Comments on: The Problem of Evil hits the papers http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:04:21 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ken Miller http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56333 Ken Miller Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:04:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56333 The question of the perceptibility of the God of the Bible is not something of pure speculation, though it is commonly, philosophically, debated as such. Had God chosen to not reveal Himself in various ways, He would indeed be imperceptible. We would be walking about without a clue of His existence. However, He has been active in revealing Himself throughout history. One of the authors from the Bible states that in ages past, God spoke to His people through His prophets, the most notable being Moses. To Moses, there was direct revelation as to His nature, His attributes. But the people also witnessed His presence and displays of various aspects of His nature.The Jewish people celebrate Passover to this day as a testimony to those displays. That particular author goes on to say that God had now spoken to his generation in His Son. The people had the opportunity to see God up close. What did they see? In addition to seeing a man with flesh and bone, they saw His command of nature, command over disease, command over life and death. And yes, they heard Him talk about what it means to perceive God, even to have a relationship with Him. After all, He is first and foremost a personal God. If we have the ability to perceive God's nature, is it possible for us to fully perceive or comprehend God's nature? What would that experience look like? We get a glimpse from Moses' experience. God hid him in a cleft on a mountain, then passed by, revealing just a small portion of His glory. Had God fully revealed Himself to Moses, he would have been completely consumed (dead). Other prophets had similar experiences, exclaiming such things as "Woe is me, I'm undone," or described as falling as a dead man before God. So no, we have no way of experiencing full comprehension of God's nature, though believers get the opportunity to know Him better, experiencing his immediate presence throughout eternity. The question of the perceptibility of the God of the Bible is not something of pure speculation, though it is commonly, philosophically, debated as such. Had God chosen to not reveal Himself in various ways, He would indeed be imperceptible. We would be walking about without a clue of His existence. However, He has been active in revealing Himself throughout history. One of the authors from the Bible states that in ages past, God spoke to His people through His prophets, the most notable being Moses. To Moses, there was direct revelation as to His nature, His attributes. But the people also witnessed His presence and displays of various aspects of His nature.The Jewish people celebrate Passover to this day as a testimony to those displays. That particular author goes on to say that God had now spoken to his generation in His Son. The people had the opportunity to see God up close. What did they see? In addition to seeing a man with flesh and bone, they saw His command of nature, command over disease, command over life and death. And yes, they heard Him talk about what it means to perceive God, even to have a relationship with Him. After all, He is first and foremost a personal God. If we have the ability to perceive God’s nature, is it possible for us to fully perceive or comprehend God’s nature? What would that experience look like? We get a glimpse from Moses’ experience. God hid him in a cleft on a mountain, then passed by, revealing just a small portion of His glory. Had God fully revealed Himself to Moses, he would have been completely consumed (dead). Other prophets had similar experiences, exclaiming such things as “Woe is me, I’m undone,” or described as falling as a dead man before God. So no, we have no way of experiencing full comprehension of God’s nature, though believers get the opportunity to know Him better, experiencing his immediate presence throughout eternity.

]]> By: Strange Doctrines http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56332 Strange Doctrines Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:38:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56332 "<i>Is non-existence counted as pain, or neutral?</i>" Neutral--although the knowledge of impending nonexistence would count as pain due to the (in most cases) predictable existential angst. Also, sorry for the faulty math. That should be 49.9999999%. “Is non-existence counted as pain, or neutral?” Neutral—although the knowledge of impending nonexistence would count as pain due to the (in most cases) predictable existential angst. Also, sorry for the faulty math. That should be 49.9999999%.

]]> By: Strange Doctrines http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56331 Strange Doctrines Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:37:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56331 "<i>Is non-existence counted as pain, or neutral?</i>" Neutral--although the knowledge of impending nonexistence would count as pain due to the (in most cases) predictable existential angst. Also, sorry for the faulty math. That should be 49.9999999%. “Is non-existence counted as pain, or neutral?” Neutral—although the knowledge of impending nonexistence would count as pain due to the (in most cases) predictable existential angst. Also, sorry for the faulty math. That should be 49.9999999%.

