God & The Problem of Evil

Again you are lost here.

All value-judgment can be objectified to an agreed set of criteria and conditions to eliminate personal biasness.
Note beauty [whilst highly subjective] is objectified in the results of the Miss World contests and it is accepted objectively with the criteria and conditions ‘what is beautiful’ is judged upon.

It is the same with the results for diving, skating, gymnastic contests in the Olympics which is objective to the extent the winners are recognized without objections and the winners are listed in the medals listing won by each individual athlete and the respective countries.
To eliminate personal bias, the highest and lowest scores are ignored and the balance is averaged out.

As I had stated, what is “objective” is intersubjective consensus based on an agreed Framework & Systems [with it principles, methods, criteria, assumptions, consensus process,].

I believe the idea of objectivity that you have in mind is absolute objectivity, possibly belong to God, is an illusion and an impossibility.
There is no way one can produce anything that is absolutely objective without some elements of human conditions being involved in concluding what is objective.

Why???
Do you want to condone or commit an empirical evil like genocide [it existence can be empirically verifiable and proven]?
Do you condone empirical mass rapes, murders, and the likes?
I don’t condone nor promote the above evil acts, that is why humanity must address such and all evil acts then resolve them.

Yeah. Why?

The sad thing is, I don’t think you will recognize that these ancient ideas make your modern ideas look foolish. :cry:

I don’t see how re what you have quoted can prevent genocides, mass rapes, murder and all sorts of evil in the future?

The above are categorized as empirical evil.
The modern idea is; to prevent, reduce or eliminate empirical evil, one need to apply the appropriate modern Problem Solving Techniques.
On of the essential feature of any Problem Solving Technigues is one must first define the problem.
Thus we need to define what is empirical-evil.

To force change, in other words. “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein

Why? “Just as value is not in the object but in our way of relating to the object, neither is meaning or purpose in the object, but in our way of relating to the object.” The “evils” you describe reflect relationships, not empirical realities.

To some extent, especially problems that require a paradigm shift to resolve, I agree we cannot use the “same thinking” we used when we created the problem.
Many a times we need to step of the of the box we are in to resolve a problem correctly and efficiently. e.g.

Drawing nine dots on a piece of paper and have a go with a pencil. Place your pencil somewhere, draw four straight lines without taking your pencil off the page. Each line must start where the last line finished.

I believe I have stepped out of the existing paradigm into a new paradigm in addressing the problem of empirical evil. Instead of looking for the root of evil externally, I am proposing a Copernican turn to understand and resolve the problem of empirical evil from our own internal self from the neural basis. This is a very novel approach.

In the other hand, the theists are stuck in the paradigm of theism on a psychological basis in looking at the problem from the major premise of an illusory non existing God. What follows from such a major premise will be an illusory and not effective solutions.
Thus theists are stuck with Einstein’s;
“… solving problems with the same thinking they used when they created them.”

Not sure where you are heading with ‘relationship’.
Why are real problems like genocides, murder, rapes, and the likes not empirical realities?
They literally have a negative value for humanity.
To eliminate, prevent or reduce such negative values we have to address and resolve these empirical evils.

Are you implying we [humanity] should ignore these evil acts [empirical based], let them happen and disregard the sufferings of the victims of such evils?

Nothing of the kind! I’m saying we should recognize that the evils you mention are caused by a debauched relationship with the world. It’s a spiritual matter, not an empirical one. If you appreciate Buddhism, certainly you can appreciate that.

The Eight-Fold Path is about right relationship, not overcoming evil.

Although one equates to the other - an issue of pursuing hope or avoiding threat (half full / half empty).

As an afterthought to my last post, it is no accident that the “forbidden fruit” is the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. The problem is, ever since Adam took that first bite, people have been gorging themselves on that fruit ever since.

True and thus leading to the need of a Savior of Man, from his “sins” (misjudgments).

After spending so much time on Buddhism I dare claim to be a near-expert on Buddhism.

The Four Noble Truths [in that link] are;

  1. The Noble Truth of the reality of Dukkha as part of conditioned existence.
  2. The Noble Truth that Dukkha has a causal arising.
  3. The Noble Truth of the end of Dukkha,
  4. The Noble Truth of the Path that leads to Awakening.

One critical point to note is, Dukkha is very encompassing.
From the above one will note Dukkha is self-induced or from external parties.

A Buddhist is also expected to be compassionate to others and help them to resolve the root causes of Dukkha.
The empirical evils I described can generate Dukkha for oneself and others.
Therefore a Buddhist has the duty to acknowledge the existence of such dukkha [first Noble Truth] and follow through to the 4th Noble Truth and then take the right view and right actions to deal with the respective dukkha, in this case the empirical evils. A Buddhist is not suppose to stare at events genocides, mass rapes, murders and all sorts of evil and do nothing.

