tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post8646066865060891011..comments2023-07-03T04:15:38.436-07:00Comments on Apologetic Junkie: Why the Problem of Evil is a ProblemAaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-5187309328193186092012-07-19T12:56:41.965-07:002012-07-19T12:56:41.965-07:00It seems like you are saying that atheists can'...It seems like you are saying that atheists can't cite the problem of evil within their worldview. I don't think we do that. It isn't a problem within our worldview, but it is a problem for the theist worldview. That's all.Grundyhttp://deityshmeity.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-13559452873495852562012-05-02T06:40:35.853-07:002012-05-02T06:40:35.853-07:00Aaron,
I will give you the point that from your p...Aaron,<br /><br />I will give you the point that from your perspective, the idea that objective morality either does not exist, or it is grounded in God. There are at least a couple of types of non-believers who would not accept your argument. The examples I can think of are Deists and Naturalists (who might see evolution as the objective standard of morality).<br /><br />Regarding the term tautology, I accept your correction. I was using this in the rhetoric sense, “using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct.” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology) Since I was referring to a logical construct, it could have been misunderstood that I was referring to the tautology fallacy, which was not what I meant. Begging the question is exactly what I was referring to. Thanks for the clarification.<br /><br />Now back to your logical construct. As I understand your construct, it is structured like this.<br /><br />Premise 1<br />Premise 2<br />Therefore (based on premise 2), conclusion 1<br />Therefore (based on conclusion 1), conclusion 2<br /><br />According to your construct, conclusion 2 (that God exists) depends on conclusion 1 (that there are objective moral values), which depends on premise 2 (that evil exists). This comes full circle because you argued that premise 2 depends on the existence of God. <br /><br />I think there is an epistemic problem with your assertion that at least some things are objectively morally wrong. Yes, we seem to accept almost universally the examples you give as being intuitively wrong. However, that could very easily be explained by evolution. We are social beings. The need to maintain the strength of our groups/tribes/society, would certainly work as a selective force for genetic tendencies toward empathy, including the abhorrence of things like murder, rape, torture. This is why I think there is an epistemic issue. You have determined the ability of intuitively knowing what is evil is due to the existence of God. How do you know it is not due to evolution? <br /><br />As to your new construct:<br />1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.<br />2. Objective moral values exist.<br />3. Therefore, God exists.<br /><br />Again, just because we all agree (well, almost all—there are the psychopaths) that murder, rape, and torture are wrong, it does not prove the existence of objective moral values. Our agreement could be the result of evolution. Or, it could be the result of a deistic god/force that perhaps no longer exists. I believe your premise 2 (correct or not) is based on faith, not on solid established proof, evidence, or even universally accepted fact. As such, many will dismiss the premise quickly.<br /><br />Lastly, regarding a relativist complaining of evil, I tend to agree with you if by relativism we use your definition of good and evil being relative to “what do I want” or relative to “what society decides.” However I think the evolutionists have an argument that’s compelling. If the standard is “what’s good for me as well as for others”, I believe this is very analogous to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (By “good for me as well as for others” I am not referring to hedonistic pleasures; I’m referring to that which empowers, enlightens, and supports the wellbeing.) I don’t think this is an absolute standard, because there is no absolute authority determining it is a standard or enforcing it as a standard. However, if adopted as a moral compass, with or without God, could I not complain of evil done to my brother based on this?<br /><br />Again, thank you for indulging me. You’ve been more than patient and kind.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />ZackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-71364733023555692782012-04-28T14:57:41.456-07:002012-04-28T14:57:41.456-07:00Zack,
First, if there is another grounding for ob...Zack,<br /><br />First, if there is another grounding for objective morality beside God, then I would agree that saying either objective morality is non-existent or it is grounded in God would be a false dilemma. However, I simply do not think that a compelling case can be made as to how evolution can ground objective morality, which you also seem to agree to.<br /><br />Second, there may be some confusion in your comment between epistemology and ontology, which is why you are accusing me of a tautology (or maybe you mean begging the question?). The premise "evil exists" can be known by theists, atheist, and skeptics alike. For example, it is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun or to brutally rape and murder women. The premise "evil exits" is defended independently of premise one, and I am not relying on the existence of God in claiming we all know that evil is a real thing. Again, the skeptic admits this by complaining about the POE. The fact of evil can be known by intuition and simple reflection (some things are really wrong!).<br /><br />This is where premise one comes in. In premise one I am claiming that God serves as the only ontological grounding (not epistemological) for objective moral values. Again, this premise is defended independently of premise 2. So, if we all know that evil exists, and God serves as the only objective grounding for objective moral values, then it follows that God exists.