hume
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by hume on Feb 18, 2007 19:34:31 GMT -8
4/22/06:
Problem of Evil or Problem of Adventure?
One could state the "problem of evil" this way: are we right to feel as if God could have done better, could have come up with a world in which we can exist and thrive, while suffering less? (If so, this implies that the Christian God did not create our universe, since the Christian God does not do imperfect work.)
Part of what underlies the belief that there *is* a "problem of evil" -- part of its force for us, beyond any rational argument for it -- is simply our perception that the world is not under our control. Nature seems indifferent to our needs, concerns, and pains. It casts us upon our own resources, at times threatens our lives. This is not always pleasant, to say the least. Similarly, other people can harm us if they choose to; they, too, are not under our control. In these terms, the problem of evil can be restated as the problem of helplessness: why would a good God create us, then place us in a world which is beyond our control, and therefore dangerous to us?
But could he have done otherwise? Given that God wished to create an immense, grand universe (nothing less would be appropriate to his powers), and wished to place us within that universe, it's hard to see how else it could have turned out. The universe is greater than us, and therefore beyond our control. What we cannot control is potentially dangerous to us. A universe controllable by little creatures such as ourselves would be a small, drab, mediocre place. No grandeur, no adventure.
Consider our phrase, "the real world," as in, "well, in the real world you can't get away with that," "that sort of thing doesn't fly in the real world." This expresses something important: the world as we find it is more substantial, more serious, than any alternative version we can invent. Unlike the idealized ones we sometimes think we'd prefer to it, this world truly, profoundly challenges us. Yes, it's dangerous. It also can, and routinely does, surprise us -- it's unpredictable, even baffling. Often it confounds our plans. In short, we didn't make it.
So logically, there are four alternatives available to the Creator; and of the four, ours seems the best choice:
1. A tiny universe in which very little is possible; a place that even we can control. It seems obvious this is unworthy of the efforts of a Creator God. Further, it may not be possible for US to exist in such a place: in order for us to have the capacities that we do, it seems that the universe needs to be quite a large place (cf. the anthropic principle in cosmology). (Even on a common sense level, if we are supposed to be able to move, run, fly airplanes, etc. then we obviously need a fairly large world with gravity & so on ... pretty quickly the universe becomes a complex and tricky place as you follow this out.)
2. A grand universe, but one in which we are incredibly powerful beings, virtually godlike, master of all our surroundings. This is unsatisfactory on at least 2 counts: first, it fails as a solution to the problem of evil, since however powerful we become, we can still harm each other; second, like the tiny universe scenario, it sounds like a boring place for us. No challenges, other than challenges posed by other people (which suggests that in this universe, evil would be more tempting to us, out of sheer boredom -- we'd have no interesting external projects on which to cooperate with others).
3. A universe exactly like ours, plenty dangerous in principle, but one in which the Creator continuously intervenes to rescue us from any and all harm. Kills the adventure, doesn't it? Go ahead, leap off that cliff, the angels will catch you! Kills the moral significance too: go ahead, pull the trigger, God will stop the bullet. (Maybe heaven is like this. But if it's correct that in heaven, the grandeur of our experience is God himself, then perhaps the creation sort of pales into relative insignificance there. God is our adventure, in other words.)
4. Our world: big, big place with lil' ol' us in it. Not at all safe. Exciting though. And pretty clearly the best option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2007 19:35:30 GMT -8
4/25/06:
An excellent 'flipping of the coin'. I remember getting just a glimpse of this way of thinking when I was a teenager questioning my faith-- that at the heart of everything-- at the back of all the questions posed by this universe was a singularity-- God's desire that true love and free choice exist.
Now, I think this line of reasoning works well when considering 'evil' in general. But I've noticed that often times it is much harder to understand why 'excessive' (otherwise called gratuitous) evil must exist (torture, abuse, etc..). Doesn't some evil seem to cross the boundary of redemption. I think here of the cries of Ivan Karamazov's abused little girl locked up in the shed. He railed that not even heaven could redeem such suffering.