Re “debauched relationship” is this;
When humans are informed of or faced with the real threat of genocides, mass rapes, murders and the likes, it is obvious their emotions [anger, fear] will be triggered and thus generating Dukkha. In this case, with right view and right action [& other 8-Fold Path] need to be detached i.e. not entangled with these negative thoughts.

But the fact is, there is still real Dukkha [empirical evils] and the cause of it. For these one must have the right view and right action [& other 8-Fold Path] to deal with empirical evils which cause a various range of Dukkha.

To resolve overall Dukkha, one can break the problem into two categories, i.e.

  1. Secular based evils - as evident
  2. Theistic based evils - as evident

On further investigation based on right view, right action, right mindfulness, one will note the root cause of theistic based evils are linked to a belief in a God [illusory] who had handed down a holy book which contain evil laden elements which inspires theists to commit terrible evils [empirical].

Applying the 4NT and 8FP one will note a belief in an illusory God is due to psychological factors, i.e. existential malaise. One will need to apply 4NT-8FP to resolve this existential malaise then there is no need for a God [illusory and impossible] and thus no theistic-based evils. Non-theistic-based evil will need to be resolved via the 4NT-8FP as well.

Note this where I posted in another thread;

Note the process of enlightenment in the Ten Bulls, the final image represent enlightenment where the enlightened person engages with society yet there is no essence nor substance to the reality s/he is a part of.

Please note, James. Prismatic doesn’t understand squat.

Yet a belief in God has justified some of the most horrendous acts which is why none of you religious people can ever be taken seriously and as you embrace progressivism to become gods yourselves in the constant support of the status quo that only increases inequalities the things you claim to be against only multiplies. This thread is a rather interesting exercise of futility.

Evil cannot be empirically demonstrated as it is a moral issue not a scientific one so evil acts
cannot be effectively judged outside the morality of their time because it changes over time

A feature of religious fundamentalism is the apparent objectivity of morality but this is ironically a subjective interpretation
Merely defining something as objective does not actually make it so and especially with such an abstract concept as morality

It’s not just religious fundamentalists that does this as also government secularists proclaim the objectivity of morality within law.

Law has to strive to be as objective as possible because it applies to all even though such objectivity is not so in practice. Because like the morality that it is
based upon it is not absolute but constantly evolving over time. Even if there was such a thing as objective morality it would still be subjectively interpreted

I am saying that not only are objective moralities of God flawed but so is the objective moralities of government also. It is all hypocrisy in sync with the evolving greedy selfish pursuits of human beings themselves. It is a lot like having foxes guarding hen houses.

You would think a majority of people would learn this by now but astonishingly a majority do not.

An imperfect system is better than no system at all and such fallibility should be accepted for imperfect is all that there can be
Systems of government and human beings can of course improve over time but true objectivity for either can never be attained

An imperfect system is the same as no system at all. Yes, never attained, a delusional dream.

Who said so?
Your views are too loose in this case.

Evil is basically a moral issue but can be supported by scientific facts.
If evil is imputed into morality, evil still have to be defined.

I have defined ‘evil’ in terms of evil acts.
This definition of evil must be supported by a taxonomy of evils within a hierarchy of evilness.
Obviously genocides has a higher degree of evilness than petty-crimes.

Evil acts that are supported by empirical evidence are the most credible.
If we stumble upon 500 dead bodies, the best way to find out why is to rely on Science [forensic] to differentiate it is due to a biological epidemic, killed due to a genocide or other causes.

What is morally evil is determined by the highest level of reasoning which is independent of time and conditions. There is never good reasons why genocide can be good under any circumstance and time.

The objectivity of religious fundamentalism in regard to morality is dependent on “God Said So” despite the fact that God is an impossibility. If God said circumstancial genocide is not immoral, then it is not evil! Note the genocides of the Yazidis by SOME Muslims upon sanction by Allah in the Quran.

Without any coercion and threat from a God in an immutable holy book, majority of humans in general will agree genocide is evil and abominable based on the principles of the Golden Rule.
Btw, objectivity is intersubjectivity. i.e. rational intersubjective consensus and nothing else.
Thus it is possible for human to reason out objective moral laws as guides not to be enforced.

All systems are imperfect as they are devised by humans who are imperfect so it is an inevitable feature of them
For a system to be perfect would require that humans had absolutely no say in its conception or implementation