<br /><br />This argument is in the form of modus tollens (If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.) If you want, you can completely remove premise 2 and the argument would look like this:<br /><br />1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.<br />2. Objective moral values exist.<br />3. Therefore, God exists.<br /><br />So, I do not think I am begging the question (or engaging in a tautology).<br /><br />Third, regarding the skeptic and evil, I mean that if morality is relative, a skeptic cannot complain to others about evil, since evil would be subjectively determined. They could only complain to themselves or their culture, or say things like "I don't like evil," but they cannot complain about evil being objectively wrong.<br /><br />Aaron <><Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-72648514735051534362012-04-24T11:59:25.692-07:002012-04-24T11:59:25.692-07:00I'm not a Hitchens or Harris expert. In fact, ...I'm not a Hitchens or Harris expert. In fact, Hitchens' turns me off (I find his approach arrogant--don't know enough about Harris to have an opinion). Assuming you are right, that they claim objective grounding for morality, I think it would be from an evolutionary/genetic perspective. If so, the idea that an objective basis for morality either depends on God or is non-existent could be seen as a false dilemma. That is, there is at least one other possibility--that the moral objectivity is based on evolution/genetics. But more to the point, whether these atheists believe in your second premise (that objective evil exists) or not, the premise is part of <i>your</i> logical construct. I think you have argued that the second premise depends on the existence of God, yet it is one of the premises on which you base your conclusion that God exists.<br /><br />You asked what could function as the objective grounding for morality if God does not exist. I agree with you, that there would be no objective ground for morality without a god. Even if you turn to evolution, what is it that would make evolution the objective source for determining morals? It is an outside source, but it would be mankind choosing this as the basis for morality. It would not be determining or mandating a standard for morality on its own. I think we're on the same page with that.<br /><br />You stated that one wonders what the skeptics are complaining about when they call something "evil" if they are relativists. I'm not sure I follow you on that one. Are you referring to a skeptical perspective that an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful god should not allow horrific suffering? Or, are you talking about the complaint against any evil in general--in other words are you asking why a relativist would object to any act the relativist assesses as evil based on his subjective morality?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Zack TacorinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-51327862241448079382012-04-23T23:31:43.738-07:002012-04-23T23:31:43.738-07:00Zack,
First, many of the so-called "new"...Zack,<br /><br />First, many of the so-called "new" atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc., do accept morality as objective, though they would perhaps try to ground objective morality in evolution as opposed to God. Also, many atheistic philosophers accept objective morality. Of course, if the atheist does not believe morality is objective, then one wonders what they are complaining about when they call something "evil." This would also seem to relegate them to a position of relativism, which in my view is very problematic. See the talk on "Refuting Moral Relativism."<br /><br />Second, the appearance of tautology is probably my own fault, as I did not go into great length to defend premise one (which is the premise the argument hinges on) due to lack of space. I do hold to objective morality, but remember also that the skeptic in raising the POE also seems to be conceding objective morality in raising the question, otherwise as I said in the article, I could simply respond, "that's just evil for you." So it seems that I and the skeptic are on common ground in assuming objective morality when the POE is raised and therefore I do not go into great detail in defending the existence of objective morality. What this argument does is take the skeptic's complaint at face value and show that objective evil means objective morality which must have an appropriate objective grounding: God.<br /><br />What do you think? What do you think could function as an objective grounding for morality if God does not exist?Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-74644306711102991282012-04-23T07:55:42.181-07:002012-04-23T07:55:42.181-07:00Aaron,
I must agree with you that atheists have t...Aaron,<br /><br />I must agree with you that atheists have their own problem regarding evil. However, I don't think that atheists (at least not in a broad fashion) admit morality or evil is objective. I've always thought that in general, atheists were of the opposite opinion. Perhaps you could show me that I'm wrong on that.<br /> <br />You presented the following logical construct to explain that evil demonstrates evidence for the existence of God:<br /><br />1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.<br /><br />2. Evil exists.<br /><br />3. Therefore, objective moral values exist.<br /><br />4. Therefore, God exists.[10]<br /><br />Isn’t this a tautology? You are the one arguing that moral values are objective. “The only suitable grounding for objective morality is an objective moral law-giver: God.” This assumes objective evil exists which is to presuppose that there is a God from whence the evil is objectively declared or defined as evil. In other words, your conclusion that “God exists” is part of your premise.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Zack TacorinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-65864225318155111842012-04-06T17:08:52.856-07:002012-04-06T17:08:52.856-07:00There are some excellent points here, and the post...There are some excellent points here, and the post is very well-written!<br /><br />All blessings in Jesus Christ to you! :)Elliot Swattridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16407379060797648533noreply@blogger.com