Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Albert Cipriani · 04-30-2003, 02:58 PM

Dear Hmmm,
Talk about pointless talking! You say:

Quote:

There exists cases of pointless or unnecessary evils.

Without a definition of evil or necessary, all talk here about your �gratuitous evil� is both pointless and unnecessary.

How about the traditional Scholastic definition of evil being that which lacks a necessary good? That�s the Catholic definition. Ergo, your very notion of a necessary or unnecessary evil is a brain-twisting non-starter.

Evil is never necessary. Rather, only good is necessary. When one of the facets of what is necessarily good is unnecessarily mudded up, then that good thing becomes an evil thing.

Our �knowledge of good and evil� is artificial. When, for example, good girls go bad, there�s only been a semantic, not a metaphysic, transformation. For the good facets of the evil thing remain good (dimples, a great tan, legs that don�t quit, etc.). We just call the deficiently good composite �evil� as a way of identifying it, like how I call myself: -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

Bumble Bee Tuna · 04-30-2003, 08:21 PM

Well the way I see it, you're right, there's no reason to believe that the current level is the right one. BUT, the PoE argument is all about disproving God. And there's already no reason to believe in Yahweh, so we don't need to say "there's no reason to believe in Yahweh, but if you do decide to, then there's no reason to believe we are at right level of free will." In fact, that would be erroneous, because from the assumption "Yahweh exists" it is necessary that we are in fact at the right level of free will. So if you're going to say there's no reason to, you have to go to the root reasonless point, Yahweh.
Theists defending the PoE aren't trying to say their God is likely- just saying that it's not logically impossible.

-B

Dr. Retard · 05-01-2003, 05:13 AM

For my part, I think free will responses to the argument from evil are about the worst responses available. It's just a miserable, miserable failure. At least skeptical theist responses are interesting.

malookiemaloo · 05-01-2003, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hmmmm
One of the many varieties of the way in which the problem of evil is formulated is to say that there exists cases of pointless or unnecessary evils. This is just another way of saying that they are gratuitous.

These two statements are purported to be in contradiction to eachother.

1. The Christian God exists.
2. Cases of gratuitious evil exist.

The argument that is proffered by the critic is along these lines:

4. If the Christian God exists, then gratuitous evil would not exist.
5. Gratuitous evil, in fact, exists.
6. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

The rub comes from the justification the critic uses which have her draw her conclusions about gratuitous evils based on those instances that appear to not have a point. But what is the justification for that inference; namely from appearance to the real world? This seems to be somewhat similar to features involved in the probabalistic argument from evil in that there is an assumption that the discernment of God's alleged morally sufficient reasons must be discovered in order for one to conclude that there is such a reason and/or that the evils in question are not senseless/pointless.

But lack of discernment does not entail that God (with the extra help of middle-knowledge) does not, in fact, have morally sufficient reasons.

Moreover, it seems that the argument begs the question of God's existence. The Christian can reformulate an argument:

7. If God happens to exist, then gratuitous evil don't exist.
8. God happens to exist.
9. Therefore, gratuitious evil does not exist.

So the question is; Which is one more entitled to believe: 5 or 8?

So, the problem of gratuitious evil is only a problem for that theist which has no or bad grounds for believing 8. But what about those theists which do have good grounds to believe 8?

Paul Draper has argued along the lines of probability when weighing the warrant for and against 5 and 8. He says that naturalism is explanatorily superior to theism due to evolution and the way in which evil is distributed. I do not have room to provide a refutation of naturalism and/or evolution, but can only say that such refutations have been put forth. Whether these refutations were successful can be decided on another thread.

The probability that Draper envisages only makes sense with something called background knowledge. He thinks that the probabilities, along with their given backgound knowledge, are equal; (p(n)=p(t)) But I dispute this due to my opinion that successful refutations have given in the literature. Also, he thinks that probability of the truth of the conjuntion of naturalism and evolution is superior to the conjunction of theism and evolution with regard to the way in which evil is distributed; (pr(p/e&n)>pr(p/e&t). I disagree because of various degrees of epistemic limitations which are necessary for sufficient justification. Also, within the context of the assumption that evolution is true, he thinks that the truth of evolution is more probable with respect to naturalism than it is with respect to theism; (p (e/n&b)>p (e/t&b)). But I believe the teleological argument gives credence to the virtual impossibility of biological evolution given naturalism alone. Again, I say this with the full awareness that people disagree, which is why I open up discussion to these specifics on other threads.

There also exists an undercutting defeater for 8. Since it would be the Christian God's obligation to maximize the amount of goodness in the world, what if the existence of gratuitous evil is a necessary condition of this maximization? God's middle knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom come into view here. This is not supported by metaphysical possibility (that is the not the point), but epistemic possibility. It is surely epistemically possible that the utilization of gratuitous evils is enacted so that the various counterfactuals can be true, so that a maximization of persons saved and/or persons which have knowledge of the Christian God.

