Scientific Morality and the Problem of Evil

[dianaiad]

In a very recent thread, the following was written by Divine Insight:

So the scientific morality is far more realistic. It doesn't even recognize that there are evil people. It simply recognized mental illness and that people who do bad things are simply driven to do them because of mental problems.

I was struck by it, a sort of 'throw away' comment in a post addressing something very different. Anything I wanted to say had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which it was found.

So...new thread.

Subject to the definition of 'evil,' of course, which I define as any action done for selfish, immoral or unethical reasons, to deliberately cause harm, no matter how slight. Natural phenomena are not evil; they simply exist. Actions which may seem evil in the eyes of an observer may not be evil, depending on the knowledge of the actor, his motive and his ultimate purpose.

If someone disagrees with the above definition, please provide yours before engaging in this thread so that we will all know what we are talking about.

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

............is there really no evil?

Are all so-called evil acts the result of mental illness, so that the doers of evil cannot be blamed or held accountable?

[atheist buddy]

I could write that syllogism in 18 different ways. The fact remains that omnipotence + existence of evil = God is evil

This does not necessarily follow from any of your above arguments. Even if God knowingly created the world in such a way that there would be evil, it does not follow that God is evil. Perhaps the evil is a necessary sacrifice, so to say, for there to be anything meaningful at all. We simply cannot know this, as we don't have other worlds with less evil to compare with.

Necessary sacrifices are the province of creators with limited powers who are forced to make compromises.

If God is omnipotent, and if evil is undesirable to him, then he could accomplish whatever he wanted WITHOUT introducing evil.

That depends on what you mean by omnipotence. Most would accept that even an omnipotent being cannot do the logically impossible. Since compelling someone to freely do anything already involves a logical contradiction, it could be that it is not feasible for God to achieve a meaningful world without any evil in it.

Yes, compelling somebody to do something freely is logically contradictory, but that wouldn't apply to God.

All it takes is for God to be infinitely good at calmly chatting with somebody and persuading them with logic, reason and love. If God is omnipotent, he would definitely have those attributes, and therefore it would be very easy for God to create a world without evil, without compelling anybody.

Compulsion violates free will. Persuasion does not.

Pscycologists, parents, friends, priests, Rabbis, police hostage negotiators, are all able to persuade people not to commit evil. They are not violating people's free will, are they?

When a hostage negotiator persuades a terrorist not to shoot the hostage, he is not violating the terrorist's free will, is he?

If a somewhat good hostage negotiator can succeed in persuading people not to do evil, say, 50% of the time, and a VERY good negotiator can succeed 75% of the time, then God who is infinitely good at it, MUST have a success rate of 100%.

Sorry, but it doesn't violate logic to assume that an infinitely good entity, who is infinitely good at persuading people to do good, would have nothing less than a 100% success rate.

Evil exists, therefore God is either less than 100% good, or less than 100% succesful at persuading people not to do evil.

[instantc]

I could write that syllogism in 18 different ways. The fact remains that omnipotence + existence of evil = God is evil

This does not necessarily follow from any of your above arguments. Even if God knowingly created the world in such a way that there would be evil, it does not follow that God is evil. Perhaps the evil is a necessary sacrifice, so to say, for there to be anything meaningful at all. We simply cannot know this, as we don't have other worlds with less evil to compare with.

Necessary sacrifices are the province of creators with limited powers who are forced to make compromises.

If God is omnipotent, and if evil is undesirable to him, then he could accomplish whatever he wanted WITHOUT introducing evil.

That depends on what you mean by omnipotence. Most would accept that even an omnipotent being cannot do the logically impossible. Since compelling someone to freely do anything already involves a logical contradiction, it could be that it is not feasible for God to achieve a meaningful world without any evil in it.

Yes, compelling somebody to do something freely is logically contradictory, but that wouldn't apply to God.

All it takes is for God to be infinitely good at calmly chatting with somebody and persuading them with logic, reason and love. If God is omnipotent, he would definitely have those attributes, and therefore it would be very easy for God to create a world without evil, without compelling anybody.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. I am by no means a believer in any religion, but I don't think you are making a compelling argument against one.

