tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post755146551520409900..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: The "It's hopelessly impressionistic!" response to the evidential problem of evilStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23583224420434713172010-05-08T13:39:05.853+00:002010-05-08T13:39:05.853+00:00FWIW the "hundreds of millions of years"...FWIW the "hundreds of millions of years" worth is pretty much the time equivalent of the empty Universe. There were (as best we can tell) billions of animal free years in the past before anything evolved enough to suffer. Anyway thats not the point. Lots of suffering on a human scale either way.<br /><br />Martin,<br /><br />I disagree with "suffering would still be a necessary attribute of a thinking being with a physical body."<br /><br />I suspect that is more like "a thinking being with a physical body is necessary for suffering". Suffering seems to be an emotional reaction to physical pain amongst other things but it seems perfectly possible for a body to function without this linkage. Lower animals which do not exhibit emotions and so cannot suffer in that sense are perfectly capable of responding to stimuli to run away, avoid bad food and escape self inflicted injury so I don't think that even if one can argue that pain is an evolutionary necessity or at least very highly favoured, suffering is a logical necessity. Then again there appear to be unusual cases where peoples ability to suffer has been removed, even though they still feel physical pain. This does not seem to remove thought or even the ability to feel other emotions. It may well be a consequence of the way our minds have evolved but, like male nipples, but it does not seem to me to be <i>necessary</i>.wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-47573338505261821302010-05-08T09:31:00.062+00:002010-05-08T09:31:00.062+00:00Hi Martin, by "filled" I didn't mean...Hi Martin, by "filled" I didn't mean spatially filled, like a bucket. I mean there's a lot, like hundreds of millions of years of animal suffering. <br /><br />The point you make about pain could be made in defence of an evil God re pleasure. e.g. He had to give us bodies that produced pleasurable responses when fed food, got sex, etc. as otherwise we would not pursue these things, the species would die out, and so no more suffering. Does that rescue the evil God hypothesis? I think not.<br /><br />Of course we can think up some benefits to pain, as we can some downsides to pleasure. That's not the point.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36131646155681822352010-05-07T23:41:56.734+00:002010-05-07T23:41:56.734+00:00Good point Wombat, but that still makes my observa...Good point Wombat, but that still makes my observation trillions of times more accurate than Stephen's.<br /><br />I am curious as to how easily Stephen's argument slips from suffering to evil. Yes, we all experience suffering at some time in our lives. Evil I interpret as inflicting unnecessary suffering upon others. I am much less sure that evil is particularly common. <br /><br />If suffering were a simple attribute which God had introduced, but which was strictly speaking unnecessary, then we could say that God was being evil. However I don't believe suffering is unnecessary. Pain for instance is a necessary evolutionary consequence of having a physical body that can be harmed. Pain is a warning that physical damage is occurring to our bodies. Strategies to avoid pain help ensure our physical bodies are kept intact and healthy. Other types of suffering have similar evolutionary causes.<br /><br />If you think as I do, then the existence of suffering tells us nothing about whether God exists or not. I happen to believe that there is no God, but even if there is, and somehow we were designed attribute by attribute, then suffering would still be a necessary attribute of a thinking being with a physical body. Suffering is the part of pain which we are able to transmit to other conscious beings.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-6803248898358479342010-05-07T21:05:27.501+00:002010-05-07T21:05:27.501+00:00Martin,
Minor quibble but I believe some astronau...Martin,<br /><br />Minor quibble but I believe some astronauts have had rather an uncomfortable time of it. <br /><br />It's another train of thought though - the Universe isn't filled with anything much at all which doesn't seem to point to any kind of experience, good or evil, being maximized. It's pretty much empty, as the author of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" pointed out.wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80483590471333507412010-05-07T11:45:38.160+00:002010-05-07T11:45:38.160+00:00Give me an example that justifies "the univer...Give me an example that justifies "the universe is filled". My own empirical observation is that "the universe is devoid of suffering, except on earth". Suffering has never been observed anywhere, except on earth.