pretentious philosophy discussion

[silverwhisper]

EJfan's philosophy 101 thread got me thinking that there's a number of well-read folks here and i haven't discussed honest to goodness philosophy in forever. so i'm curious to know if anybody would be interested in that kind of discussion here? and if you are, have you ever found an aswer to the problem of evil that works for you?

ed

 

[Guest]

 

[silverwhisper]

having read some philosophers, i can answer w/ a resounding no! :>

ed

 

[Guest]

 

[silverwhisper]

well, what do you say to the problem of evil? the wikipedia article i linked gives a good description of it, in brief.

ed

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I'm not exactly sure what you're after with this thread, but I skimmed your link and I don't see a problem. There is evil, therefore an omnipotent, benevolent god does not exist. To provide a counterpoint for this discussion, we need someone who supports the idea that god exists.

I define evil as anything that knowingly causes pain and/or suffering. I don't think natural disasters count because there is no intelligence behind them. Basically: Shit Happens. If this causes pain and suffering (and usually does) it still shouldn't count as evil because to me, evil is something malicious done with intent to do harm. If one wants to argue that natural disasters are evil, then it just adds more support to my opinion that god doesn't exist as an omnipotent, caring being, because such a god would not allow anything bad to happen at all.

 

[Guest]

 

[silverwhisper]

scalywag: c'mon, it isn't that long! don't turn this into another size thread! and if one had a mind, as i mention below, one could argue as devil's advocate. so to speak. :>

typo fu master: i'm curious to know if anybody's come up w/ an answer to the problem of evil. i agree one would normally need a theist to answer that question but i imagine a few folks here are capable of arguing it on a devil's advocate basis.

just curious. :>

ed

 

[bobsgirl]

EJfan's philosophy 101 thread got me thinking that there's a number of well-read folks here and i haven't discussed honest to goodness philosophy in forever. so i'm curious to know if anybody would be interested in that kind of discussion here? and if you are, have you ever found an aswer to the problem of evil that works for you?

ed

Good Lord, ed, this is a riddle wrapped in an enigma covered with a conundrum. I'll have to get back to you.

Here's a thought: If you believe in the existence of evil, do you then have to believe in the existence of the devil?

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Most, if not everything I read in that article supports the idea that god doesn't exist. Even the response to the argument doesn't hold much water.

A unique response to the problem of evil comes from the early Christian sect called Gnosticism. Gnostics claim that that the "God" of the Jewish Bible or Old Testament who created the world, is not God, but an inept, though highly powerful, being that they call the Demiurge. They view him as a malicious being who made the world of matter and flesh as a prison to hide humanity's true spiritual nature. Hence, part of their answer to the problem of evil is that the true God, whom they sometimes call "the True Father," did not in fact make this world of suffering, evil and pain. However they do not provide an explanation for why the true God would allow another being to create them.

 

[EJFan]

i first want to admit that i SCANNED the wikepedia thing rather than reading it thoroughly.

my insight is this:
i agree with machiavelli (which i metioned in another thread) that there is no such thing as good and evil. there is only action and consequence.

there's absolutely no way i can even begin to explain my theory on God or gods. i respect each individual's right to believe as they wish and i respect all regligions (and enjoy learning about them).

in any event... evil? doesn't exist.

 

[Guest]

 

[silverwhisper]

typo fu master: the problem of evil's one that's tortured christian theologians for centuries. the only responses i've ever seen that make any sense to me have essentially argued that "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few or of the one". it's a kind of algebra of life, as it were.

if you look at the story of job, the evil wrought upon job in an effort to test him could be construed as evil. OTOH, many christians i know point to his story as one that provides great comfort to them when things are going less than well. so while it was bad, if it helps so many people through the ages, you could argue that it was of some benefit.

but you see what i mean about an algebra of life, though? the problem of evil, AFAICT, is predicated upon the validity of it.

bobsgirl: for the purposes of the question, i think that one has to believe that there is another power that opposes god, if not necessarily the devil/lucifer/what have you.

scalywag: feh, i have faith in you.

ed

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I'm not the best candidate to play devil's advocate, but if it were me ...

I would have to argue that there is a god, but he/she/it is either notomnipotent or notbenevolent. Or both. Scary thought.

That's the best I can do. All the evidence I've seen, both in the article and what I've experienced in life leads me to think god doesn't exist.