If God existed, what makes you think that his only end game were to make world as comfortable as possible? As I said, it is possible that in order for there to be a meaningful world, some amount of evil is necessary. We cannot know whether this is the case. According to Christianity, God wants us to freely come to know him. There's no way of telling whether that end can be achieved without allowing some evil into the equation. There's no way of telling whether God could convince people to come to know him without crossing the line between persuasion and manipulation, pressuring or compelling in some hypothetical world where there would have never been suffering of any kind.

God could create a bunch of free creatures and persuade them not to kill each other. That would certainly be a world where there's no evil, but it's impossible to say how meaningful the lives in such a world would be, as none of us has never observed such a world.

[wiploc]

That depends on what you mean by omnipotence. Most would accept that even an omnipotent being cannot do the logically impossible.

Right. A true-omnipotent god might be able to make square circles, but we can't know that because, if god can violate logic, then logic isn't reliable. Since logic wouldn't work if such a god existed, then we can't have a logical discussion about it.

So we assume that god is only punk-omnipotent: able to do anything except violate logic.

Since compelling someone to freely do anything already involves a logical contradiction,

True.

it could be that it is not feasible for God to achieve a meaningful world without any evil in it.

Not true. He can do anything that doesn't contradict logic. There's no contradiction involved in not having evil.

[instantc]

it could be that it is not feasible for God to achieve a meaningful world without any evil in it.

Not true. He can do anything that doesn't contradict logic. There's no contradiction involved in not having evil.

Not in that alone. But to have a meaningful world without any evil in it might be causally impossible. It could be logically possible, but yet not feasible for God to actualize. It could also be logically contradictory, in which case the idea of Christian heaven would also evaporate. Both of these are possibilities that we cannot rule out, and thus these speculations seem pointless to me.

[Bust Nak]

Not my accusation, my understanding of evolution. I'm not confused, I'm giving you an opportunity to see your beliefs 'in the light'. If evolution is real and is a blind process then you cannot know whether a mental illness is an advantage or not. Given the incidence of mental illness in the population you also have to conclude that mental illness offers some survival benefit to the individual or the population.

First of all we DO know. Take depression for example, that have a testible and negative effect of the reproductive success rate. The conclusion that mental illness offers some survival benefit does not follow from the premise that they are common. First, like I said, many aren't genetic at all, and the genetic ones could be side effect of something that does have survival benefit, piggy backing on another trait.

Given that is so, then why are you labelling mental illness as a negative. I can only summise you are hoping to get a survival or reproductive benefit from doing so.

And you would be wrong. It is labelled an illness because it objectively negatively impact someone's quality of life. It would STILL be called a mental illness even if we can varify an reproductive advantage. What is and isn't an illness is defined by how it affacts an individual, not how much advantage it gives you in breeding.

And of course the above is absurd - mental people need help - but I don't think we can justify it from evolutionary beliefs which makes evolution beliefs immoral.

But yeah the lion probably says, "I don't have big teeth to eat the deer, they just aren't as competitive as me I just label them as food because they are unfit."

Evolution beliefs are ammoral. Not immoral.

So it's raining in Spain right now? Why would you say that? Subjectivity is qua absurd.

Donno. Loaded question cannot be answered, the premise that I said it's raining in Spain, is false. Once again proving that I understood what you typed, despite meaning being inherently subjective. There is a difference between you being absurd, and subjectivity being absurd.

Yes might makes right. Survival of the fittest is moral.

Your words, not mine. I was merely talking about might, you added the "makes right" bit. Survival of the fittest is ammoral.

Come on, you know the moral position is usually standing against the numbers.

Be that guy: http://www.retronaut.com/2012/02/man-re ... lute-1936/

What a strange thing to say, I know of no such thing. There is zero connection between what is moral and how many people is for/against that position. What I do know however, is that the hard position is usually standing against the numbers. What is hard to do, isn't the same thing as what is moral.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

First of all we DO know. Take depression for example, that have a testible and negative effect of the reproductive success rate. The conclusion that mental illness offers some survival benefit does not follow from the premise that they are common. First, like I said, many aren't genetic at all, and the genetic ones could be side effect of something that does have survival benefit, piggy backing on another trait.