]]> By: Fog http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56330 Fog Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:58:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56330 Maybe Allan Watts might give better insights into the problem of evil than the story of Job. Watts believed in an all-knowing, all-powerful God, who, in "his" (cultural convention - assigning gender to God is foolish) perfect state, was perfectly bored (where's the challenge?). The divine spark in all of us is our little piece of God's consciousness incarnate. The conditions of life on earth, like birth, death, pain, joy, good, evil etc, are the ways in which God creates meaning for us (himself, after all!). Homer echoed this thought when he created frivolous gods in the Iliad. As immortals, they suffer no consequences, they always had another mulligan to take, therefore they were not serious creatures. We mortals are all bits of God's consciousness playing our parts in Shakespeare's eternal play. We just aren't allowed to know it's all a play while it's going on, because if we did, we would become frivolous like Homer's gods, fearing no earthly consequences. In this view, death is not evil because 1) the divine spark is immortal, and 2) death gives life its intensity. It's all good. But not easy. I don't think anyone need be ashamed of feeling daunted by life, because the human condition is the most intense, meaningful experience conceivable by the mind of God Maybe Allan Watts might give better insights into the problem of evil than the story of Job. Watts believed in an all-knowing, all-powerful God, who, in “his” (cultural convention – assigning gender to God is foolish) perfect state, was perfectly bored (where’s the challenge?). The divine spark in all of us is our little piece of God’s consciousness incarnate. The conditions of life on earth, like birth, death, pain, joy, good, evil etc, are the ways in which God creates meaning for us (himself, after all!). Homer echoed this thought when he created frivolous gods in the Iliad. As immortals, they suffer no consequences, they always had another mulligan to take, therefore they were not serious creatures. We mortals are all bits of God’s consciousness playing our parts in Shakespeare’s eternal play. We just aren’t allowed to know it’s all a play while it’s going on, because if we did, we would become frivolous like Homer’s gods, fearing no earthly consequences. In this view, death is not evil because 1) the divine spark is immortal, and 2) death gives life its intensity. It’s all good. But not easy. I don’t think anyone need be ashamed of feeling daunted by life, because the human condition is the most intense, meaningful experience conceivable by the mind of God

]]> By: perianwyr http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56329 perianwyr Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:16:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56329 <i>Consider the following analogy: a married couple knows with 100% certainty that if they try to get pregnant this evening, the child that will result (call this child Adam) will have a life that will consist of 50.0000001% pleasure and 49.0000009% pain.</i> Is non-existence counted as pain, or neutral? Consider the following analogy: a married couple knows with 100% certainty that if they try to get pregnant this evening, the child that will result (call this child Adam) will have a life that will consist of 50.0000001% pleasure and 49.0000009% pain. Is non-existence counted as pain, or neutral?

]]> By: Tracy http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56328 Tracy Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:27:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56328 Andrew, you set up an example where we were expected to draw the conclusion that people's suffering is inflicted by God for good reasons. I provided a counter-example, where we know suffering is happening, but we do not know if it is happening for good reasons, having only an unsupported statement to that effect, and asked what sort of conclusions you would draw in that situation. Why do Christians always give the first example and not the second? What puzzles me is Christians, who, faced with a God for which if he's all-powerful then, at best, you don't know if he's good or bad, still carry on worshipping him. Believers who don't see a problem are less worrying to me, I can excuse them by saying they haven't thought about it. People who believe in an all-powerful God but don't worship him/her/it are also not a problem. It's the ones who have thought about it, and still go on praising what, for all they know, may be the greatest monster the world has ever seen, who worry me. Andrew, you set up an example where we were expected to draw the conclusion that people’s suffering is inflicted by God for good reasons. I provided a counter-example, where we know suffering is happening, but we do not know if it is happening for good reasons, having only an unsupported statement to that effect, and asked what sort of conclusions you would draw in that situation. Why do Christians always give the first example and not the second? What puzzles me is Christians, who, faced with a God for which if he’s all-powerful then, at best, you don’t know if he’s good or bad, still carry on worshipping him. Believers who don’t see a problem are less worrying to me, I can excuse them by saying they haven’t thought about it. People who believe in an all-powerful God but don’t worship him/her/it are also not a problem. It’s the ones who have thought about it, and still go on praising what, for all they know, may be the greatest monster the world has ever seen, who worry me.

