There are also reasons D, E, F…etc., that I’m sure any sufficiently apologetic Christian will trot out for us, but they’re all of ever-increasing absurdity. Most seem to subscribe to a less comical version of A, blaming his reluctance to manifest on a Divine Snit over the Fall.
Personally, I favor answer answer Ω: there never was any god to blame. Simple, clear, reasonable, and it fits all the facts.
But in truth, there’s no more reason to posit a caring or competent “god” than any other kind, aside from what human (social) psychology elicits.
So theodicy fails, but that means nothing compared with the previous failure to provide evidence for god in the first place.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Reason ß: He’s still holding a grudge over that apple he was saving.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus (341-270)
Oh boy, does it ever. My standard response to the “Well… How do you explain…..” is: “I deny the premis.”
JC
“When did you stop beating your wife?”
Same old same old.
Did anyone else notice that the guy representing “God” looks suspiciously like a late George Carlin?
You forgot about reason Z: It’s all a part of this divine plan!
I like how God has moobs (man boobs)
Cool! The appendix guy also has a situs inversus.
Epicurus,
Watching them try to redefine omni$FOO to get around all that is very amusing. This guy does a good job of ripping it apart. http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/ “Reality is consistent with itself” is my new catchphrase.
Nothing to do with this article. Just thought people might be interested that a bunch of Huxley’s work is now available.
Guetenberg
To my eye, “He” looks like a chubbier version of George Carlin. Cosmic (if not exactly poetic) justice, eh?
You forgot “To test our faith” – As Joe Hill put it in the song ‘The Long-Haired Preacher’ – “there’ll be pie in the sky when we die”
Telepropter
Yes, yes I did, though God appears to be chubbier then Carlin.
In order to facilitate the avalanche of abuse it could be said that God interacts with people through a purely spiritual means not requiring the manipulation of quarks and leptons which is not amenable to the scientific method. God also has taught Christians by sending his Son to be an example of how to live your life, interact with others and preserve the creation. Not that many Christians actually follow this example, particularly the professional strawmen such as Jack Chick, James Dobson, Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson so frequently and properly savaged in this blog.
Most mainstream Christians acknowledge that it is belief, pure and simple, as they go about their lives trying to do good. They have no expectation that God will reward them with material wealth simply as a response to fulsome praise. To many it is one day at a time. To most churches it is not lining the pockets of the clergy, but outreach not involving evangelism or conversion. It is helping others. Jesus did that with no expectation of personal gain.
Mostly religious people just want to do the right thing. It is certainly true that belief is not required to be moral for all people, but it unquestionably helps many. Athiests can be equally effective as well, and they should be just as proactive with their time, money and volunteerism.
I suggest that religion is not required for anyone to be moral.
To be truly amoral, religion is required, even if it is just a cult of personality.
#15 Mostly religious people just want to escape the inevitable clutches of death, feel superior, and proclaim divine guidance in their life. Doing the “right thing” is just cooperation with their belief in a divine conspiracy, and, in the case of my mother, shoving her righteousness in other people’s faces.
pro: “To most churches it is not lining the pockets of the clergy, but outreach not involving evangelism or conversion. It is helping others.”
Sorry, but I have yet to see any Xtian church “help” others without pushing a bible/faith in someone’s face. Besides, if what you say is true, then why have church at all? Why not just do good for the sake doing good?
tpfd@15: Can’t disagree with any of the substance of what you say, but agree totally (save that I say “I demand…”) with Steve_C right below.
Take every word you said – and remove ANY religious reference, and I contend that the result holds (or should hold) true for ANY thinking person.
I have broached the idea to my local “FreeThought” group that we should form groups similar to what is generally presumed to be religious groups that do things like feed/clothe the homeless, build affordable housing and generally “do good works” – with proclamation that we do this because it is RIGHT, not because it is mandated by a religious thought.
I particularly wanted to don a custom T-Shirt and go to New Orleans back in Katrina days that said something akin to “Athiests Helping to rebuild Churches”. My wife made me give that up.
Actually, I am just not much good at organising any such thing – but I wish I could.
The point is – extract any “mysterious force” from good works and they remain valid. No “god” is required, no “lessons from jeebus”, nothing but the consideration for the fellow travelers on this Planet.
JC
Mmm….Jesus toast. I could eat some Jesus toast right now. With grape jam.
If there is a god why are we of any significance to him? Why are we so much more special than a slug? Because we are intelligent? But if god is infinitely intelligent then we are far closer to a slug than to him.
The United Methodist Church helps others with no expectation of conversion, and in fact helps those of different faiths and accepts them as equals all the time. There are no statements of belief (creeds). I agree all should do good for the sake of doing good. Are you doing that? Churches organize outreach and teach children that they have responibilities to all others. Hopefully this will make them better citizens.
Wait – am I misinterpreting, or should that be “subscribe to a less comical version of B?
“Sorry, but I have yet to see any Xtian church “help” others without pushing a bible/faith in someone’s face. Besides, if what you say is true, then why have church at all? Why not just do good for the sake doing good?”
More to the point what’s with the proselytizing in the first place? If God is all knowing, all powerful and perfect then why does God need something as imperfect as a human being to spread the good word? If the Bible really was the message of the god Christianity describes it would be available to everyone all the time and be instinctively understood as the message of god by everyone. Not this nonsense that only some guy in the magic clothing has tell me about it because only he understands it.
