God & The Problem of Evil

Mr_J · December 1, 2017, 11:00pm

No, I am not talking about egalitarianism. I agree that isn’t workable either.

I am talking about lessening social inequality in the best possible way (best possible world) where at this point isn’t happening because it isn’t profitable for those in power to do so. On the flip side if social inequality is carried out in the extreme society steadily becomes unable to exist or function at all. That’s where we’re at currently.

Prismatic567 · December 2, 2017, 1:51am

I agree ‘consensus’ alone cannot be the sole determinant of objectivity, I have made this point in detail elsewhere.
I have argued objectivity is fundamentally intersubjective consensus.
Objectivity comes in degrees, the higher degrees [scientific knowledge] must be based on a framework and system that provide justifications based on verification, testability, repeatability, falsification.
I will call this the “Objectification Process”.

Note my justification above on what is ‘objective’ and its degree of objectivity.

Anything can be presented as ‘objective’ as long as it fulfill the requirements [see above] to be objective subject to degrees of objectivity.
The results of Miss Universe 2017 is objective even it is based on a rating of ‘beauty’ because it fulfil the requirements of what it takes to be objective. In this case, the degree of objectivity is low because it is relative to a specific condition and not likely to be repeatable.

I have listed examples of evil acts, e.g. genocide, murder, rapes, theft, serial killing, torture, etc. All these acts can be objectively demonstrated based on the related empirical evidences.

There are no Absolute moral laws, i.e. absolute morality like those claimed to be handed down from a God [illusory and impossible].
However morality and moral laws can be made ‘objective’ through the ‘Objectification Process’ as above which must be grounded with relevant justifications.

Prismatic567 · December 2, 2017, 2:12am

I have always declared the following;
ALL evils must be recognized and addressed to seek its resolution and elimination.

I have NEVER agreed ‘cluster bombing’ and the likes are ‘good’.
War per se is evil regardless of what claims of ‘good’ therefrom.

Given the current circumstances, war [fundamentally evil] is tolerated but the potential trend of morality will prevail to reduce and eliminate war in time. This is why I made the provision ‘evil is ‘net-negative’ acts.’
Therefore humanity must prevent and get rid of all forms of war. It is a matter of highlighting the inherent progressive trend of morality within and expediting the activation of the moral drive in the majority of humans.

The concept of evil [empirical] must be ultimately grounded objectively otherwise it will be too subjective. This is a long story, but empirical evil like genocides, murder, rapes can be easily objectified as ‘evil’ which warrant preventive and correction actions.

Prismatic567 · December 2, 2017, 2:39am

Zero_Sum:

Whenever we speak of morality or ethics we cannot escape from talking about their inconsistencies and scapegoating. Both systems are elaborate organized forms of thinking in terms of social interaction or living that revolves around both. It’s all about organized plausible deniability and irresponsibility. Notice if you decreased social inequality a lot of human malice for the most part would lessen everywhere but because society thrives on social inequality is why human malice persists from generation to generation. Moreover as social inequality increases and expands over every generation it is inevitable that human malice will increase with it.

More interesting than that is how morality and ethics are used to justify the most horrendous or corrupt forms of human practices. This is why I cannot take any moral or ethical system with any kind of seriousness. Nobody tries to go into any serious introspection or analyzing of why various forms of human malice exists because it is too uncomfortable to speak of and more importantly challenges the social status quo of which all authoritarians silence discussion on. No, it’s more easier to call individuals evil and sweep them under the rug where it is business as usual under the status quo which is why human malice continues unabated because nobody tries to seek any deeper understanding of the issue that plagues human society across the planet. In the end all of this is about power and control by complicity in maintaining it.

Your philosophical views above are too shallow and narrow.

At present there an no efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics because the inherent potential for morality within the human psyche is still in its infancy. [researched] But there is no doubt there are SOME humans who are trying and struggling to propose more efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Another point is the average Moral Intelligence [MI] is very low within humanity at present, thus there should be a global project to increase the average MI. I believe this is possible in the future in activating greater activities within the inherent faculty of moral intelligence within the human brain. I am optimistic given the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge in new and advance fields of knowledge and technology, e.g. genetics, neurosciences, etc.

I [& many] have done this and trace them via the evolutionary psychology grounds.

In addition, there are a few existing and proposed models of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that can be improved upon to enable greater activation of the inherent morality potential within and greater efficiency to produce expected results.
The theological model for morality has a fundamental framework but the problems are its immutability and the doctrines [e.g. Abrahamic] are corrupted with tons evil elements [e.g. Islam]. Getting rid of these problems and hindrances will reveal a reasonable framework to improve upon.