]]> By: Strange Doctrines http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56327 Strange Doctrines Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:28:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56327 (Regarding the modal solution <a href="http://tar.weatherson.net/archives/001096.html">here</a>.) Is it really better that our world exist than not? Note that this is a distinct question from whether our world ought to continue to exist given, that it does. Consider the following analogy: a married couple knows with 100% certainty that if they try to get pregnant this evening, the child that will result (call this child Adam) will have a life that will consist of 50.0000001% pleasure and 49.0000009% pain. (For convenience, assume Adam's marginal hedonic effect on the world will have the identical ratio). As it happens, this is the only chance the couple will have to get pregnant, and they know this too with 100% certainty. Question: From the perspective of these parents, is it better that Adam be brought into existence than not? I don't think it's at all clear that the answer is "yes." One might want to answer, "Well, by definition, the answer is 'yes,' because by definition one alternative is better than another because the one has net positive utility." But there is a competing intuition (isn't there?) that 49.0000009% is a daunting share of pain for a person to have to go through life with. This intuition, I think, runs in favor of human lives that preponderate heavily in favor of high positive-to-negative hedonic ratios. (Perhaps this intuition is related to the fact that we seem far more motivated to avoid pain than to seek pleasure.) And it's just not clear that loving parents would want to bring a life into the world whose positive qualities preponderate so narrowly. In any case, it's a hard question. An easier question is the second one--whether it's better that Al should continue to exist than not once he in fact does exist. The intuition here runs far stronger in favor of a "yes" answer. Actually, that's too weak. <i>No</i> loving parent would say, "You know, Adam's life is only going to be narrowly net positive, so let's euthanize him," or like that. It's unthinkable--far more unthinkable than the prospect of simply opting not to conceive Al in the first place (which isn't unthinkable at all). The point here is that it's plausible to weight the ratio of pain to pleasure in the world as I did in Al's prospective life. If so, then despite our clear will to persevere in the world in which we find ourselves now, it's nonetheless arguable that <i>from the perspective of a benevolent deity ex ante</i> (which perspective I take to be analogous to that of our prospective parents), this world ought never to have been brought into existence. (Regarding the modal solution here.) Is it really better that our world exist than not? Note that this is a distinct question from whether our world ought to continue to exist given, that it does. Consider the following analogy: a married couple knows with 100% certainty that if they try to get pregnant this evening, the child that will result (call this child Adam) will have a life that will consist of 50.0000001% pleasure and 49.0000009% pain. (For convenience, assume Adam’s marginal hedonic effect on the world will have the identical ratio). As it happens, this is the only chance the couple will have to get pregnant, and they know this too with 100% certainty. Question: From the perspective of these parents, is it better that Adam be brought into existence than not? I don’t think it’s at all clear that the answer is “yes.” One might want to answer, “Well, by definition, the answer is ‘yes,’ because by definition one alternative is better than another because the one has net positive utility.” But there is a competing intuition (isn’t there?) that 49.0000009% is a daunting share of pain for a person to have to go through life with. This intuition, I think, runs in favor of human lives that preponderate heavily in favor of high positive-to-negative hedonic ratios. (Perhaps this intuition is related to the fact that we seem far more motivated to avoid pain than to seek pleasure.) And it’s just not clear that loving parents would want to bring a life into the world whose positive qualities preponderate so narrowly. In any case, it’s a hard question. An easier question is the second one—whether it’s better that Al should continue to exist than not once he in fact does exist. The intuition here runs far stronger in favor of a “yes” answer. Actually, that’s too weak. No loving parent would say, “You know, Adam’s life is only going to be narrowly net positive, so let’s euthanize him,” or like that. It’s unthinkable—far more unthinkable than the prospect of simply opting not to conceive Al in the first place (which isn’t unthinkable at all). The point here is that it’s plausible to weight the ratio of pain to pleasure in the world as I did in Al’s prospective life. If so, then despite our clear will to persevere in the world in which we find ourselves now, it’s nonetheless arguable that from the perspective of a benevolent deity ex ante (which perspective I take to be analogous to that of our prospective parents), this world ought never to have been brought into existence.

]]> By: kyan gadac http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56326 kyan gadac Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:36:14 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56326 It's probably irreverent but i started <a href="http://kiangardarup.blogspot.com/2005/01/god-amongst-trees-crooked-timber-and.html#comments">my own thread</a> on this debate. God smiles on us in our sadness.God forgives our sins. God does not <em>do</em> good. It’s probably irreverent but i started my own thread on this debate. God smiles on us in our sadness.God forgives our sins. God does not do good.