<br /><br />Secondly, justify the phrases "immense" and "tons of suffering". That there is some, there is no doubt. But why stress that there is a very large amount, except to introduce the idea that there is too much for there to be a good God?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88903611437521919622010-05-07T10:35:06.311+00:002010-05-07T10:35:06.311+00:00I know you think your point was clear, but I am af...I know you think your point was clear, but I am afraid it wasn't clear to me, or to Geert, for that matter! One of the questions you asked was: "What does 'seemingly pointless' add to the argument?" Hopefully you can now see what it adds.<br /><br />Incidentally, God's aims are assumed for the purposes of this argument. Not empirically established. But, just to repeat, that is not to say that aims cannot ever be empirically established, they can - in a court of law, they often are.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-50166452334995086132010-05-07T10:02:51.589+00:002010-05-07T10:02:51.589+00:00Actually, I think my view was pretty explicit in m...Actually, I think my view was pretty explicit in my very first comment; as I said 'it's a very small contention'. We agree that 'pointlessness' isn't empirical, but, given a claim about "pointfulness" (to use that language) then there may be consequences that can be empirically assessed. I'm glad we've agreed. <br /><br />So all the weight of the argument comes with how you assess the nature of 'good' when it comes to talking about God, but we've gone round the houses on that too, and I know what you think about apophaticism... :o)Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21811003441837967432010-05-07T09:51:48.167+00:002010-05-07T09:51:48.167+00:00One last clarification. Tons of suffering that doe...One last clarification. Tons of suffering that doesn't allow for greater goods is pointless, given the aims of a good God. <br /><br />That there appears to be a great deal of such suffering is an empirical observation. How else could you know such suffering exists (other than in your own case)?<br /><br />Of course, its pointlessness is relative to the aims of the God we are considering (it's not pointless relative to an evil god), which are just assumed here. If that's your point, well yes, obviously....<br /><br />We can observe that if there's a good God, this suffering would seem to be pointless (note the "seemingly" - there might still be a point, but there's none we can discern), but if there's an evil God, there would obviously be a point to it.<br /><br />I am hoping this is now clear and we can move on. Also glad you have clarified you are not, in any case, raising any sort of objection to my argument.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-73684838954021443692010-05-07T09:40:26.305+00:002010-05-07T09:40:26.305+00:00Ah, I see, you have no objection at all.
Good.
I...Ah, I see, you have no objection at all.<br /><br />Good.<br /><br />I have now explained why the apparent pointless of the suffering is worth pointing out. If it were not pointless, from a good God's point of view, it would not be evidence against such a God. Don't you accept this? Apparently not cos you ask the same question again.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2855031979616414242010-05-07T09:34:00.639+00:002010-05-07T09:34:00.639+00:00Seems like you're indulging in the way of ques...Seems like you're indulging in the way of questions!! :)<br /><br />My original comment: "Stephen, you say "The evidential problem of evil... is based on the empirical observation that the universe is filled with immense amounts of seemingly pointless suffering."<br /><br />What does 'seemingly pointless' add to the argument? I think that you can (just about) argue that suffering as such is an empirical phenomenon - but surely whether it is pointless or not cannot be assessed empirically."<br /><br />You haven't shown that "pointless" can be established empirically. It is dependent upon prior assumptions about goals; for the purposes of your argument, it is dependent on prior assumptions about the goodness of God. Which is fine, I don't particularly have a problem with your logic on this, I just don't think you can claim that 'pointlessness' is an empirical observation.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61951927256287001312010-05-07T09:30:32.729+00:002010-05-07T09:30:32.729+00:00Of course, that God aims to maximize good (or at l...Of course, that God aims to maximize good (or at least won't introduce suffering that is not the price paid for greater goods) is not a claim made on the basis of empirical observation. Rather, that is just the God hypothesis I aim to refute. Is the claim that it is not an empirically based judgement your point? I have no idea. If it is, so what? What is the relevance to my argument? How does it undermine it? Where are you going with this?