You can't call evolution a blind process and claim you know what traits will give you an advantage.

[wiploc]

it could be that it is not feasible for God to achieve a meaningful world without any evil in it.

Not true. He can do anything that doesn't contradict logic. There's no contradiction involved in not having evil.

Not in that alone. But to have a meaningful world

I don't know what that means. How is a meaningful world different from one that isn't meaningful?

without any evil in it might be causally impossible.

You've confused me again. I know what "causally" means, and I know what "impossible" means, but I don't know what "causally impossible" means.

It could be logically possible, but yet not feasible for God to actualize.

This is weird. I'm a native English speaker, and pretty good at it, and you are writing in English, but I can't make out your sentences.

An omnipotent god can do anything that is logically possible. And anything he can do, he can do without effort. So what can it mean for something to be possible but not feasible to an omnipotent god? I can't imagine.

Maybe the god you're talking about isn't omnipotent?

[instantc]

without any evil in it might be causally impossible.

You've confused me again. I know what "causally" means, and I know what "impossible" means, but I don't know what "causally impossible" means.

I'm not a native speaker, so perhaps this was a poor choice of words on my part. Bear with me, what I mean is this. Suppose God exists and wants us to freely come to know him without applying any pressure or resorting to manipulation. In other words, he wants to have a world where everyone has freely chosen to come to know God. While such a world does not involve a logical contradiction per se, it might causally presuppose a previous world with some amount of evil in it. Evil could be necessary for people to freely choose to come to know God. He cannot simply create a world where people have already chosen to come to know God without first creating the world where the said choices take place. That's what I meant by 'causally impossible'. Such a world is not logically contradictory, but it is cannot be actualized without first creating a world with the necessary evil in it.

[wiploc]

without any evil in it might be causally impossible.

You've confused me again. I know what "causally" means, and I know what "impossible" means, but I don't know what "causally impossible" means.

I'm not a native speaker, so perhaps this was a poor choice of words on my part. Bear with me, what I mean is this. Suppose God exists and wants us to freely come to know him without applying any pressure or resorting to manipulation. In other words, he wants to have a world where everyone has freely chosen to come to know God. While such a world does not involve a logical contradiction per se, it might causally presuppose a previous world with some amount of evil in it. Evil could be necessary for people to freely choose to come to know God. He cannot simply create a world where people have already chosen to come to know God without first creating the world where the said choices take place. That's what I meant by 'causally impossible'. Such a world is not logically contradictory, but it is cannot be actualized without first creating a world with the necessary evil in it.

An omnipotent god can do anything that isn't logically impossible. So he wouldn't need evil to accomplish any goal other than evil itself.

[arian]

In a very recent thread, the following was written by Divine Insight:

So the scientific morality is far more realistic. It doesn't even recognize that there are evil people. It simply recognized mental illness and that people who do bad things are simply driven to do them because of mental problems.

I was struck by it, a sort of 'throw away' comment in a post addressing something very different. Anything I wanted to say had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which it was found.

So...new thread.

Subject to the definition of 'evil,' of course, which I define as any action done for selfish, immoral or unethical reasons, to deliberately cause harm, no matter how slight. Natural phenomena are not evil; they simply exist. Actions which may seem evil in the eyes of an observer may not be evil, depending on the knowledge of the actor, his motive and his ultimate purpose.

You've done it again dianaiad, what an interesting subject!! I have been meaning to start an OP on "Why did God create man in His own image?" And what I was going to start with was asking the question; "if man was created in Gods image, then why is man so evil?"

First, what would a 'scientific morality' look like? Science observes the world around them. A scientific observation of morality would look like this: 'This man killed a burglar in self defense. That rapist killed a woman after raping her. The soldier went to war and killed a lot of people in another country that was deemed as enemies by his President/Commander in Chief. A drug deal went bad and three people were brutally murdered, their bodies were found in a park wrapped in white sheets. The government decided to tax peoples income when taxation to such extent is painful especially for the poor. US dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our government prefers using deadly polluting oil and gasoline over building free energy cars and houses.