Could adventure, free choice, and love exist without gratutious evil, I wonder? Perhaps yes, but only in a weakened sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 18, 2008 2:15:30 GMT -8
weehoo, there's a lot in here. I'm looking forward to replying!!
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 19, 2008 2:49:30 GMT -8
4/22/06: Problem of Evil or Problem of Adventure? One could state the "problem of evil" this way: are we right to feel as if God could have done better, could have come up with a world in which we can exist and thrive, while suffering less? (If so, this implies that the Christian God did not create our universe, since the Christian God does not do imperfect work.) Okay, since it was Hume who wrote this but Josh who addressed this to me, I’m gonna reply to both. I think I can logically show that “a world in which we can exist and thrive, while suffering less” could exist without doing harm to the concept of free will. If I follow Humes rationality, this would also prove the imperfection of God’s work which would prove that The Christian God didn’t create this world. Unfortunately I disagree with Hume’s rationality: the fact that this world could have been designed better doesn’t prove anything. Part of what underlies the belief that there *is* a "problem of evil" -- part of its force for us, beyond any rational argument for it -- is simply our perception that the world is not under our control. Nature seems indifferent to our needs, concerns, and pains. It casts us upon our own resources, at times threatens our lives. This is not always pleasant, to say the least. Similarly, other people can harm us if they choose to; they, too, are not under our control. In these terms, the problem of evil can be restated as the problem of helplessness: why would a good God create us, then place us in a world which is beyond our control, and therefore dangerous to us? I’m delighted by this paragraph. Hume hits the bull’s-eye – but he draws the wrong conclusion! It is exactly this helplessness, this lack of control which explains best why we BELIEVE IN GOD. The critic of religion Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) argued that God is the projection of human desires. God is everything that we would like to be but aren’t. Immortal, indefinitely, tremendously powerful, omniscient, omnipresent, and in CONTROL of everything! Let’s put those two pieces of the puzzle together: “This world is not under our control” as Hume puts it. We are mortal and not only threatened by nature but also by other humans. We are helpless. Really? Yes, but there is a straw we can clutch: Religion. Religion gives us total control. It teaches us the following (in a nutshell): No matter what happens to you during your lifetime, there is an afterlife and a higher justice. Follow our rules for a GUARANTEED happy ending! This is it! It’s clearer than water!! Religion gives us supposed control over our destiny. All we have to do is play by the rules and we will be saved forever; all injustices will come undone, all pain will go. God controls it all and God is good and he gives you clear instructions of how to master your helplessness and hence gain control of your destiny. PLEASE LET THIS SINK! This is so powerful in my opinion! It gives the most logical explanation for the existence AND success of religion: Control. But could he have done otherwise? Given that God wished to create an immense, grand universe (nothing less would be appropriate to his powers), and wished to place us within that universe, it's hard to see how else it could have turned out. The universe is greater than us, and therefore beyond our control. What we cannot control is potentially dangerous to us. A universe controllable by little creatures such as ourselves would be a small, drab, mediocre place. No grandeur, no adventure.  But we ARE controlling it!! Through God! There is no danger for us as long as we believe. A child could understand that! I don’t mean that sarcastically. The tables have to be turned! Where is the grandeur when you play it safe all the time? Where is the big risk when you put your life in God’s hands? I think Josh once emphasized this by telling me that it was me who was risking his ass in case I was wrong while he had nothing to lose!! Can you see what I mean? Consider our phrase, "the real world," as in, "well, in the real world you can't get away with that," "that sort of thing doesn't fly in the real world." This expresses something important: the world as we find it is more substantial, more serious, than any alternative version we can invent. Unlike the idealized ones we sometimes think we'd prefer to it, this world truly, profoundly challenges us. Yes, it's dangerous. It also can, and routinely does, surprise us -- it's unpredictable, even baffling. Often it confounds our plans. In short, we didn't make it. So what about heaven? If I got all this right, this dangerous life will last about 80 years (+/-). And then comes eternity in heaven if one is lucky (or simply made his homework). And heaven is the place where love reigns and where no injustice or suffering is allowed, right? According to your own