]]> By: Tom Doyle http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56325 Tom Doyle Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:35:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56325 "Andrew " imagine a lot of believers are in the same boat. Believers who don’t see that there is a problem disgust and frighten me, as they probably do you." I think i don't see that there is a problem, so what problem should I see so as not to disgust and frighten you.? “Andrew ” imagine a lot of believers are in the same boat. Believers who don’t see that there is a problem disgust and frighten me, as they probably do you.” I think i don’t see that there is a problem, so what problem should I see so as not to disgust and frighten you.?

]]> By: x http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56324 x Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:05:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56324 Bob - of course that problem of pain is not limited to believers. Still, what I meant is, that approach to it is essentially religious, it looks for a meaning when there should be none, because for an atheist there is no divine masterplan or "explanation" of the kind religions give, usually involving a fall from grace which brought death and pain to the world and another dimension where everything is perfect bliss etc. etc.. I'm not saying that not believing in all that means one shouldn't be upset by suffering and death. Suffering is human, it's not an exclusively religious problem, and it shouldn't be, in fact, that's exactly my point. Can't have it both ways - if you don't believe in a divine entity, then you don't go projecting divine attributes to natural phenomena. Actually, I think it would be nice even if religious people stopped doing that, because even when you believe in a divine entity, it's by definition not human and not to be found within nature, so it's pointless to attribute divine meaning or "rational" moral explanations to natural events, it's just an excuse to use religion as an instrument of fear. That's what I like about the quote from Rowan Williams, it doesn't give you a dogmatic answer to that "why do bad things happen". It may be a bit too conveniently evasive about how to deal with the question from a religious point of view, but I much prefer that than fundamentalist certainties and apocalyptic views of divine judgement through natural disasters. Bob – of course that problem of pain is not limited to believers. Still, what I meant is, that approach to it is essentially religious, it looks for a meaning when there should be none, because for an atheist there is no divine masterplan or “explanation” of the kind religions give, usually involving a fall from grace which brought death and pain to the world and another dimension where everything is perfect bliss etc. etc.. I’m not saying that not believing in all that means one shouldn’t be upset by suffering and death. Suffering is human, it’s not an exclusively religious problem, and it shouldn’t be, in fact, that’s exactly my point. Can’t have it both ways – if you don’t believe in a divine entity, then you don’t go projecting divine attributes to natural phenomena. Actually, I think it would be nice even if religious people stopped doing that, because even when you believe in a divine entity, it’s by definition not human and not to be found within nature, so it’s pointless to attribute divine meaning or “rational” moral explanations to natural events, it’s just an excuse to use religion as an instrument of fear. That’s what I like about the quote from Rowan Williams, it doesn’t give you a dogmatic answer to that “why do bad things happen”. It may be a bit too conveniently evasive about how to deal with the question from a religious point of view, but I much prefer that than fundamentalist certainties and apocalyptic views of divine judgement through natural disasters.

]]> By: Nate http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56323 Nate Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:18:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56323 From part of <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/natep/2005/01/08#a863">a similar post on my own blog</a>. <blockquote> <p>The Salvodoran theologian Jon Sobrino, writing in response to the 2001 earthquakes in El Salvador (quickly forgotten outside of El Salvador), maintains the depth of that question but adds a second: where are we? This is not just a question about our relief efforts now, but about our inattention before the tsunamis. Why, in a world of such resources, were so many malnourished children unable to escape the waves? Why did so many buildings collapse in a world where our sturdy structures protect our books, our stereos, our entertainment centers? How do the structures of international aid and debt which support our lifestyles contribute to the vulnerability of our world's poor? </p> <p>But before we dismiss disasters only as "acts of God" beyond all reasoning, we must ask ourselves the second question: how are these disasters also acts of humanity, acts of ours, what we have done or failed to do?</p> </blockquote> From part of a similar post on my own blog.

The Salvodoran theologian Jon Sobrino, writing in response to the 2001 earthquakes in El Salvador (quickly forgotten outside of El Salvador), maintains the depth of that question but adds a second: where are we? This is not just a question about our relief efforts now, but about our inattention before the tsunamis. Why, in a world of such resources, were so many malnourished children unable to escape the waves? Why did so many buildings collapse in a world where our sturdy structures protect our books, our stereos, our entertainment centers? How do the structures of international aid and debt which support our lifestyles contribute to the vulnerability of our world’s poor?

But before we dismiss disasters only as “acts of God” beyond all reasoning, we must ask ourselves the second question: how are these disasters also acts of humanity, acts of ours, what we have done or failed to do?

