God & The Problem of Evil

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.

Snark · December 2, 2017, 7:14am

We may not be in as much agreement as as you might think. Although my conceptions are radically unorthodox, at heart, I’m a theist. The “Good” I talked about is what Plato taught and I happen to agree. According to Wiki:

Note, however, that though the sun is an object of knowledge, we cannot know it by looking directly at it.

Mr_J · December 2, 2017, 7:20am

Snark:

Zero_Sum:

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.

We may not be in as much agreement as as you might think. Although my conceptions are radically unorthodox, at heart, I’m a theist. The “Good” I talked about is what Plato taught and I happen to agree. According to Wiki:

Plato analogizes the form of the Good with the sun as it is what allows us to see things. Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, “sun is not sight” but it is “the cause of sight itself.” As the sun is in the visible realm, the form of Good is in the intelligible realm. It is “what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower”. It is not only the “cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge”.

Note, however, that though the sun is an object of knowledge, we cannot know it by looking directly at it.

Confusion on my part then. Noted.

Well that’s what happens when an atheist enters a theist thread. I consider myself an unorthodox pessimistic atheist not to be confused with the atheistic humanistic nancies that believe technological innovation is the great and only savior of the world. In my world there is no salvation whether from God in the religious scribblings of a book or from a government political bureaucrat. No, for me this world is beyond saving and salvation is only a fanciful unattainable dream.

I’m one of those atheists that other atheists despise. I of course wear it as a badge of honor with pride. Lonely is the life of the modern cynic.

Prismatic567 · December 2, 2017, 7:27am

Snark:

We may not be in as much agreement as as you might think. Although my conceptions are radically unorthodox, at heart, I’m a theist. The “Good” I talked about is what Plato taught and I happen to agree. According to Wiki:

Plato analogizes the form of the Good with the sun as it is what allows us to see things. Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, “sun is not sight” but it is “the cause of sight itself.” As the sun is in the visible realm, the form of Good is in the intelligible realm. It is “what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower”. It is not only the “cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge”.

Note, however, that though the sun is an object of knowledge, we cannot know it by looking directly at it.

Note criticisms of Plato’s ‘Good’- same as my critique that such ‘Good’ and ‘God’ are empirically baseless and groundless;

Wiki:

Aristotle’s criticism
Aristotle discusses the Forms of Good in critical terms several times in both of his major surviving ethical works, the Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle argues that Plato’s Form of the Good does not apply to the physical world, for Plato does not assign “goodness” to anything in the existing world. Because Plato’s Form of the Good does not explain events in the physical world, humans have no reason to believe that the Form of the Good exists and the Form of the Good is thereby irrelevant to human ethics.[3]

Other criticisms
Plato’s Form of the Good is often criticized as too general.[4] Plato’s Form of the Good does not define things in the physical world that are good, and therefore lacks connectedness to reality.[5] Because Plato’s Form of the Good lacks instruction, or ways for the individual to be good, Plato’s Form of the Good is not applicable to human ethics since there is no defined method for which goodness can be pursued. Through Socrates in The Republic, Plato acknowledges the Form of the Good as an elusive concept and proposes that the Form of the Good be accepted as a hypothesis, rather than criticized for its weaknesses. According to Socrates in The Republic, the only alternative to accepting a hypothesis is to refute all the objections against it, which is counterproductive in the process of contemplation.[4]

Aristotle along with other scholars sees the Form of the Good as synonymous with the idea of One.[6] Plato claims that Good is the highest Form, and that all objects aspire to be good.[7] Since Plato does not define good things, interpreting Plato’s Form of the Good through the idea of One allows scholars to explain how Plato’s Form of the Good relates to the physical world. According to this philosophy, in order for an object to belong to the Form of the Good, it must be One and have the proper harmony, uniformity, and order to be in its proper form.[6]

Philosopher Rafael Ferber dismissed Aristotle’s view that the ‘Good’ is ‘One’ and wrote that the Form of the Good is self-contradictory. Ferber claimed that Plato’s Form of the Good could be simultaneously defined and unknown, and be in a state of both “being” and “not being”.[6]

Plato’s Forms are also critiqued for being treated as the reason for all things, as opposed to being an essence in itself. Some scholars also believe that Plato intended the Form to be the essence of which things come into existence. These different interpretations of Plato’s intention for the Form may be attributed to the idea that Plato did not have a systematic definition of the Form itself.[3]

Snark · December 2, 2017, 7:40am

No, you haven’t. You only gave an opinion.

What is all-encompassing can have no opposite.

Therefore, “evil” is estrangement from the real.

Snark · December 2, 2017, 7:53am

I consider myself an unorthodox short-term pessimist and a sometimes long-term optimist theist, not to be confused with someone who believes in the religious scribblings of “sacred texts.” As for me, I’m not sure this (human) world is worth saving.

Maybe we should start a club or something.

BTW, I read the rest of the article and saw what Prismatic highlighted: Plato’s Form of the Good does not explain events in the physical world and I agree. But I’m not limited by what Plato says. What Ferber wrote is more interesting because “simultaneously defined and unknown, and be in a state of both “being” and “not being”” is something a “mystic” might say.