#15, how does a god sending an entire person to Earth not involve the direct manipulation of matter? It would seem to directly contradict your suggestion of a god acting only by spiritual means, without touching the quarks and leptons.
The problem we get into is assuming that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
I’ve always found the problem of evil to be a compelling disproof of the Jeduo-Christian God.
I all fairness to Christian appolgists, some of the usual counter arguments to it are:
1) God gave man freewill so that he may freely choose to love him. Why would God want robots?
2) Evil is necesary in the world to know what is good. Without the contrast how would you know the difference?
I’ve always found the arguement at @3 compeling.
I strongly disagree with the freewill argument, but that is a frequent counter argument to the problem of evil/suffering.
Brian
That’s my favorite response to Intelligent Design: that the designer really deserves to be sacked, if not sued.
Or as George Carlin summed it up: everything God has created has *died*. :-)
God gave man freewill so that he may freely choose to love him. Why would God want robots?
Well, robots is what religion seems to create. ;-)
Evil is necessary in the world to know what is good. Without the contrast how would you know the difference?
Why would we want to? I, for one, think I could handle a world without murder, rape and pillage. Can we try? Just for a bit? Please?
I’ve always found the arguement at @3 compeling.
Nah! Tornadoes are cool! :-)
Pro from dover – I know horse shit when I smell it. You’ve dumped two piles of it here.
It is certainly true that belief is not required to be moral for all people, but it unquestionably helps many. – the pro from dover
I question it.
By a strange (cosmic?) coincidence, I was Divinely Inspired to write this just a few hours ago:
“Evil is necessary in the world to know what is good. Without the contrast how would you know the difference?
Why would we want to? I, for one, think I could handle a world without murder, rape and pillage. Can we try? Just for a bit? Please? ”
Like I said, how could we be good without knowing evil? That’s the crux of the argument.
In a longer winded response: Sounds great but if everything was constantly perfect, if all of our basic needs were met, if we knew all of the workings of the universe, if we never had the frustration of not knowing, what would we *do* with our time? Sure, we could all agree that we’d be better off without murder, rape, genocide, bigotry etc. etc. etc. but what about strugle in general? What about the long, hard, often lonely trials that people go through to find meaning in their lives, improve on the world, their relationships and so on? Where would we draw the line?
But hey, I agree with Sam Harris et. al. The problem of Theodicy: we should consider it solved.
Just wanted to throw out the other sides’ arguments.
@27: I thought I heard that Beer was Proof of that?
And yes, I DO have the T-Shirt for that one.
JC
As one who grew up among Methodists, and endured twenty years of their sanctimonious, judgemental arrogance, I feel quite secure in calling BULLSHIT on that one.
But I’m sure they weren’t “real” Methodists.
Pro @ 23: “The United Methodist Church helps others with no expectation of conversion, and in fact helps those of different faiths and accepts them as equals all the time. There are no statements of belief (creeds). “
Well, I’ll believe it when I see it. There are surely bound to be exceptions, however, and I’ll take you at your word. In my experience, though, it doesn’t happen. Meals without “Thanks to God” or prayer?
“Are you doing that?”
To the best of my ability. My belief is that it is the small things that matter, so I do what I can, when I can, whether it is stopping to help someone stranded in the snow, helping an old lady across the street, or buying a meal for a homeless person on the corner. It’s called being a good citizen.
If you truly belong to a church that helps without promoting “faith”, then I applaud you and the church. Helping each other is what makes a community a community.
the pro from dover #15 wrote:
I don’t see how any of you wrote works as a theodicy. Pointing out that God wants people to ‘go about their lives doing good’ doesn’t seem to address the question. It’s more or less what I call “Window Apologetics.”
“Why does God allow so much unnecessary suffering in the world?”
“Hey! Look out the window! Religious people set up a soup kitchen!” Or “Look out the window! Belief in God helps people get through hard times!” Or “Look out the window! The most important thing is that we love one another!”
Very nice, but this question requires a different kind of answer.
“To most churches it is not lining the pockets of the clergy, but outreach not involving evangelism or conversion. It is helping others.”
Nice! Ever see a priest/pastor driving a jalopy?
Evil is necessary in the world to know what is good. Without the contrast how would you know the difference?
It takes religion to convince a guy that eating a ham sandwich is evil, but throwing battery acid on a girl’s face is good.
Although it does presuppose the existence of a deity, my favorite take on “the problem of evil” is from Tom Waits’ “Heart Attack and Vine”:
“Don’t you know there ain’t no devil, it’s just god when he’s drunk.”
#9: “Cool! The appendix guy also has a situs inversus.”
I noticed that right off too…good catch.
Didn’t anyone here read the book of Job? It’s all mostly due to bets between him and the devil to see if you’d lose your faith when he’s being a total asshole for no particular reason but to see what will happen next. He’s ineffable, see( I understand that word means “infuckingfuckabelievable”). It’s important to never lose one’s fate even when you’re buried several feet underground and fire ants are eating your balls, because in the end you’ll be rewarded with new wifes, camels and bigger balls.