The atheologian may object that these evils are not gratuituous after all, since they are being used in order to actualize a greater good. But alas! It is even more difficult for the atheologian, or any critic, to prove the existence of gratuitous evils! For who can understand God's inscrutable providential plan to investigate possible cases of evils which are gratuitous? I believe it to be epistemically impossible.

Therefore, the argument from gratuitous evil to the non-existence of God and/or the denial of a great-making attribute seems to be unsound.

Jack

The weakness in your argument is that it is wrong!!

God exists and evil (gratuitous or otherwise) exists also.

Sorry, but I haven't time for a longer reply!!

m

Dr. Retard · 05-01-2003, 05:23 AM

Malookiemaloo's thought-provoking criticism aside, I'd like to propose a new rule for the English language:

The Rule of 'Proffer': Anyone who (seriously) uses "proffer" instead of "offer" is trying too hard.

Thomas Metcalf · 05-01-2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Dr. Retard :

Quote:

For my part, I think free will responses to the argument from evil are about the worst responses available. It's just a miserable, miserable failure. At least skeptical theist responses are interesting.

Word. Although, the Plantingaesque free will move Shandon Guthrie made in the celebrated earlier article has some force -- but only, I think, because it's really more of a skeptical response in the end: "Maybe situation L is infeasible because of the truth of some counterfactuals of freedom. We just don't know." Sure, Guthrie, now show me that probably it is.

Thomas Metcalf · 05-01-2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna :

Quote:

Well the way I see it, you're right, there's no reason to believe that the current level is the right one.

It follows therefrom that we can have good reasons to think it's not the right level. One of them is that there's too much torture of children and infants. If there were less of it, the world would be better. To answer this claim, as I see it, the apologist must give reasons to think that the level of freedom of action now ought not be changed.

Quote:

In fact, that would be erroneous, because from the assumption "Yahweh exists" it is necessary that we are in fact at the right level of free will.

I hope this isn't the "arguments from evil are question-begging" move some apologists (the original poster, for example) have taken here. If we knew God existed, it would follow that we're at the right amount of free will, certainly. But that doesn't give us reasons to think we are at the right level of free will; in fact, it's precisely the reason that evidence that we aren't at the right level of free will is evidence against God in the first place.

Quote:

Theists defending the PoE aren't trying to say their God is likely- just saying that it's not logically impossible.

Some of them. But to answer the evidential argument from evil, just showing one's God not to be logically impossible isn't enough. We still have reason to think God probably doesn't exist, and if that's true, then positive atheism is justified.

Jamie_L · 05-01-2003, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
[B]I really don't understand this "any evil that happens is necessary => moral nihilism argument.

Well, I wasn't really responding to a "Free Will" defense specifically. I was responding to the OP suggestion that gratuitous evil doesn't exist. The OP made the claim that whatever level of evil exists is necessary. My moral nihilism arguement does flow rather well from that stance. If all evil is necessary, any evil you are able to commit is necessary.

However, its conceivable that the universe could be set up to allow the free choice of evil but not to allow the evil results of such a free choice. Further, as others mention, free choice of evil is already limited (I cannot snap my fingers and make 1000 infants feel intense pain). Once can't just argue that God wants free choice of evil. One needs to show that this level of free choice is what God wants. If this level of free choice is necessary, then any evil that results from it is necessary, and we start drifting back towards the path of "do what you want, God needs it that way."

Jamie

mattbballman · 05-01-2003, 12:47 PM

Where is hmmmm to defend his views?

If he doesn't come in, I'm gonna come in and take care of some business.

matt

Jamie_L · 05-01-2003, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mattbballman
Where is hmmmm to defend his views?

If he doesn't come in, I'm gonna come in and take care of some business.

Hey, don't be shy. You don't see us politely waiting for each other to defend ourselves. We just jump right in. Isn't that what the internet's all about?

Jamie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-30-2003, 08:21 PM	#12
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	Well the way I see it, you're right, there's no reason to believe that the current level is the right one. BUT, the PoE argument is all about disproving God. And there's already no reason to believe in Yahweh, so we don't need to say "there's no reason to believe in Yahweh, but if you do decide to, then there's no reason to believe we are at right level of free will." In fact, that would be erroneous, because from the assumption "Yahweh exists" it is necessary that we are in fact at the right level of free will. So if you're going to say there's no reason to, you have to go to the root reasonless point, Yahweh. Theists defending the PoE aren't trying to say their God is likely- just saying that it's not logically impossible. -B

05-01-2003, 05:13 AM	#13
Dr. Retard Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 735	For my part, I think free will responses to the argument from evil are about the worst responses available. It's just a miserable, miserable failure. At least skeptical theist responses are interesting.

05-01-2003, 05:23 AM	#15
Dr. Retard Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 735	Malookiemaloo's thought-provoking criticism aside, I'd like to propose a new rule for the English language: The Rule of 'Proffer': Anyone who (seriously) uses "proffer" instead of "offer" is trying too hard.

05-01-2003, 12:47 PM	#19
mattbballman Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: myrtle beach Posts: 105	Where is hmmmm to defend his views? If he doesn't come in, I'm gonna come in and take care of some business. matt

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.