rationality, this is a pretty boring concept. And it rises another interesting question: will we be free enough with our will to keep on hurting each other in heaven? So logically, there are four alternatives available to the Creator; and of the four, ours seems the best choice: 4. Our world: big, big place with lil' ol' us in it. Not at all safe. Exciting though. And pretty clearly the best option. I find it pretty hasty and crude to reduce the alternatives of a creator as powerful as God to just four! Even I with my limited capacities can think of more. Furthermore, the estimation that our World is the best possible option is merely a very subjective opinion. It reminds me of the song “no suprises” by Radiohead: “no alarms and no surprises, please”. There seem to be people who would prefer a little less trouble*. I for one think, this life would still be exciting and troubling enough** without genocide, torture and paedophilia.*** This thread does nothing to solve the problem of explaining or justifying the existence of suffering and evil. On the contrary, it only leads back to the question. And as a side effect, it involuntarily exposes powerful evidence against the wishful thinking of religion, as I pointed out. *Please note that I’m NOT saying that this is Radiohead’s opinion. The song is certainly open for interpretation. **Perhaps a little discourse here: I think experience shows how relative the word trouble is. Example: I virtually have everything a man can desire: A girl I love and who loves me, a loving family, loyal friends, health, youth, education, no financial worries, the benefits of a sophisticated society, etc. (there is no particular order in that list). Yet, right now I consider myself the most pitiable creature on this planet – because I have to write my university thesis! If that isn’t ridiculous! I wouldn’t dare to tell this to one of those people in Africa who are waking up with the question of where to get some food from today. Or to the guy in the wheelchair who is paralysed from the neck downward due to a car accident. But I’m sure you all can relate to me. Josh is worried about his Job right now, for instance. Many people in our societies get depressions (a serious disorder of the psyche, causing a lot of harm). This is often caused by worries, even though most people suffering from depression have it much better than for instance starving people or people in war zones. The bottom line of what I’m saying is that our worries are relative. If you reduced the amount of possible cruelties, life would most probably still be troubling enough. Hence you don’t really take away the adventure of life if you imagine a world with less brutality. *** Don’t start with free will again, Josh. You yourself said that you believed God deliberately limited our abilities to commit evil. So it’s only fair to say that he could have limited those abilities a little more. Wait a second! I’ve got an idea!! |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 19, 2008 9:51:55 GMT -8
You'll note that your bottom line is the same point I made above in reply:
However, the difference between us is ultimately whether we choose to trust God with the stuff that we cannot fathom. Again, it goes back to the question of whether we are even physically able to satisfactorily understand the hardest questions about suffering.
Lastly, it's interesting what you said above. Last night in prayer God took a pretty hard line with me over my attitude for pretty much the same reasons you outlined above. We are so apt to focus on what we don't have yet miss all the things we should be thankful for.
That's not to say that a person shouldn't be honest with what is bothering them, or that suffering isn't relative, but still, perspective is one of the best things we can have in any kind of suffering.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 19, 2008 14:31:22 GMT -8
Is that it? Is that all you've got to say about what I've written?  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 21, 2008 20:59:48 GMT -8
Calm down, mo. I just wanted to comment on that part for the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 22, 2008 11:35:28 GMT -8
Calm down, mo. I just wanted to comment on that part for the moment. And I just wanted to let you know that I expect more ;D I'm perfectly calm.  |
|
|
|
Post by hume on Aug 24, 2008 19:26:36 GMT -8
Terrific reply Mo, I'll attempt to do it some justice.
"The bottom line of what I’m saying is that our worries are relative. If you reduced the amount of possible cruelties, life would most probably still be troubling enough. Hence you don’t really take away the adventure of life if you imagine a world with less brutality."
Hmm ... the last sentence above is pretty much the crux of this debate (and at this point we're just stating opposite conclusions about the same set of facts -- not sure how to get past that ... it's probably typical of where this discussion has been sitting for centuries).
My argument in the original post was that ensuring "a world with less brutality" means reducing choice, potential, power -- and that we should seriously consider what it means to lose those things.