By the way, #39 , a ham sandwich once bit my hand right off. I lost a lot of blood, but at the end I took it out by throwing battery acid at its ham-sandwiched face. This anecadote and it alone is why Jews don’t eat ham. Google it if you don’t believe me.
Matt Bors is a brilliant cartoonist. Some of you may remember this little gem from awhile back:
http://www.mattbors.com/archives/321.html
Hop over to his blog and show him some love:
http://www.mattbors.com/blog.html
Wait a minute, I thought god was the source of all that? We supposedly know this or that is good and this or that is evil because God done tol’ us so!
Brian @34,
But isn’t that a description of heaven, where Xtians want to spend eternity?
@44. Pretty much. Or be part of some nonanthopomorphised (sp) heavenly choir. Depends on which tradition you buy into.
Pro from Dover: I’ve been Methodist all my life and as much as I would love to see them help others without expecting conversion, I have never actually seen the churches do that. So far I’ve just seen several groups of judgmental, hypocritical, selfish people who are full of hate and excuses.
God’s just not working out.
I have to call shenanigans on the whole “you must have evil to understand good” dodge. It’s a clear enough false dichotomy isn’t it?
For starters, how about a world where a subsistence level of food was readily available to everyone, but hard work and whatever kowtow the deity requires can gain prosperity or even opulence. Arguably better than the world we have, where people suffer horribly and die from lack. This lack is caused by both natural forces (flood, drought, storms, etc.) and human motives (greed, fear, etc.).
As for the natural forces, these seem most obviously the province of the deity; why else call them “acts of god”? We don’t have the free will to sprout wings and fly over floods when they come. So the free will argument is tangential at best. To claim that it provides others with an opportunity for charity ignores the possibility of helping those at the subsistence level that would always be present in my hypothetical better world.
It seems that the god of most people is a bit extravagant. I can appreciate a sunny day quite sufficiently after a week of drizzle, thank you. No need send storms that kill dozens and wash out crops that starve thousands.
And as far as the human motivations go, how about a world where some ideas are as incomprehensible to all of us as they are now to most of us? Maybe a world where depriving others for personal benefit just never occurred to anyone since there is more than enough for everyone.
Would the world really be worse if the range of our desires was to change from loving and helping others vs. seeking profit from their suffering and death, on the one hand, to loving and helping others vs. ignoring them in my hypothetical world of abundance?
I guess the short version of the above is this: Why must we have evil to understand good if we already have bad?
God’s just not working out
That’s why we broke up.
It could be said, if you wanted to be wrong. I think its reasonable to assume that any interaction with a deity would produce profound psychological changes in an individual, perfectly suitable for scientific inquiry.
I’ve never eaten shit but that doesn’t mean I appreciate chocolate any less.
Sounds great but if everything was constantly perfect, if all of our basic needs were met, if we knew all of the workings of the universe, if we never had the frustration of not knowing, what would we *do* with our time?
Wow. I know that you were just quoting an argument from the other side so it’s not you, but damn, that’s a view from Mount Privilege. “Sorry, girls, but you have to live a life of malnutrition, rape, and beatings so that I can avoid some ennui.” Just…wow.
My favourite response to all the common apologetics concerning the problem of evil is The Tale of The Twelve Officers.
It gets right to the heart of the matter: there’s no way any believer would accept those kinds of arguments if they weren’t being applied in the specific context of defending their cherished beliefs.
Theodicy: that’s a hard question.
I haven’t ever really seen a good answer, but I think to myself sometimes that if the world were really easy, no pain or suffering, it would be like a TV show or a video game. Not really *real*: no one has to become a doctor, because no one gets sick. No one has to feed a hungry neighbor, because no one gets hungry. You can’t do anything wrong OR right, because nothing has any real consequences, you just hit the button and Crash Bandicoot starts running again.
Not that this rather nerdy theodicy would really help me get through say, chemo, or war, or even a bad day at work.
Oops, I shouldn’t post again so soon, but I am reminded strongly of the scene in Philip Pullmans third book in Dark Materials where the spirits in the cave come out to be briefly real again, out of the bland twilight of the afterlife.
@22:
Think of the following two facts in concert:
“The Lord is my shepherd, I shalt not want”
Where do lamb chops come from?
As do I. I doubt very much that belief helps anyone be moral.
If you’re not familiar with the classic:
“God will F*ck you Up” — http://www.aprilwinchell.com/h/mp3/GodWill.mp3
This is indeed a messed up worldview they get whenever theists try to explain evil.
Get a load of that guy’s “essay”, especially the first paragraph after the bible verse on page 10, where he says that anyone who thinks that the deaths and sufferings of billions of people is not worth “god’s glory”, is someone who has too high an opinion of himself and of humanity.
(Can’t quote, due to copyright)
Thing is, that guy is not the only one. This is from xian apologist William Lane Craig:
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
Ironically enough, on the left sidebar of that article is a link to a book he’s helped write called: Is Goodness without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics
Like I said, how could we be good without knowing evil?
Assuming there is no such thing as “good” or “evil” dramatically simplifies your assumptions and is consistent with observable reality. As such, they’re just terms that people hang on “stuff we like right now” and “stuff we don’t like right now” — in which case there’s no need to plumb what you don’t like, in order that you may know what you do.