]]> By: Laon http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56322 Laon Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:56:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56322 I said: "two observations" Then I said: "first", "second", "third". Just call me Cardinal Fang. Ordinal Laon I said: “two observations” Then I said: “first”, “second”, “third”. Just call me Cardinal Fang. Ordinal Laon

]]> By: Laon http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56321 Laon Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:47:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56321 Andrew said: "atheists have the equally difficult, terrifying problem of an indifferent universe to deal with. It’s not a paradox or conundrum, but practically speaking it’s the same problem." Two observations. First, there is nothing terrifying or even difficult about the universe being indifferent. The universe isn't sentient, so I don't expect it to have opinions or preferences. Small parts of the universe are also indifferent to me, like the planet Earth, nebulae, also the swimming pool across the road: absolutely indifferent to me and you, every one of them. Doesn't seem at all scary or difficult, either taken singly, or in bunches, or (in the form of the universe) all at once. But if there are people who think it's terrible or scary that the universe is non-sentient and indifferent, then their emotional reactions are a problem for them. In one sense their problem is cognitive; they aren't thinking clearly. But the solution I'd suggest would be to have a really long, close talk with their parents, or hug someone they love. The universe can't be your friend, or love you, because that's its nature. But people can, so long as you're reasonably nice to them. So anyone expecting care or concern from the universe instead of from the people they should be close to, has made a basic but fixable mistake. Second, the non-sentience, and therefore indifference, of the universe isn't a problem. Therefore it can't be the "same problem" as anything. Third, there is a problem for people who believe in a god that is omnipotent and omni-beneficent. Because that god is logically responsible by action or inaction for the death by drowning of 160,000 people, and counting, plus the misery and further deaths that are following from that. The obvious solution is to abandon belief in a god that is both omnipotent and omni-benevolent. But if I didn't want to abandon that, perhaps for emotional reasons, then I could deal with it by going to church, and giving god credit for the clean-up that is actually being done by humans, and not thinking about the responsibilities of an omnipotent being. Denial, essentially; that seems to be the most common solution. Alternatively, you bring in a patch. The patch might be the idea that these hundreds of thousands of deaths are really a sign of benevolence, and was all for our own good, because the being responsible loves us, really, but we're too small to understand how this is good for us. Maybe, for example, it was a love-tap, to remind us to continue loving, fearing and obeying this god. This seems to be the sort of rationalisation that keeps people from leaving violent and abusive relationships, and it may not be part of a very healthy mind-set. Still, if people need to hang on to a god that is both benevolent and omnipotent, then that's another way of doing so. It also seems to be popular. (The Anglican Archbish of Sydney, for example, took the "it was God's judgement" line; I must say that if I were a Christian I'd think the man was in the wrong job, but as an atheist I approve of the sterling work he's doing for our team.) So atheists don't have a problem at all, while theists have a problem which can easily be denied or rationalised away. By the way, speaking of humans being more responsive than non-sentient or imaginary entities, Medecins san Frontieres would still like donations to their general fund, which will be used for tsunami relief as further projects are launched in the coming days. It's only the specific tsunami relief fund that has met its target at the present time. Laon Andrew said: “atheists have the equally difficult, terrifying problem of an indifferent universe to deal with. It’s not a paradox or conundrum, but practically speaking it’s the same problem.” Two observations. First, there is nothing terrifying or even difficult about the universe being indifferent. The universe isn’t sentient, so I don’t expect it to have opinions or preferences. Small parts of the universe are also indifferent to me, like the planet Earth, nebulae, also the swimming pool across the road: absolutely indifferent to me and you, every one of them. Doesn’t seem at all scary or difficult, either taken singly, or in bunches, or (in the form of the universe) all at once. But if there are people who think it’s terrible or scary that the universe is non-sentient and indifferent, then their emotional reactions are a problem for them. In one sense their problem is cognitive; they aren’t thinking clearly. But the solution I’d suggest would be to have a really long, close talk with their parents, or hug someone they love. The universe can’t be your friend, or love you, because that’s its nature. But people can, so long as you’re reasonably nice to them. So anyone expecting care or concern from the universe instead of from the people they should be close to, has made a basic but fixable mistake. Second, the non-sentience, and therefore indifference, of the universe isn’t a problem. Therefore it can’t be the “same problem” as anything. Third, there is a problem for people who believe in a god that is omnipotent and omni-beneficent. Because that god is logically responsible by action or inaction for the death by drowning of 160,000 people, and counting, plus the misery and further deaths that are following from that. The obvious solution is to abandon belief in a god that is both omnipotent and omni-benevolent. But if I didn’t want to abandon that, perhaps for emotional reasons, then I could deal with it by going to church, and giving god credit for the clean-up that is actually being done by humans, and not thinking about the responsibilities of an omnipotent being. Denial, essentially; that seems to be the most common solution. Alternatively, you bring in a patch. The patch might be the idea that these hundreds of thousands of deaths are really a sign of benevolence, and was all for our own good, because the being responsible loves us, really, but we’re too small to understand how this is good for us. Maybe, for example, it was a love-tap, to remind us to continue loving, fearing and obeying this god. This seems to be the sort of rationalisation that keeps people from leaving violent and abusive relationships, and it may not be part of a very healthy mind-set. Still, if people need to hang on to a god that is both benevolent and omnipotent, then that’s another way of doing so. It also seems to be popular. (The Anglican Archbish of Sydney, for example, took the “it was God’s judgement” line; I must say that if I were a Christian I’d think the man was in the wrong job, but as an atheist I approve of the sterling work he’s doing for our team.) So atheists don’t have a problem at all, while theists have a problem which can easily be denied or rationalised away. By the way, speaking of humans being more responsive than non-sentient or imaginary entities, Medecins san Frontieres would still like donations to their general fund, which will be used for tsunami relief as further projects are launched in the coming days. It’s only the specific tsunami relief fund that has met its target at the present time. Laon

