DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Classical Theism
HTML https://classicaltheism.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Philosophy
*****************************************************
#Post#: 146--------------------------------------------------
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
By: Dominik Date: May 5, 2020, 5:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Atno,
If you say that some theodicy is true, do you mean that for the
evil to occur God must have some reason we ourselves recognize
as moral reason? IOW given that we both accept the PSR, there is
always a reason for the contingent occurence, but I think we
differ on when that condition is satisfied. Take the example of
a kid having cancer.
Why the kid has cancer can be explained by pointing at the cell
cycle at which a tumor suppressor has mutated which led to the
development of cancerous cells.
This is sufficient, but do you think that there lacks an
explanation? How is that happening and why didn't God intervene?
I agree in the first case, but I assume that it could be
collapsed into the explanation above. I disagree in the second
case though. I think the search for such a theodicy is misguided
(“Plagues on both your houses“ to quote Davies on Mackie and
Swinburne) and won't provide insight. Even in the cases where
God intervenes I would apply the reason here in the same way in
which if it is asked why God actualized a particular wirld
instead of another. Rob Koons had a great interview a few days
ago in which he also talked about the Problem of Evil. I will
give a link and a time stamp later, I very much agree with him.
With that said I recognize that there are classical theists who
disagree with me, e.g. Pruss, Rasmussen and Dougherty. I don't
reject their solutions out of hand. In fact I have great
sympathy to Doughertys animal theodicy. But I think starting
from the assumption that God has any particular moral
obligation, be it even only analogically comparable to usit, is
the wrong approach.
#Post#: 147--------------------------------------------------
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
By: Dominik Date: May 5, 2020, 5:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kVgbCIJ9Fxo
1:26:05 is when Koons starts on the Problem of Evil.
#Post#: 155--------------------------------------------------
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
By: Atno Date: May 22, 2020, 11:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I do think we need an explanation that gives us a moral
reason for why God would allow such a thing. I am 100% in
agreement with Swinburne and the "personalists" on this (and
classical theists, of course). I think Davies' and Hart's
responses are wholly inadequate, and I've tried to explain why I
think this is the case.
I have yet to watch that video, but I have heard Koons speak
briefly on the subject before, and it was something to the
effect that God's creation of the world ex nihilo was so removed
from our experience etc. that we could not judge it properly,
etc. I agree only to the extent that the question invites a
healthy skepticism, but I still side with Pruss and other
theodicists.
#Post#: 156--------------------------------------------------
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
By: Atno Date: May 22, 2020, 11:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and I also wanna add that I think the Christian theist has
an advantage over the bare theist when it comes to the problem
of evil. Not only do I think that classical theism doesn't solve
the problem, I think that something like the Incarnation and
Suffering of Christ are reasonably expected, and the idea that
(as Adams suggests) those who suffer horribly can be united to
the Cross of God is very attractive to me. I think this is a
good philosophical argument for Christianity.
#Post#: 157--------------------------------------------------
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
By: jd3 Date: May 27, 2020, 1:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
While we're on this subject, I'm curious A. What everyone's
preferred solution to the POE is and how you could explain it in
just a few paragraphs and B. What do you think of my preferred
solution, which combines 3 responses together:
The fact that God offers an infinite afterlife more than
compensates for any temporary evil experienced in this life.
Imagine you experienced a perfect 80 year life, except for one
time when you stubbed your toe and experienced 30 seconds of
pain. Surely, the ratio of good to evil during those 80 years is
so astronomically good that no one would complain about God not
preventing that one incident. Yet, God offers an even better
ratio of good to evil. Even assuming you suffer for 80 miserably
years, the ratio would be infinity to 80 years, which is much
greater than 80 years to 30 seconds. Since no one deserves to
exist in the first place, the fact that God offers such an
afterlife constitutes infinite goodness.
Second, even if one does not accept this ("if God were TRULY
good, he would have prevented the toe-stubbing"), you would have
to establish that God has no valid reasons for allowing the evil
that he does. To respond that God is omnipotent and thus could
accomplish everything he wants *without evil* is question
begging. Thus, the logical problem of evil fails. One might
alter their response and say that "it seems unlikely that God
could have a good reason for Evil", which is known as the
"evidential problem of evil." Here too, given our limitations
(imagine a dog trying to understand the internet) we are not in
a great position to say what is likely or unlikely.
Third, suppose that one rejects all of the above, accepts the
evidential problem of evil, and thus declares God's existence
unlikely. We would still have to deal with the cosmological
arguments, such as the Aristotelian argument from change, that
establish the existence of God. Given two arguments, one that
declares God to be unlikely vs. one that establishes, with
certainty, the existence of God, we should favor the latter. For
it is much easier to find ways around the evidential problem
than to get around the cosmological argument.
#Post#: 158--------------------------------------------------
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
By: Atno Date: May 28, 2020, 12:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree, but I think it's still important to have at least some
tentative theodicies in case someone finds the evidential
problem of evil compelling. We could always go with skeptical
theism and hold that the positive case for God still makes God's
existence more likely than not even if we consider PoE. But
having (at least tentative) theodicies can be very helpful,
especially for people who aren't as convinced of the natural
theological arguments as we are.
With that in mind, I do think Pruss's blink of an eye response
is the best
(
HTML http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-blink-of-eye-response-to-problem-of.html?m=1)<br
/>combined with soul building, free will, etc.
Robin Collins also has an interesting idea (the "connection
building theodicy") that is worth exploring. And there is the
idea (Adams's) that those who suffer horrendous evils
paradoxically gain the privilege of uniting themselves more
deeply with the suffering Christ, a dignity that lasts forever
(especially in blissful Heaven).
I think the problem of animal suffering might actually be more
complicated than that of human pain. This is because, even
though human suffering is a lot more serious, shocking and
relevant than that of animals, it is much easier to come up with
theodicies for humans: free will and soul building can make good
sense for human beings, but not for irrational animals.
For animal pain, I think the best bet is also to believe they go
to heaven (thus invoking Pruss's blink of an eye response),
which (contrary to Feser) is an idea that makes quite a lot of
sense to me, and seems in line with the principle of plenitude
(having animals in heaven surely seems a good thing to me,
something that gives glory and diversity to God's creation). I
find Dougherty's idea of animal theosis (animals becoming
rational, Narnia-esque creatures who can then make sense of
their own past sufferings) to be a bit too radical; it certainly
would raise the complexity of theism; but I am open to it as a
possibility. If the Narnia view is true, then animal suffering
can be given something similar to soul building theodicies,
which helps a lot and would solve the problem, I think.
Without the "Narnia" solution, maybe we can make use of an
ingenious "Great Story" theodicy. The idea that suffering, pain
and evil actually contribute to creation being good in a similar
way that they make a movie or story good, exciting, or
beautiful. Evil being conquered is a beautiful thing. So long as
there's heaven in the end and the victims are "compensated for"
(and infinite heaven can more than make up for any finite time
of pain), I find some plausibility in that idea. I often wonder
that maybe the joy of heaven could even be increased with past
knowledge of suffering (think of the goodness of a feeling of
"relief", or forgiveness, or redemption, or survival). Animal
suffering could contribute to the Great Story just like human
suffering does. I really do wonder. It's not obvious to me that
a possible world in which no suffering or sin EVER happens and
heaven is real from the very start, would be better than a world
in which suffering and sin are present in the beginning, forming
a great epic which ultimately ends with eternal heaven of joy
and bliss.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page