Put differently: do you gargle with shit before you have a fine dinner? Have you ever gargled with shit at all? Have you considered that it’s possible to enjoy your food just fine without tasting “evil”
Sounds great but if everything was constantly perfect, if all of our basic needs were met, if we knew all of the workings of the universe, if we never had the frustration of not knowing, what would we *do* with our time?
I’d work on my hobbies. Duh.
After I learned how to make ice cream – starting from pure hydrogen, I’d build bacteria that crapped out turkish delight. And I’d write an operating system that didn’t suck. And I’d learn how to play the piano. And, of course, my lady and I would rewrite (and re-edit) our corrected and annotated omnibus version of the kama sutra. And I’d make a wood-fired pizza oven and master its use, open a 4 star restaurant, write an opera (a bukkake version of Swan Lake) and then I’d collect and color correct/recode all the porn on the Internet. In my next thousand years, I’d figure out why IPv6 happened and maybe I’d make a life-size meringue replica of Krak Des Chevaliers …. anyhow. I won’t bore you; those are just a few of my ideas.
If you can’t think of ways to entertain yourself, easily, for a few thousand years, you’ve got a weak imagination and are probably a waste of raw materials that would be better used to make ice cream.
pro @23
Sorry mate – I think you are making the error taking your beliefs as reality. I live in christ Central and trust me – the churches are not humble places of worship and the do have a very large following. Ditto the Cat-o-licks.
The local rag had a front page article about some elderly lady who was going on missions with her church and doing all these good works. First, what a shame she couldn’t do the good works without the goad of her “personal relationship with Jezzzzuuusss”. Second, most church related good works are linked to “missions”. WTF do they call them missions? Because they have the mission of converting the unbelievers. Contrast this to Heifer International which does everything the missions do and more without the strings.
Bottom line is that if you need a religion to make you do good works then you have a defect in your humanity subroutines.
Good thing you don’t have a chip on your shoulder. Your intellectual rigor and skillful deployment of unbiased observation add much to the history of philosophy, theology, and science. PZ Myers, you are a credit to the University of Minnesota, Morris.
OK. not a lotta support here. no problem. Perhaps some of the claws can be sheathed. I probably know next to nothing about the Methodist church in general only the UMC I belong to. Others truly may work the hellfire and brimstone thing so deserved of condemnation. I would wager if Jesus’ body could be examined, his chromosomal makeup would be little different from any man. He was the son of God and perhaps all of us are as well (daughters too of course). No magic required. so here are some specifics. Do we let the homeless sleep in the church:yes. Do we raise money and build homes for immigrant Muslims thru habitat for humanity:yes. Do we make any effort to convert them:no. Do we require any statement of belief from any man, woman or child in the form of a creed:no. Is anyone rejected from communion table for any belief reason:no. Is evolution education formally fully supported in all public schools (and in our church education programs):yes. Is ID/Creationism fully rejected as science:yes. Does one’s sexual orientation play any negative role in any aspect of our lives:no. Do we accept global warming and man’s role in it:yes. Does our senior pastor drive a jalopy:no, a Honda Element. His son drives the jalopy. Do we give thanks to God in the form of prayer:yes. Does it personally bother me that I am totally abused here:no.
PFD, keep in mind that in science, the worst thing one can do is to deliberately lie to their colleagues. On the other hand, Lying for JebusTM appears to condoned by most churches. So we give godbots who lie a hard time when we catch them in a lie. Which happens regularly (see above for reason). So, maybe you need to check your facts to a larger scale before you post. Otherwise, your word will be worth less than zero.
Pro, who has abused you here? Disagreement is not abuse.
I believe you that the church you go to is as you describe. But you claimed that most Christian churches were like that, which is most definitely not the case.
You also claimed that it was “unquestionable” that belief helps many people be moral. How is that so obvious as to be unquestionable?
The local Presbyterian church here gives to Heifer International, and so do many members at our small Quaker Meeting.
I strongly encourage Pharyngulites to donate to them too, just to show us up!! Prove to us you can donate better than theists!! Seriously, they are a great cause.
I have donated to them in the past. I should again.
Time to genetically analyse the shroud of turin?
PFD, I don’t doubt that *your* church does great things, without proselytizing. I grew up in a very positive church, too, and my deconversion wasn’t related to any unpleasant experiences from church attendance other than the dawning realization that, “You know, I think they’re telling me stuff in there that isn’t true.”
The thing is, I think that if the same group of people got together out of love for something other than worshipping Jesus, they would still do a lot of good, with or without their sense of the Lord watching over them. The churches that aren’t nearly so positive, meanwhile, base their obnoxious behavior on a belief structure that’s very difficult to break through. It’s awfully difficult to tell someone that they’re doing harm when they’ve convinced themselves that the omnipotent, universal consciousness approves of their actions and will reward them in the afterlife.
Theodicy: that’s a hard question. – Rudy
No it isn’t. It’s very, very, very simple: the existence of evil shows that there is not an omnipotent and benevolent god.
KnockGoats @71, it’s a hard question because Christians are in denial. Clearly, (theodicy) = (excuses, excuses).
the pro from dover #64 wrote:
The question was: why does God allow so much apparently unnecessary suffering?
You’re making a case for your church being a very reasonable, helpful, good church which inspires people to do good things. Let’s say that’s granted, for the sake of argument. Okay — how does this address the question?