]]> By: Andrew http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56320 Andrew Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:51:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56320 My comment was cross-posted with Bob's. It's true that atheists have the equally difficult, terrifying problem of an indifferent universe to deal with. It's not a paradox or conundrum, but practically speaking it's the same problem. My comment was cross-posted with Bob’s. It’s true that atheists have the equally difficult, terrifying problem of an indifferent universe to deal with. It’s not a paradox or conundrum, but practically speaking it’s the same problem.

]]> By: Andrew http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/06/the-problem-of-evil-hits-the-papers/comment-page-2/#comment-56319 Andrew Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:32:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2726#comment-56319 tracy, I'm not defending God or tsunamis or cancer at all in this thread. Certainly the tsunami cannot in any way be considered "evidence" of God's goodness, should he exist. The scope of the Problem of Evil is whether it poses a problem concerning either his existence or his all-goodness. I think it's not only appropriate, but necessary, to be angry at God if a) you believe he exists and b) you believe he caused these things to happen. That's a far cry from proving that if he existed and were all-good and all-powerful that this wouldn't happen. We assume it to be true because of our reaction, but we don't know it. One school of thought about suffering is that its purpose is precisely to give us the opportunity to practice compassion by responding to it. I think that's rather facile myself, but it would certainly be a counterargument to your argument about what our response should be given the premises. I'm kind of in Rowan Williams' boat. The world would be a lot easier to understand if I didn't believe that God exists, but that option isn't open to me. Instead I have this difficult, terrifying problem to deal with. Wrestling with the problem has had its effects on me; others (who actually know me) can judge whether they've been good or bad. I imagine a lot of believers are in the same boat. Believers who don't see that there is a problem disgust and frighten me, as they probably do you. tracy, I’m not defending God or tsunamis or cancer at all in this thread. Certainly the tsunami cannot in any way be considered “evidence” of God’s goodness, should he exist. The scope of the Problem of Evil is whether it poses a problem concerning either his existence or his all-goodness. I think it’s not only appropriate, but necessary, to be angry at God if a) you believe he exists and b) you believe he caused these things to happen. That’s a far cry from proving that if he existed and were all-good and all-powerful that this wouldn’t happen. We assume it to be true because of our reaction, but we don’t know it. One school of thought about suffering is that its purpose is precisely to give us the opportunity to practice compassion by responding to it. I think that’s rather facile myself, but it would certainly be a counterargument to your argument about what our response should be given the premises. I’m kind of in Rowan Williams’ boat. The world would be a lot easier to understand if I didn’t believe that God exists, but that option isn’t open to me. Instead I have this difficult, terrifying problem to deal with. Wrestling with the problem has had its effects on me; others (who actually know me) can judge whether they’ve been good or bad. I imagine a lot of believers are in the same boat. Believers who don’t see that there is a problem disgust and frighten me, as they probably do you.

]]>