The non-theistic Eastern religions has a reasonably efficient model of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which can be further polished with more rigor.
From the field of specialized philosophy, Kant proposed a very efficient model of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [not the misinterpreted deontic system] with sound justifications and grounds.

There are other models re consequentialism, utilitarianism, various deontic systems, and most of them are too loose to be efficient.

Point is you give up easily with reference to this topic and do not venture more deeply plus condemning the views of others from a very narrow and shallow base [re this issue].

Mr_J · December 2, 2017, 2:56am

Prismatic567:

I have always declared the following;
ALL evils must be recognized and addressed to seek its resolution and elimination.

I have NEVER agreed ‘cluster bombing’ and the likes are ‘good’.
War per se is evil regardless of what claims of ‘good’ therefrom.

Given the current circumstances, war [fundamentally evil] is tolerated but the potential trend of morality will prevail to reduce and eliminate war in time. This is why I made the provision ‘evil is ‘net-negative’ acts.’
Therefore humanity must prevent and get rid of all forms of war. It is a matter of highlighting the inherent progressive trend of morality within and expediting the activation of the moral drive in the majority of humans.

The concept of evil [empirical] must be ultimately grounded objectively otherwise it will be too subjective. This is a long story, but empirical evil like genocides, murder, rapes can be easily objectified as ‘evil’ which warrant preventive and correction actions.

This evil as you call it is the result of all the social inequality of the world throughout the ages that gets worse and worse as each generation passes. This same kind of social inequality that society thrives on and can’t seem to exist without not to mention also that everybody that lives in society partake in benefiting from. Therein lies the rub and inconsistencies of this morality or ethics you speak of which is why I don’t share your views. Nobody wants to have a serious analysis of human malice because it brings up too many inconvenient conversations of society and indeed the world that most ignorantly take advantage of as a mere given. Then there is your God which is just another inconsistency.

I have problems with objectivity or the assertion we can discover hidden caveats of objective knowledge. For me all knowledge is subjective or self inferred where some arrogantly conclude that they have all the answers next calling them objective. It seems there is a sort of narcissism historically of philosophy or even science also that people declare themselves having all the answers(the right answers) by then inferring them objective for everybody else.

In the beginning of humanity’s infancy we were blind, deaf, and mute with no sign of anything being objective but we’re lead to believe that over the course of thousands of years learned men have discovered various things to give us all a wide objective picture of reality, the world, and the universe. Has humanity historically discovered objectivity or was it created out of thin air through imagination? I’ll go with the later.

Mr_J · December 2, 2017, 3:03am

Prismatic567:

Zero_Sum:

Whenever we speak of morality or ethics we cannot escape from talking about their inconsistencies and scapegoating. Both systems are elaborate organized forms of thinking in terms of social interaction or living that revolves around both. It’s all about organized plausible deniability and irresponsibility. Notice if you decreased social inequality a lot of human malice for the most part would lessen everywhere but because society thrives on social inequality is why human malice persists from generation to generation. Moreover as social inequality increases and expands over every generation it is inevitable that human malice will increase with it.

More interesting than that is how morality and ethics are used to justify the most horrendous or corrupt forms of human practices. This is why I cannot take any moral or ethical system with any kind of seriousness. Nobody tries to go into any serious introspection or analyzing of why various forms of human malice exists because it is too uncomfortable to speak of and more importantly challenges the social status quo of which all authoritarians silence discussion on. No, it’s more easier to call individuals evil and sweep them under the rug where it is business as usual under the status quo which is why human malice continues unabated because nobody tries to seek any deeper understanding of the issue that plagues human society across the planet. In the end all of this is about power and control by complicity in maintaining it.

Your philosophical views above are too shallow and narrow.

At present there an no efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics because the inherent potential for morality within the human psyche is still in its infancy. [researched] But there is no doubt there are SOME humans who are trying and struggling to propose more efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Another point is the average Moral Intelligence [MI] is very low within humanity at present, thus there should be a global project to increase the average MI. I believe this is possible in the future in activating greater activities within the inherent faculty of moral intelligence within the human brain. I am optimistic given the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge in new and advance fields of knowledge and technology, e.g. genetics, neurosciences, etc.

why human malice continues unabated because nobody tries to seek any deeper understanding of the issue that plagues human society across the planet.

I [& many] have done this and trace them via the evolutionary psychology grounds.

In addition, there are a few existing and proposed models of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that can be improved upon to enable greater activation of the inherent morality potential within and greater efficiency to produce expected results.
The theological model for morality has a fundamental framework but the problems are its immutability and the doctrines [e.g. Abrahamic] are corrupted with tons evil elements [e.g. Islam]. Getting rid of these problems and hindrances will reveal a reasonable framework to improve upon.