Does apparently pointless suffering exist in the world so that the people in your church are given an opportunity to develop their characters and help out a bit? I don’t think you’re saying that.
But I’m not sure what you are saying. Or, at least, I’m not sure how you’re connecting it to the topic. Perhaps you’re countering the fact that there are good reasons to think that there is no God with the fact that whether God exists or not isn’t particularly important to religion, if it does some good in the world.
“No God” *is* a simple answer.
For that matter there are simple answers to lots of philosophical questions. In ethics, for example: “Do What Thou Wilt”. Or metaphysics: solipsism (no one exists but me).
These examples should at least make us cautious about simplicity. In any case, people to whom theodicy is a problem, usually have other grounds for their belief in God. Telling them they can fix this problem by becoming atheists kind of misses the point.
I could also fix my income tax problems by not having any income.
There are circumstances where this makes sense (for example people who don’t want to pay war taxes could do this).
The existence of pain and suffering is a problem for atheists, too, in some sense. Why after all does pain exist? Why couldn’t our bodies just “beep” and flash red lights when they needed attention? Why is the “suffering” part there?
The abuse I was referring to as opposed to polite disagreement (that I woleheartedly support) came from Paticia OM. Absolutely entitled to her opinion but still pointlessly abusive. I actually was not specifically referring to theodicy originally, and for that I have no answer. I think suffering is a normal consequence of life and the natural forces that produce it. I agree that religion probably has it’s origin in the fact that humans are extremely aware of their impending mortality and high likelihod of suffering in the process. One cannot prevent death but one can prevent unnecessary suffering. Many people experience some respite from religion and the careteams that are organized in churches. I absolutely believe that athiests have in their power the ability and willingness to organize and do as much good as any religion. I would like to see more of it. BTW the shroud of turin is most likely a hoax. The idea that religion is good and useful even if there is no belief in god echoes the opinion of Robert Darwin.
Being related to a brilliant biologist has no bearing on the factual accuracy of his ideas.
For that matter there are simple answers to lots of philosophical questions. In ethics, for example: “Do What Thou Wilt”. Or metaphysics: solipsism (no one exists but me).
These examples should at least make us cautious about simplicity.
No they shouldn’t. “Do what thou wilt” is not ethics at all: to call a rule “ethical” presupposes that it specifies things we should do, even if we don’t want to, or shouldn’t even if we do. Solipsism is not at all simple: it immediately raises the question of how I produce all these apparently independent beings. There is no comparable problem with atheism.
In any case, people to whom theodicy is a problem, usually have other grounds for their belief in God. Telling them they can fix this problem by becoming atheists kind of misses the point.
What does this have to do with whether there is a god or not? I’m not prescribing any course of action by those “to whom theodicy is a problem”; I’m simply arguing that there is no omnipotent and benevolent being. What you do with this obvious conclusion is up to you.
Why after all does pain exist? Why couldn’t our bodies just “beep” and flash red lights when they needed attention? Why is the “suffering” part there?
So that we feel the urgent need to do something about it of course. There are circumstances in which pain is “noted” but does not have this urgency: for example, if you are in severe pain and are injected with diamorphine, you are likely to continue to know you are in pain, but not to be bothered. This shows that the “suffering” component of pain is separable, and indicates that those individuals who lacked it, or did not have it strongly enough, were outcompeted by those who did. The evolutionary account also deals with useless pain (e.g. of inoperable cancer), in the same way as all the other imperfections of the human (or other animal) body: natural selection does not produce perfection, because it has no ability to plan.
Hmm. looking at the cartoon again, I have to say God looks a bit like I expect to look in 5-10 years, when my beard will be completely white. I keep my hair a bit shorter than God’s, though, and never wear a Jesus-fish t-shirt!
How is that a problem for atheists? It’s an innate trigger for fight or flee or at least, stop doing what you are doing.
If anything it’s a problem for theists. Why would a loving god want his “children” to feel pain?
Knockgoats, ok, I see what you are saying now. I’ll think some more about this and post a response tomorrow.
Rudy #74
“Do what thou wilt” looks at only one part of ethics. Ethics is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is “the good life,” the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct.
Crowley’s Thelema, which has “Do what thou wilt” as its major premise, certainly argues for “the good life.” However, moral conduct is not addressed. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. So you’ve reduced ethics by half, which is simplifying too far.
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that “My mind is the only thing that I know exists.” Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist.
Solipsism is opposed to all forms of realism and many forms of idealism (insofar as they claim that there is something outside the idealist’s mind, which is itself another mind, or mental in nature). Realism in a minimal sense, that there is an external universe is most likely not observationally distinct from solipsism.
Solipsism is suspect on at least two grounds:
1. Can one’s perception, within one’s mind exist without an external something to exist in, such as a biological brain?
2. Does one consider all of perceptual reality as part of one’s faculty of being, such as high math, music composition and other creative work which one can not consciously re-produce?
When we start to consider these statements and questions, we discover that solipsism is far from simplistic.
So in your search for simplicity, in one case you have gone too far and in the other you assumed simplicity where it doesn’t exist.
Better luck next time.