Like training wheels on a bicycle, or a muzzle on a dog, or a cage enclosing a lion -- we're talking about a more tame world, and the question is whether a tamer, safer world would be a better place overall. I'm not questioning whether it would be SAFER, certainly it would, and we would all benefit from the absence of many awful possibilities. I'm simply asking the follow-up question: what we would we be giving up?
Perhaps it's a matter of temperament. Some folks prefer to avoid risks, some tend to disregard risk if they see enticing goals that might be reached by making the leap. (Truthfully, as a matter of personality I'm in the former camp, but I flatter myself that I have enough imagination to argue for the latter viewpoint.)
I must congratulate you, Mo, on your taste in referencing the finest pop-rock band of (at least) the past decade: "that our World is the best possible option is merely a very subjective opinion. It reminds me of the song 'no suprises' by Radiohead: 'no alarms and no surprises, please.' There seem to be people who would prefer a little less trouble." Your footnote: "I’m NOT saying that this is Radiohead’s opinion. The song is certainly open for interpretation." Indeed it is.
In fact, I'm delighted that you mention this fine anarchist ballad, as I think York is solidly on "my" side in this argument. Start with the final chorus -- the background lyric refrain is, "let me out of here":
"No alarms and no surprises (let me out of here)
No alarms and no surprises (let me out of here)
No alarms and no surprises please (let me out of here)"
With that in mind, let's return to the earlier verses. To ironically soft, nursery-like music, York intones:
"A heart that's full up like a landfill
A job that slowly kills you ...
You look so tired and unhappy
Bring down the government
They don't, they don't speak for us
I'll take a quiet life
A handshake of carbon monoxide
No alarms and no surprises."
Note the sarcasm dripping from the last three lines above. The song is a sort of conversation between two characters ("you" and "I"), or (more likely) two aspects of the same person, one a pathetic drone who is "tired and unhappy" but whose ideal is a "quiet life" with "no surprises." The other character, observing the drone's misery, cries "let out of here" -- he knows that this so-called "quiet life" is nothing more than suicide ("a handshake of carbon monoxide").
Remember, on the same album appears the song "Fitter Happier," describing an unfortunate soul who imagines himself in control of his safe little world:
"a patient better driver
a safer car ...
sleeping well (no bad dreams) ...
fond but not in love ...
no longer afraid of the dark ...
slower and more calculated
no chance of escape
now self-employed
concerned (but powerless)
an empowered and informed member of society ...
less chance of illness
tires that grip in the wet ...
fitter, healthier and more productive
a pig
in a cage
on antibiotics"
|
|
|
|
Post by hume on Aug 24, 2008 19:39:16 GMT -8
"I find it pretty hasty and crude to reduce the alternatives of a creator as powerful as God to just four! Even I with my limited capacities can think of more."
My argument was logically based (or mathematically, if you like): given two possible descriptions of two distinct states -- A or not-A and B or not-B -- there are 4 possible combinations of those two states: A & B, A & not B, not A & B, not A & not B. In this case:
A) humans ARE in full control over events
~A) humans ARE NOT in full control over events
The post is asking about God's options as creator, so we have to factor in his role, and (keeping it simple) I offered two options (call those B):
B) God intervenes if things look bad (or if you like, God strongly prefers to intervene)
~B) God stays out of it (again, if you like, God's general policy is to let us make our own messes and deal with the outcomes)
Ok. So, the combinations are AB, A~B, ~AB, ~A~B.