The non-theistic Eastern religions has a reasonably efficient model of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which can be further polished with more rigor.
From the field of specialized philosophy, Kant proposed a very efficient model of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [not the misinterpreted deontic system] with sound justifications and grounds.

There are other models re consequentialism, utilitarianism, various deontic systems, and most of them are too loose to be efficient.

Point is you give up easily with reference to this topic and do not venture more deeply plus condemning the views of others from a very narrow and shallow base [re this issue].

Morality and ethics is an elaborate camouflage of appearance that supposedly concerns itself with the greater good in appearance but in all reality is all about maintaining the flow of power or control. You cannot for instance control a great number of individuals or huge swathes of people without either. The very social act of controlling others from power is impossible without a fictitious facade of morality and ethics. It is no small wonder why tyrants make good use of morality and ethics often enough calling themselves moral theoreticians, holy men, or persons of virtue. It’s all rather great cloak and dagger of mental disguises.

Shallow and narrow? I very much disagree of course but you already know that.

Prismatic567 · December 2, 2017, 3:31am

You got it wrong based on a shallow and narrow perspective of philosophy.

Morality and Ethics is one of the main core subject of Philosophy.
Where did you get the idea,
“Morality and ethics is an elaborate camouflage of appearance that supposedly concerns itself with the greater good in appearance but in all reality is all about maintaining the flow of power or control.”

What you are referring to is an abuse, which could be anything, e.g. Science, religion, etc.
The fact is to maintain power or control, humans abuse and exploit all sort of things, e.g. sex, money, etc.

In this case, there is an abuse of the concepts of Morality and Ethics for power and control, as it is exploited within religion.

Mr_J · December 2, 2017, 3:36am

Prismatic567:

Zero_Sum:

Morality and ethics is an elaborate camouflage of appearance that supposedly concerns itself with the greater good in appearance but in all reality is all about maintaining the flow of power or control. You cannot for instance control a great number of individuals or huge swathes of people without either. The very social act of controlling others from power is impossible without a fictitious facade of morality and ethics. It is no small wonder why tyrants make good use of morality and ethics often enough calling themselves moral theoreticians, holy men, or persons of virtue. It’s all rather great cloak and dagger of mental disguises.

Shallow and narrow? I very much disagree of course but you already know that.

You got it wrong based on a shallow and narrow perspective of philosophy.

Morality and Ethics is one of the main core subject of Philosophy.
Where did you get the idea,
“Morality and ethics is an elaborate camouflage of appearance that supposedly concerns itself with the greater good in appearance but in all reality is all about maintaining the flow of power or control.”

What you are referring to is an abuse, which could be anything, e.g. Science, religion, etc.
The fact is to maintain power or control, humans abuse and exploit all sort of things, e.g. sex, money, etc.

In this case, there is an abuse of the concepts of Morality and Ethics for power and control, as it is exploited within religion.

I am saying all forms of morality and ethics are abused where they’re solely used for abusing.

Going with game theory the best kind of games are the ones already rigged.

Prismatic567 · December 2, 2017, 4:04am

Zero_Sum:

Prismatic567:

Zero_Sum:

Morality and ethics is an elaborate camouflage of appearance that supposedly concerns itself with the greater good in appearance but in all reality is all about maintaining the flow of power or control. You cannot for instance control a great number of individuals or huge swathes of people without either. The very social act of controlling others from power is impossible without a fictitious facade of morality and ethics. It is no small wonder why tyrants make good use of morality and ethics often enough calling themselves moral theoreticians, holy men, or persons of virtue. It’s all rather great cloak and dagger of mental disguises.

Shallow and narrow? I very much disagree of course but you already know that.

You got it wrong based on a shallow and narrow perspective of philosophy.

Morality and Ethics is one of the main core subject of Philosophy.
Where did you get the idea,
“Morality and ethics is an elaborate camouflage of appearance that supposedly concerns itself with the greater good in appearance but in all reality is all about maintaining the flow of power or control.”

What you are referring to is an abuse, which could be anything, e.g. Science, religion, etc.
The fact is to maintain power or control, humans abuse and exploit all sort of things, e.g. sex, money, etc.

In this case, there is an abuse of the concepts of Morality and Ethics for power and control, as it is exploited within religion.

I am saying all forms of morality and ethics are abused where they’re solely used for abusing.

Going with game theory the best kind of games are the ones already rigged.

All forms and practices of sex are abused [re evil] where they’re solely used for abusing. It is the same for all other types of abuses. Point is there is room for the prevention of abuses.