It’s not a problem at all if you understand evolution. Pain is a relatively simple way to warn you to avoid damage, and that rapidly. The thing to note is that it works. Evolution never pretends to produce perfect traits, but traits that a) are possible to obtain statistically from simpler traits, b) give an advantage vs competing species.
To convince yourself of the usefulness of pain, witness what happens to those who are unable to feel it. Congenital Insensitivity to pain
No it doesn’t.
PFD:
While your examples of what your church does seem reasonable and are similar to what I know of the Lutherans, I want to echo some previous points.
First, The fastest growing religion is mormonism with other evangelicals close behind. Taken with the stance of the catholics I don’t think you can make the statement that “most” churches don’t work towards conversion. A related question is what is the function of missions if your church supports them? Secondly, I don’t think you’ve been totally abused here. If you make statements that are “unquestionable”, you damn well better be able to back them up.
Last, I find the snarky “Are you doing that?” kind of presumptuous on your part. You know abso-fucking-lutely nothing about what any of us do in the charitable realm and yet you want to match up what your church does with what atheists do? Do Special Olympics count? How’s about recording for the blind? What level of donations to non-profits count for you to consider us as worthy? Any credit for volunteer hours in clinics and schools and ESL teaching and Big Brother/Sisters and more? Intended or not, I find a sorry echo of the xian belief that only they can be altruistic in your statement. Not your intent? Sorry, just my take on it.
Allen N, you should probably specify which Lutheran church you’re talking about. I assume it’s ELCA. Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans are very, very different.
IMHO, “Good” and “Evil” are social constructs, growing out of a combination of hard-wired basic evolution (ie, don’t kill your children, because your genes won’t get passed on) and self-aware consciousness, where we can make decisions based on more than genetic survival. It would be impossible to have a world without things that we term “good” and “evil” because we’re the ones deciding those things exist.
Sort of like “If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent Him” (Voltaire – yes, I had to look it up): “If good and evil did not exist it would be necessary to invent them”.
Mandrake @ 86
I’d go even further, and say that it’s pretty much all hard-wired (“good” = that which allows you to thrive, “evil” = that which threatens your survival or viable reproduction), at least the moral concepts that are common to all humans. Like the taboo against murder, stealing, ect.
We go a little beyond that base in our specific cultures, but those can change relatively easily according to context. Altruism strangely becomes selfish when you consider that the group’s interests are actually your interests since your existence will become much more difficult without the group.
I doubt we would consider altruism “good” if we were not particularly social.
I actually really like option C up there. If there were a god, I think that’s exactly the kind there would be. It would explain the things I see around me every day so well.
This is excellent. We really need some alternative, atheist tract comics equivalent to those ludicrous Chick publications.
I was in an argument with a group of christian fundamentalists at a gay pride event here in London last year – asking the usual questions like how they know the mind of god, how old they think the earth is, how they know the bible is true etc…. and I see how effective they are at having all their answers to hand with those silly little booklets.
A similar mini-publication, either mocking ‘god’ and her followers, or explaining about evolution, critical thinking etc, would certainly appeal to younger people, and embolden people to be critical.
NDT:
Oops – my lack of knowledge about that particular religion is showing. I was basing my comment on what I know second hand from a very good Lutheran friend of mine. Not a good sample size, eh?
As for the discussion about altrusim, are there not observations of altruistic behavior in chimps? If so, then that would argue the position that such behavior is wired in.
For Kemist @87 – is it possible to be altruistic outside of our species (social group)? Thinking on it further, whence the warm fuzzy feeling if you practice random acts of kindness to strangers? Is that feeling our internal reward?
Next time someone pulls the “There must be evil for us to appreciate good” line, try “I’m going to saw one of your legs off. It’ll make you really appreciate the other one”. That should sort out who really means it and who’s waffling.
Good line about “Mount Privilege”. Any of these accounts arguing that all that death and suffering is OK because it makes us more noble or spiritual or whatever, needs footnoting as “all that death and suffering of other people is OK because it makes me feel more noble”, which in turns boils down to “other people aren’t real”.
Allen N @ 90
The nice thing with all our “reward systems” (and a great number of evolutionary traits) is that they are incredibly plastic. It’s a feature of adaptability.
For example, you can define in-group as yourself, family and friends, village, country, whole species, or even order depending on your ability to conceptualize. You will adapt to your particular environment.
The line between humans and other animals is much more blurrier, IMHO, than what people commonly think. Higher animals, for one, do educate their young. Just watch what happens if you take a kitten away from its mother before it is educated on cat cleanliness and behavior. It will not have its “instinctive” cat habits (pee and poo in the litter box, groom itself) if its owner fails to educate it. Even its social behavior with other cats will be faulty. It will fail to understand normal cat signals, such as how hard to bite in game situations and when another cat is displaying aggression.
Some animals even have a culture of sorts. This, for example, is a surprising example, which does not involve the acquisition of food or technology. This kind of observation tends to make those who think of humans as unique and undeniably separate from other animals uncomfortable.
Adaptability is hardwired for survival. Your internal reward system makes you want to help people because you were educated into it by your specific environment. It becomes very interesting to contrast that education with, say, the sort of education a child who’s been raised in a Russian orphanage will have.
I know a woman who has adopted a few children internationally. Once she brought back a 4-year-old girl from a Russian orphanage. She already had another child, a 2-year-old chinese girl. She had to give up the 4-year-old because the girl had started beating up the 2-year-old. Why did the Russian girl do that ? Because she’s “evil” ?