[quote="bobsgirl]Here's a thought: If you believe in the existence of evil, do you then have to believe in the existence of the devil?[/quote]

Not necessarily. If there's a source of evil, I'd say intelligence is at least part of the problem.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

i first want to admit that i SCANNED the wikepedia thing rather than reading it thoroughly.

my insight is this:
i agree with machiavelli (which i metioned in another thread) that there is no such thing as good and evil. there is only action and consequence.

there's absolutely no way i can even begin to explain my theory on God or gods. i respect each individual's right to believe as they wish and i respect all regligions (and enjoy learning about them).

in any event... evil? doesn't exist.

I have difficulty with this mindset. If a serial killer kidnaps, rapes and tortures someone, and does so fully aware of what he is doing, how is this not evil?

What you're suggesting (to me) is that evil is just something man has invented to classify certain types of behavior.

 

[Guest]

 

[EJFan]

I have difficulty with this mindset. If a serial killer kidnaps, rapes and tortures someone, and does so fully aware of what he is doing, how is this not evil?

What you're suggesting (to me) is that evil is just something man has invented to classify certain types of behavior.

the way i opt to look at it is this:

certainly there is a very superficial way to look at an event like you describe (or others similar to it as have been suggested to me over the years) and they can be considered evil. imagine this, however... suppose a mother has a young, innocent daughter murdered and commits this act against the murderer. is that still evil? is it the same degree of evil?

i believe that an act, in an of itself, cannot be considered evil unless and until the circumstance in which it was committed is considered. this is all hypothetical, of course, but the point is that there's an act (the murder) and a consequence (the mother kidnapping, raping and torturing the murderer).

in other words... rape might be considered evil... but what if it's a prisoner raping a rapist in prison? if you grant one type of rape more gravity than another, it's hard to categorize the ACT ITSELF as evil. it is, however, a consequence.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I would have to say that the mother getting revenge (that's what it appears to me that she's doing) would also be committing an evil act. She is knowingly causing pain and suffering (in this case, even death) on someone else. Doesn't matter why she's doing it. Same thing for the prison rapist.

There may be difficulties in classifying one type of evil from another, but that isn't my point. I'm just trying to say that there is evil, not just action and consequence.

 

[silverwhisper]

EJ, the perspective you propose makes the morality of everything subject to its circumstances. i firmly believe that this is not true. i believe that some things are intrinsically evil. something good may also accrue as a result of evil, but i cannot accept the notion that rape, for example, is ever anything but evil.

ed

 

[midwestyankee]

Seems to me that this is not unlike the problem of reconciling free will with an omniscient god: if God knows the future of my life, then can it be said that I truly have free will?

 

[EJFan]

EJ, the perspective you propose makes the morality of everything subject to its circumstances. i firmly believe that this is not true. i believe that some things are intrinsically evil. something good may also accrue as a result of evil, but i cannot accept the notion that rape, for example, is ever anything but evil.

ed

i understand that, and in the real world i totally agree. i'm thinking from a philosophical standpoint for analysis purposes here.

allow me a bit of latitude (ok... a LOT of latitude) here. suppose a woman is raped and gets pregnant. she decides to keep the baby and gives birth. when the baby grows up he/she contributes on some INCREDIBLE scale to society... discovers an AIDS vaccine or something like that.

granted, that scenario doesn't necessarily clear the "evil" out of the rape but it tempers it by virtue of the result. if you want to look at rape as the act itself, what about people who role-play rape scenes? it's a sexual fantasy they're living out... granted it's "scripted" but it's still rape on some level, otherwise the fantasy wouldn't be realized.

 

[silverwhisper]

yankee: exactly: the problem of free will is necessarily a facet of the problem of evil, b/c humans can always choose to do ill.

EJ: that's why i provided that little caveat re: some good can accrue from evil. it's sort of a "silver lining" clause, as it were. :>

ed

 

[EJFan]

Seems to me that this is not unlike the problem of reconciling free will with an omniscient god: if God knows the future of my life, then can it be said that I truly have free will?

this is a bit like the premise of "thus spake zarathustra" which, to me, essentially suggests in part that man cannot reach its full potential until he accepts that there is no higher being. not to nullify the belief in a higher being, but to DISbelieve it CAN lead to man accepting more responsibility and becoming more accomplished (closer to perfect?).