My point is there is an under-realized potential morality drive within all humans [evidence -morality in babies, mirror neurons, etc]. When humanity recognized this potential more objectively, then humanity will be able to realize more of this potential for the masses and all sorts of “abuses” that are evil will be reduced, prevented or eliminated.

Mr_J · December 2, 2017, 4:10am

Prevention? Where’s this mass movement of prevention you speak of? I think you’re articulating what is commonly referred as a pipe dream.

Prismatic567 · December 2, 2017, 4:17am

You missed my point.
I did not claim there is an obvious efficient mass movement at present, but there are indications that things are moving in this direction. Note all Nations had banned slavery and made it illegal. This is a form of mass movement albeit not massive enough to cover other types of evil.

I stated humanity must start recognizing that inherent potential, understand its mechanics and process and work on it to realize its potential, then there will be results in the future.

Mr_J · December 2, 2017, 4:31am

Banned slavery in name only. sighs

There is no objective purpose or potential of humanity.

Prismatic567 · December 2, 2017, 4:41am

I understand there is a difference between Laws and practice.
But the point is there is an incremental improvement in terms of morality which I am arguing for.

Laws will not eliminate slavery, but it will definitely deter and reduce slavery in comparison to no laws at all. Are you arguing there will be more slavery if there are laws banning slavery?

Laws on slavery are a stop-gap measure and a fixed goal to provide room for greater improvements.

Snark · December 2, 2017, 5:30am

I think it has been sufficiently proved that the problem of evil poses as much of a problem for atheism as it does for theism. Of course, I don’t expect Prismatic to agree with my assessment.

Prismatic567 · December 2, 2017, 5:49am

I don’t agree because yours is a meaningless claim.
The “problem of evil” is a counter to the existence of God as real.
Whatever you associate with ‘atheism’ I have nothing to do with it.

I don’t believe in a God because God is an impossibility to exists as real within empirical-rational reality.
I don’t want to associate with the label “atheism” at all.
The fact is ‘evil’ [empirical-based] exists as real and posed a problem for humanity. So we as citizen of humanity has to find solutions to the empirical-based problem of evil.

Snark · December 2, 2017, 6:28am

It is, in fact, considered by many as the strongest argument against God. But it’s meaningless because without God there is no good or evil and therefore no argument, just personal likes and dislikes.

Are you sure you don’t see a contradiction here? You insist that you’ve proved God to be an impossibility within empirical-rational reality. So what? Whose idea of God, anyway? There are as many conceptions as there are people on the planet and every one of them is more or less wrong.

You suggesting here that the Good – a perfect, eternal, and changeless entity existing outside space and time and in which particular good things share, or “participate,” insofar as they are good – is an empirical realty and not merely an abstract idea. Do you know what that means? It means you’re a closeted believer in God.

Mr_J · December 2, 2017, 6:32am

Only if as an atheist you believe evil exists, I don’t personally. I only see angry damaged people acting out.

Snark · December 2, 2017, 6:35am

Yeah. That’s my point.

Mr_J · December 2, 2017, 6:44am

Then we’re in agreement. Unfortunately a lot of our atheistic humanist brethren have not learned to shake all forms of religious yoke off specifically in their archaic embraced notions of morality or ethics. The ghost [shattered remnants] of religious past still resides within them in their beliefs.

Prismatic567 · December 2, 2017, 7:07am

I have defined what is “evil” from the empirical perspective.
Good is the opposite of ‘evil.’
Therefore the absence of evil acts is good.

If one is not committing evil [as defined], then one is doing good [logically].
Thus if one has brought up one’s child the best way possible, then one is doing ‘good’. There are a wide range of human activities and as long as these activities are not identified as evil [raping, theft, lying, etc.] then these activities are ‘good.’
So without a God, we do have good and evil acts.
What is a problem with that.

OTOH, note Allah [God] in the Quran sanction and exhort Muslims to kill non-believers, spread terror to non-believers and other ‘evil’ acts. God promote and condone evil.

Regardless of the many conceptions, logic and rationality will drive all theists to one ultimate definition of God, -the absolutely perfect God - otherwise [I have stated many times] a theist will end up with a god that is inferior and dominated by another god resulting one’s inferior god has to kiss the ass of the more greater and more perfect God.

Note I have defined what is ‘good’ empirically and it has nothing to do with any God [illusory and impossible].
If you have done your best to bring up your children without any evil intent and they have not committed any evils from your teachings, then such an act is ‘good’ which is empirically evident.
Any act that you have done that do not end up with evil consequences, that is considered ‘Good’.
There is no need for ‘good’ to arise from a God, QED.