Not, I admit, a subtle model, but consistent if you accept that those simple options are the ones under discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 26, 2008 7:26:26 GMT -8
Thank you for the kind reply, Hume. My argument in the original post was that ensuring "a world with less brutality" means reducing choice, potential, power -- and that we should seriously consider what it means to lose those things. I think I already understood that. That’s why I quoted Radiohead. The point I was making is that “grandeur” and “adventure” are in the eye of the beholder. There are people who prefer “no alarms and no surprises”. The cost-benefit calculation of such people would probably point at “less choice, more safety”. By the way, it absolutely doesn’t matter on what side Radiohead is standing in this issue. It wasn’t my intention to use their opinion for my case. Just their observation. That’s why I actually added the footnote. I just wanted to emphasize the subjectivity of this issue. For the record: I interpret the song the same way you do. I for my part see no grandeur and no adventure in the safeguard that is religion. I'm simply asking the follow-up question: what we would we be giving up? We would give up all the experiences and the gained wisdom connected with suffering and I would say that is a bad thing. However, as I already pointed out, I could use a little less excessive violence. And if we assume that God is omnipotent (I don’t know where you stand on this) I would expect that he could have us learn the lesson anyway. To go back to your model: I would expect him to create zillions of alternatives between A and B. Poetically speaking I would say, that for God there’s an entire alphabet between A and B. No, I don’t think that you adequately covered all the possible options. The question of why all this suffering has to exist remains unsatisfactorily answered from the religious perspective*. To merely say God has his plan and we can’t know the plan is nothing I can accept. It is exactly what Dawkins means when he says religion teaches people to be satisfied with not knowing. *I think there is a coherent answer from the naturalistic perspective. Josh asked me somewhere else about it and I’ll elaborate it there. |
|
|
|
Post by hume on Aug 26, 2008 10:03:07 GMT -8
"We would give up all the experiences and the gained wisdom connected with suffering and I would say that is a bad thing."Agreed; however, my hope in the original post was to get past the typical analysis of the problem of evil as a calculation weighing misery against wisdom -- the old debate whether it's better to suffer and learn, or remain naive and happy. Really, it's a loaded question, because I suspect most of us would choose the latter, at least when faced with truly horrendous evils. But it may be a false choice. Consider the physics of a hypothetical universe which has been "fixed" so we can't be hurt, can't do bad things to each other, etc. The human body being what it is -- acted upon or governed by momentum, inertia, gravity, tensile strength of tissues, and so on -- what sort of radical changes would be required in order to guarantee (or greatly increase) safety, comfort, pleasantness? Perhaps the capacity for motion itself is unavoidably dangerous. If stuff can move, stuff can bump into other stuff, and everything else -- good or bad -- builds from that simple interaction. Perhaps we'd have to simplify physics to such an extent that material sentient life would not be possible. In that case, instead of a choice between suffering and happiness, we're talking about a choice between existence and non-existence. And a God who intended to create material life would be forced to allow the potential for suffering. (Starting to sound rather Buddhist ...) Now, that does leave open another hypothetical world, one physically like ours but in which God constantly intervenes to protect his creatures from harm. While that's the rather bizarre notion that gets the most attention from guys like Dawkins, frankly it doesn't interest me much. I addressed it briefly as "option 3" above. "And if we assume that God is omnipotent ... To go back to your model: I would expect him to create zillions of alternatives between A and B. Poetically speaking I would say, that for God there’s an entire alphabet between A and B."Josh would probably like to respond to this. I'll just mention that "all-powerful" is not the same as "able to do what cannot be done." Most theists hold that God cannot create square circles, or otherwise violate basic logic. "To merely say God has his plan and we can’t know the plan is nothing I can accept."Fair enough, but my argument (for whatever it's worth) doesn't have much to do with God's plans. I'm suggesting that perhaps God had no choice in the matter (to create "life as we know it" is to allow the potential for suffering). Or at least, if God had any choice, it amounted to something more fundamental than "should people be wise or should they be happy?" -- something closer to, "should living things possess meaningful powers, or not?" "By the way, it absolutely doesn’t matter on what side Radiohead is standing in this issue. It wasn’t my intention to use their opinion for my case."Yep. For that matter, it doesn't much matter what side I'm on either (I have no credentials or official standing here). RadioHead just said it better than I could
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 26, 2008 13:13:37 GMT -8