No. It’s because she was raised in an environment where attention and food were limited and where you had to compete, sometimes viciously, for it. Her very survival was linked to her getting more food than the other kids. The overburdened adults couldn’t see to it that her behavior was punished and that every kid got food. This girl needed to be put in a family as an only child, where she would be progressively educated to be able to live in our society.
So, yes I think it would be quite possible to manipulate this internal reward system in a way to extend altruism outside our species (some already do; many vegans are vegans as an ethical choice). You just need the right environment/education.
Strange, all this discussion about religion on a site that is scoring well on the weblog voting for best science blog.
It’s won it in the past.
“Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal”
Might give you a hint that it’s not just science that’s the point of the blog.
Religion is constantly messing with science education.
One final post here to answer Allen N. The youth missions are to Central America usually to build schools and churches or whatever the local organizers want. There is no question that if it is a church it will be Roman Catholic. There is no converting done. The people who benifit the most from this are the church youth themselves. This activity makes them better citizens for the world. Oterwise the general missions include local food and clothing banks, Warren Village (for homeless/unwed/teen mothers), after-school activities, adult education, and larger, more general projects in association with other Presbyterian and Lutheran churches.
Pro: You are amusing :-) So willing to walk the line, so close to seeing the light, but you can’t just make that last step. Cast off the cloak and come on over, dude. It’s very liberating :-)
To Pdiff (I assume no close relation to the C diff that I’m well acquainted with),
doubt and uncertainty is part of my life and I would feel uncomfortable if it wasn’t there. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. Perhaps the light at the end of the tunnel is the train coming in the other direction. I really try not to emulate Pascal.
PZ Myers: “Personally, I favor answer answer Ω: there never was any god to blame.”
Psalm 53:1: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”
OK, so I promised Knocksgoats a response:
There are two ideas being used here:
1. There’s pain and suffering… etc. … therefore there is no God.
A nonexistence proof.
2. The classical use of the word theodicy: assuming God exists, how come there’s all this evil and pain?
When I said that “theodicy is a tough question”, I meant 2. The answer to 2. might, of course, eventually entail 1. That is the simple answer to 2.
[Several people quarrel with my calling solipsism simple. It is a simple answer, it doesn’t necessarily have simple consequences.
For example, all the stuff we would have to make up (but in dreams we make up things all the time). I still hold that the kind of ethical heedlessness in “Do what thou wilt” counts as ethics, just not very good ethics.]
It is likely that few posters here find 2. compelling. The existence of pain and suffering is tougher than Knocksgoats, um, can I just write KG? thinks, in a philosophical sense. In the natural sense, yes, I know that standard (and likely correct) evolutionary explanation of pain. I had heard also about people able to distance themselves from the pain in some conditions.
What I had in mind was something more along the lines of the classic question “Why is there anything rather than nothing?” Given that most of Western 20th century philosophy divides neatly into two camps on this (“What rubbish” vs. “Good question!”) I don’t want to get into that… But why is there suffering at all? That is, why
are we not zombies? One can imagine a world (universe?) that looks the same as ours, with people going around looking as though they are in pain, etc. but with no subjective pain at all.
Of course the zombie problem also has zillions of words written about it, so I’m just throwing it out there as a problem. I don’t have an answer.
This is the sense in which I say it is also a problem for atheists. It’s a problem, at least, for some; think of Buddhists, even if it doesn’t seem a problem for you (theodicy is not a problem all theists worry about either). This was *the* problem for Schopenhauer, also; his conclusion was that we’d all be better off not existing, since suffering was inescapable. As the joke goes, we’d be better off not having existed at all, but how many people are that lucky?
JKK wrote:
Oh, so you’re impressed by quotes, huh? Are you familiar with Wowbagger 1:1?
“The moron who thinks a bible verse is in any way relevant is wasting his or her time and should try thinking for his or her self.”
Far more accurate – and inclusive.
Your imagination, and that which must survive and reproduce under many different conditions (and thus evolve), are not the same thing.
I can imagine flying by simply willing it; indeed, I have dreamed of doing just that. But outside of imagination, real-world physics denies me that dream.
Unless you can come up with a designed organism that can experience pain nonsubjectively (if that even makes sense!), your imagined zombies are as appropriate to the discussion as my dreams would be at an aerospace conference.
Echoing Ecclesiastes, of course.
Some of the books of the bible seem almost designed to encourage atheism. Or if not atheism, then at the very least, doubt.
Psalm 92:10: “The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved”
It doesn’t seem like whoever wrote Psalms knew what he was talking about. Methinks it is projection.
Owlmirror, I assume you meant “evolved” creature, not “designed” creature. It’s hard to imagine how to design a machine to experience pain (at least for me).
You need an example of an evolved creature that experiences pain nonsubjectively? A cockroach.
Is there any evidence that it has subjective feelings at all? It is after all even hard to determine why we ascribe subjective states to “higher” animals like dogs with so much confidence. Mirror neurons probably.
Connecting Ecclesiastes to Schopenhauer is a good idea. Schopenhauer would certainly have been familiar with Biblical writings, though most commentators connect his pessimism to the influence of Hindu and Buddhist writings which were just appearing in translation in Europe.
