely that we do actually have free will and not just an illusion of it. Some psycholigists believe that we can explain every decision or choice that an individual makes by referring to some earlier conditioning that the individul has undergone, so that, although the individual might feel free, his or her action is in fact entirely determined by what has happened in the past. We cannot know for certain that this isn't actually the case.
However, it should be pointed out in the Free Will Defence's favour that most philosophers believe that human beings genuinely do have free will in some sense, and that free will is generally considered essential to being human."

(II) FREE WILL BUT NO EVIL

"If God is omnipotent, then presumably it is within his or her powers to have created a world in which there was both free will and yet no evil. In fact such a world is not particularly difficult to imagine. Although having free will always gives us the possibility of performing evil, there is no reason why this should ever become an actuality. It is logically possible that everyone could have had free will but decided always to shun the evil course of behaviour.
Those who accept the Free Will Defence would probably reply to this that such a state of affairs would not be genuine free will. This is open to debate."

I disagree with Warburton when he says that "having free will always gives us the possibility of performing evil". For I believe that evil is only possible due to the physical nature of our existence. So if God had created us as purely spiritual beings we could have free will and yet evil would be impossible. Allow me to give you a taste of why I hold this view:

I believe that evil is that which causes suffering.

I believe that suffering is the negative emotion we feel when we don't get that which we perceive as a need.

If we had no physiological needs then nobody could cause us to suffer, because in order to do that they ned to deprive us of our needs.

For example, economic oppression can only happen because people will sometimes allow themselves to be exploited in order to earn enough to buy food etc. Environmental degradation can only happen because resources are finite and can be used up. And so on.

Without the limitations of the physical world we would be absolutely free, thus free from harm and suffering, thus free from evil.

(III) GOD COULD INTERVENE

"Theists typically believe that God can and does intervene in the world, primarily by performing miracles. If God intervenes sometimes, why does he or she choose to perform what can seem to a non-believer relatively minor 'tricks' such as producing stigmata (marks on people's hands, like the nail holes in Christs's hands), or changing water into wine? Why didn't God intervene to prevent the Holocaust or the whole Second World War or the AIDS epidemic?
Again, Theists might reply that if God ever intervened then we would not have genuine free will. But this would be to abandon an aspect of most Theists' belief in God, namely that divine intervention sometimes occurs."

(IV) DOESN'T EXPLAIN NATURAL EVIL

We covered this argument recently on this thread. Matholwch countered it by referring to beneficial laws of nature, and I presented a counter-counter at post 1495.

======================================================================

PREVENTION OF EVIL

"Post 559: It doesn't prove anything. You've said that, under the three conditions mentioned, he would bring an end to all evil, which is fair enough. It doesn't necessarily follow that he would do it immediately."

Your assertion here is a legitimate counter-argument to the strict literal interpretation of my presentation of the problem of evil, but NOT to the meaning which I clearly (I think) intended to communicate. Allow me to rephrase the problem; perhaps you can reply to this one. I have capitalised changes to my original post:

"God (according to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and similar) is said to be omniscient, omnipotent and supremely benevolent.

If (s)he were omniscient, (s)he would be aware of all POTENTIAL evil.

If (s)he were omnipotent, (s)he would have the power to PREVENT all evil FROM OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If (s)he were supremely benevolent, (s)he would wish to PREVENT all evil FROM OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The conclusion is that if God possessed those three characteristics, (s)he would PREVENT all evil FROM OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Therefore the undoubted existence of evil proves that either...

(a) God does not exist; or

(b) God does not possess at least one of the above-mentioNEd characteristics".

======================================================================

REQUESTS FOR REPLIES

I would also be pleased if you would reply to my response to an earlier post you made - post 1391, referring to the controversial view that God fails to live up to appropriate moral standards. This ties in well with Warburton's intervention point. Further, it's worth noting that God DOES restrict our free will by restricting our power. I do not have have the power to blow you up with my mind (I thought I'd succeeded after post 1405 but you came back ). Why then, does God not restrict our desire for evil in other ways? By enhancing our capacity for empathy for example?

I should also be pleased if you would respond to post 1420; I am interested to know at which precise point you and I diverge on our views about the nature of justice.

Della, please can you let me know your opinion as well? I know that you and I have different views on Jesus' "atoning sacrifice", and I would find it very helpful if we could compare notes in this way.

======================================================================

APOLOGY

Back to Insight;

"
I pointed out not long ago that I came to a firm belief in God *before* I came to a firm belief in the Bible."

Yes, that's clear from your post 1405, where you said

"The Bible isn't my starting point. It might not be a good idea to try to summarise all this so quickly, but I'll try anyway. My starting point is that we exist, and reasoning why. My conclusion is that we were created by a God. But what does he want us to do? It seems reasonable that he would have told us. So some source of information must exist somewhere that is from God. How can we tell what is from God? By what source tells us things that only God is likely to know. If we just look for what gives us good advice on how to live our lives, it narrows it down. And I have only found one book that has reliably told of historical events in advance"

I have no excuse, especially as this was a reply to one of my posts. I apologise unreservedly for misrepresenting you. Please know that it was not intentional. I'll copy this post to Semaj as well, since it was he to whom I was replying when I made that mistake.

======================================================================

That's all folks!

+