This here would be science, as in scientific observation and documentation. The scientists personal opinion on these recorded events should not be part of science.
Now should some of the above be considered 'evil', a doctor could not prescribe a pill to cure it. I mean, .. cure what, or who? Who the soldier who believes he is doing what is right by obeying His Commander in Chief?

The only thing a doctor could do is take a chill-pill himself should he find any of the above disturbing, or excessively evil.

If someone disagrees with the above definition, please provide yours before engaging in this thread so that we will all know what we are talking about.

My definition of evil is described in the Bible, starting with Genesis, where God creates the universe and man, to Revelations where it sums up and clarifies the definition of evil from the beginning of creation, to its final conclusion.

Noah; God seen only evil in man, and decided to wipe man off the face of the earth. He was even sorry He created man.

Leaving as few as 8 people alive, God then repents, or is sorry for destroying man.

A great evil came upon man from God, in the form of drowning without mercy, .. every man, woman, child and even the animals were killed like this.

It seems to me, even obvious that man still hasn't understand the MEANING of evil, and tries to define it; 'This is evil, and this is not so evil, this is borderline evil', and so on.
To be able to UNDERSTAND evil, we have to consider everything, and one is, as pointed out in the Bible, that God Himself does evil deeds.
Two, .. man was created in the 'image of God'! We were not created in the image of Lucifer, not other Angels, not some other heavenly Creatures, .. but in the image of God Himself! And God says; "man is evil!"
Man says: "God is evil".
Man does evil and so does God!

The Bible has bee so badly misrepresented for such a long time, people trying to figure out what is evil and what is not evil, and then each man picks out the evil and puts them all in a basket; this is evil, it goes into the basket. Then later he realizes that he is doing most of the evil that's in the basket, and so arose all these different religions with different beliefs.

We have to understand that evil deeds (or what we would consider evil like the flood, or the fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah etc.) can be used for good.

On Judgment Day the Angels will NOT separate and allow into Heaven those that have no evil and done no evil, and we all know that. They will separate those that KNOW and understand what evil is, and hate it with a passion.

The Bible clearly defines that God hates those that love evil. God punishes us, as we sometimes have to punish our children, and good governments have to punish law breakers. But God hates to punish us, He does it for our own good, so we learn that evil is not a good thing, that it feels bad.
If we 'loved' to punish our kids, or even lawbreakers, now that would be evil. Love what is good, what is just, and hate what is evil.

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

............is there really no evil?

Are all so-called evil acts the result of mental illness, so that the doers of evil cannot be blamed or held accountable?

This life (for me anyways) is full of evil, and God is the one who brought it upon us. We suffer with pain, with disappointment, and even our achievements are all vanity, .. Vanity of vanities, and then just as the beggar, we die and turn to dust. This entire life is full of evil, and as if Gods curse and punishment wasn't enough, we bring more pain and suffering on ourselves. Why? Because we seem love to cause pain, suffering, strife, and there is no place in Heaven who love and do these evil things.

We are to learn that evil is NO GOOD, denying this is what leads men to hell.

Denying evil, or justifying evil, or making evil out to be good, is the "Problem of Evil."

"Love one another, .. Do unto others as you would have them do to you" is a good example, and if we do that with all honesty, we understand that evil is no good, and how it effects others cannot be good either, and "For such is the Kingdom of Heaven".

DI's version is denying evil. Making it as if the evil of pain and suffering is just part of evolution and should be accepted.

Pain, suffering, chaos and death does not spell "Evolution", it spells 'pain, suffering, chaos and death.' God knows what He is doing, just enough evil to wake us up, and learn to hate evil. Like a prison sentence, to learn that evil, whether on us, or we on others is NO GOOD.

Has anyone watched the movie "The Purge"? It is the enemies brainwashing to make people believe that sometimes doing extreme evil is good. That it helps cope with life throughout the year. Unbelievable.
Movies, games are full of violence to promote evil as good. Games like GTA, teaches kids not only that evil is good, but that they could succeed in it. These games reward evil deeds. The more evil they do, the more points they get.