Consider the physics of a hypothetical universe which has been "fixed" so we can't be hurt, can't do bad things to each other, etc. The human body being what it is -- acted upon or governed by momentum, inertia, gravity, tensile strength of tissues, and so on -- what sort of radical changes would be required in order to guarantee (or greatly increase) safety, comfort, pleasantness? Perhaps the capacity for motion itself is unavoidably dangerous. If stuff can move, stuff can bump into other stuff, and everything else -- good or bad -- builds from that simple interaction. Perhaps we'd have to simplify physics to such an extent that material sentient life would not be possible. Why so drastic? I think it's okay that we are vulnerable, mortal etc. I just don't understand why God would necessarily need the option for humans to rape children, slash each other and torture each other. I'm not a physician. But I don't think fundamental laws of the universe would have to be violated to change that. If God was able to arrange that cows don't slaughter each other, why wouldn't he be able to hold the sexual drive of a pedophile down? Especially since it seems obvious to me that most often pedophile offenders don't really have much of a choice. I'll just mention that "all-powerful" is not the same as "able to do what cannot be done." Most theists hold that God cannot create square circles, or otherwise violate basic logic. Either way, an all powerful God has more than just four alternatives. I'm not sure if we are talking past each other so I'll try an example. Let's say God reduced the sexual drive of pedophiles to a level where they could easily control it. Let's say to the level where they don't even think of a sexual act with children. What would we have lost? And to which point of your model would this scenario fit? The way you put the alternatives, it would fit into non. Yet, I would say it's an option. By the way: quantum physics permanently violate basic logic. Or at least, if God had any choice, it amounted to something more fundamental than "should people be wise or should they be happy?" -- something closer to, "should living things possess meaningful powers, or not?" If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe with life in it, I think it is safe to say that he never had no choice. And meaningful? That's another really blurry term. What is meaningful to some is meaningless to others. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2008 15:47:06 GMT -8
Mo, I haven't read all that you guys have posted here today (I'm really looking forward to it), but this quote stood out to me.
I've been thinking now for a couple weeks about how we've spent so much time discussion apologetics but very little time disscussing what I see as the "grandeur and adventure" of the Christian faith.
Don't get me wrong- I love discussing apologetics, but apologetics is like scaffolding for artists working on a beautiful painting or like the blueprints for Notre Dame.
Too much talk about apologetics and so little talk about the heartbeat of Christianity is like talking about the intricacies of the space shuttle but never taking it for a flight, or even talking about what a flight is like.
Are you open to some of that kind of conversation, though it might be subjective to you?
Part of me feels like one difference between our upbringings in the Church might have a lot to do whether or not we found any lasting inspiration in expressions and experiences of faith in that upbringing.
Anyway, sorry to but in but I suppose this is somewhat on task.
I hope to throw in some thoughts to the broader discussion too!
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 27, 2008 1:15:53 GMT -8
Hume, did you read "Clockwerk Orange" by Anthony Burgess? I finished it just yesterday. It deals exactly with this topic. A good read provided you're not too sensitive. Since I finished it just a couple of hours ago, I didn't have much time to let it sink. But I would say the author stresses that if we lose the choice to do violence, even excessive brutality, we cease to be humans and turn into clockwerks.
Josh,
I'm always open for anything you'd like to tell me. But I have two reservations here.
1. A lot of my points and questions remain unanswered. They got lost among the flood of writing we did. That's my own fault big time because I put too much stuff into the single posts. Maybe I should have made my points step by step but that would have meant that we would have proceeded very slowly and I don't seem to have the patience for this. However, so many unanswered questions and topics.... I find it a bit unfair to proceed to the next one.
2. Keep in mind that from what we've discussed so far, I see no serious evidence for Christianity even being true, all the other way around. So, to use your analogy, it's like you're asking me to ride an imaginary spaceshuttle.
That being said: I'm curious to know all about the supposed grandeur of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 28, 2008 18:54:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 27, 2009 17:34:43 GMT -8
I was reading in Thomas Talbott's Inescapable Love of God and this section reminded me of this thread and the question of whether or not we even could imagine another world in which there was free will and less or no suffering.
Talbott starts off with the skeptic's counter-claim:
--John Beversluis
I'll be right back with his response.
|
|
But we ARE controlling it!! Through God! There is no danger for us as long as we believe. A child could understand that! I don’t mean that sarcastically. The tables have to be turned! Where is the grandeur when you play it safe all the time? Where is the big risk when you put your life in God’s hands? I think Josh once emphasized this by telling me that it was me who was risking his ass in case I was wrong while he had nothing to lose!! Can you see what I mean?