Stanislaw Lem said it best, in his story non servaim. If god, then… Nothing! Nothing at all follows from that premise. It does not follow that we owe it a debt of gratitude, or that we should modify our behavior in any way. If there is an omnipotent being, then by definition everything is already as it wants.
-jcr
Speaking of Psalm 14:1 and 53:1 (or Psalm 13:1 and 52:1 ; apparently a different numbering scheme is used by different canons), I note, from the book I linked to above @#101, that that line was used as argument that even according to the bible, the existence of God was not obvious.
Further argumentation follows, of course, eventually stealing arguments (from the non-Judeo-Christian philosophers in favor of a Deist God) in support of the Judeo-Christian God.
But there were doubters who started with those Psalms, and came to the opposite conclusion about the existence of God.
Aquinas, Summa Theologica:
Rudyz @#103:
No, I did actually intend “genetically designed”. However, thinking about it now, I think the question of whether this hypothetical organism is designed or evolved is moot, so consider it withdrawn from my original sentence.
I would argue that if an organism has a brain that can receive sensory information and create memories, some degree of subjectivity can be inferred, even if it is very faint.
I would further argue that the pain receptors of the brain are very ancient, and therefore highly conserved among all organisms that have brains.
Uh, evolutionary biology gives us strong reasons to infer this. Dogs are in the same class Mammalia as we are; we share very similar nervous systems and subcortical brain structure.
And I am pretty sure that there are experiments demonstrating certain degrees of awareness, regardless of evolutionary relatedness. Let me see…
Here’s just one recent example; I could probably dig up more.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/12/dogs_frown_on_unfair_rewards.php
That is, why are we not zombies? One can imagine a world (universe?) that looks the same as ours, with people going around looking as though they are in pain, etc. but with no subjective pain at all.
I can’t. I doubt you can either, if you honestly try to imagine in turn all that the zombie world would entail (this is presuming the Chalmers scenario, where behavior is identical in every particular). There would be zombies talking about the subjective character of their pain, even describing it in intimate detail, to a zombie doctor, say; there would be a zombie Rudyz talking about a world in which non-existent subjective pain was non-existent, as if that would be radically counter to ordinary non-existent experience; all of this, apparently, for no reason at all. Those zombies would be talking about nothing.
Of course the zombie problem also has zillions of words written about it, so I’m just throwing it out there as a problem. I don’t have an answer.
I guess a few more words can’t hurt anything, then. The answer is that it’s incoherent at best and more often simply obfuscatory. The reason it maintains any currency at all in these discussions is that dualist tendencies lurk in all of our “common sense” approaches to the supposedly Hard problems that crop up around subjective experience. The vestige of dualism I’m thinking of here isn’t analytical, like Cartesian dualism, but a basic folk-category division between mind and body. The zombie world tacitly presupposes that “Mind,” pure ratiocination, could go on normally in the absence of feelings (tacitly, again, supposed to be a bodily function) and subjective experience. But in fact the two are inextricably connected. There could be no human-level syntactical or analytical behavior (never mind any writhing in pain) without the incoming stimuli to work on. Perception has to precede analysis, and that has to be internal to the organism. So what we perceive we experience.
Psalm 53:1: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”
Psalm 92:10: “The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved”
Kel: “It doesn’t seem like whoever wrote Psalms knew what he was talking about. Methinks it is projection.”
The Psalms were written by a number of authors. David was the author of the first Psalm above; the author of the second is unknown. It doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about. Setting aside the illogic in what you’ve written (if one author doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it doesn’t follow that another author doesn’t know what he’s talking about), methinks you’re projecting.
Ah one of those old-fashioned fallacious “proofs” by assertion. Note the complete lack of evidence for it being foolish to (correctly) work out internally that that god doesn’t exist. In contrast with the copious historical evidence for it being foolish to say it out loud whenever and wherever a religiot can try to kill, maim, persecute etc you.
That doesn’t prevent the individual writers being incompetent and/or dishonest and wrong – and hence the psalms themselves being of dubious value (other than as an insight into the incompetence and dishonesty of the writers and the state of the prevailing culture and even that of any intervening editors).
CJO and Owlmirror,
It’s a common experience (for me, anyway) to find that I have driven to my destination (sometimes the wrong one) without conscious awareness of the driving decisions I made along the way.
Think also of the unfortunate people (using Ambien) who get up during the night, cook meals, go for drives in their car, etc. without conscious awareness.
You might argue that these were habitual actions, and that novel behavior would require conscious awareness. But this shows that some of our behavior in principle could be without a subjective component. Perhaps *all* of the cockroach’s behavior is like this; how can we tell?
There are also experiments (I’m sorry, I don’t have a link, but they got a lot of publicity in the pop science press like New Scientist and Sci. Am.) that seem to show that we make some decisions some 100 millisecs or so before being consciously aware that we made a choice. Consciousness seems to be a rather fragile thing.
CJO, you confine your response to “human-level” thinking in your post. Is the human world the only part of the universe that can suffer then?
Owlmirror, I wasn’t really thinking about our obvious evolutionary similarity to dogs, I was thinking about our “folk” ascription of subjective mental states to them. Sometimes we even do this to inanimate objects (kids especially do this).