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72215215712229946702010-05-07T09:25:36.206+00:002010-05-07T09:25:36.206+00:00The wiki page you refer to says empirical includes...The wiki page you refer to says empirical includes information gained by observation. What's the problem?<br /><br />In a court, the evidence is all empirical (note that testimony is a form of empirical evidence).<br /><br />I now have no idea what you are objecting to. Can you spell it out, please. Not a question, an objection, making clear precisely what you are objecting to and precisely what the nature of your objection is. Thanks...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66396448914610737702010-05-07T09:11:55.565+00:002010-05-07T09:11:55.565+00:00Re: the court example, I think you're stretchi...Re: the court example, I think you're stretching 'empirical' to suit your own purposes (quick wiki reference for how 'empirical' is normally used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical )<br /><br />You seem now to accept that "pointless" is not empirical - that is, it only functions in your argument because of the prior premise about the nature of a good God (which is an entirely separate argument, which we needn't get into). <br /><br />You haven't shown that a "point" can be empirically established, which was my original concern.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19475876793901428152010-05-07T00:41:44.999+00:002010-05-07T00:41:44.999+00:00Everyone acknowledges the value or merit of 's...Everyone acknowledges the value or merit of 'sacrifice' to achieve a goal, which could include anything from winning a football grandfinal to combating climate change.<br /><br />However, if you want an example of 'pointless' suffering look no further than the animal kingdom, leave humans out of it altogether.<br /><br />The question I ask is: why would anyone worship a 'god' who created suffering? It's the most perverse idea I've ever heard of. I came to this conclusion in my teens, and I haven't changed it since.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89775650356784005752010-05-06T23:15:49.894+00:002010-05-06T23:15:49.894+00:00Is the debate over the pointlessness (or not) of s...Is the debate over the pointlessness (or not) of suffering not the essential distinction between the logical and evidential problems of evil, as well as being quite key to the latter argument?<br /><br />i.e. there appears to be no obvious point to certain forms of suffering, but in theory it's logically possible God could have some reason to allow it/inflict it, therefore (logically) the existence of apparently pointless evil is not incompatible with the existence of an all good God<br /><br />However, the fact that, despite exhaustive investigation, we can't seem to see any plausible reason for an all good God to allow certain types of suffering would therefore suggest it's unlikely an all good God exists<br /><br />On the latter view, if the theist thinks there is a point to all forms of suffering obviously they have to explain why, preferably in a manner that doesn't rely on the usual absurd rationalisations, special pleading moves etc. that are prevalent in religious apologetics, and(as Stephen has presented in his arguments) in a manner that makes the hypothesis more likely than an all evil God that sometimes allows for good to happenABCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28280339394657753902010-05-06T12:40:25.250+00:002010-05-06T12:40:25.250+00:00re court case - it's the same old "empiri...re court case - it's the same old "empirical" Sam.<br /><br />In court, we need evidence (obviously empirically-based) not just that A killed B, but that A did so intentionally, before we can reasonably find A guilty of first degree murder. This happens all the time. The intentions of others can be established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of empirical evidence.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2664795691053670592010-05-06T12:36:34.860+00:002010-05-06T12:36:34.860+00:00The point of "pointless" Sam is not, as ...The point of "pointless" Sam is not, as you suggest, as an amplifier. If there were clearly a point to certain examples suffering, from such a God's point of view, it would not then be evidence against his existence.<br /><br />It's only if suffering is seemingly pointless - if there's no discernible reason why such a being would inflict it - that it's good evidence against such a being.<br /><br />Hope this finally clears this up.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65164032678385759632010-05-06T12:30:36.730+00:002010-05-06T12:30:36.730+00:00Re: "Pointless" suffering.
In some case...Re: "Pointless" suffering.<br /><br />In some cases we can discern a point to the suffering. Either it is self inflicted for a perceived greater gain (training for a marathon) or by others for the good of society (e.g judicial punishment) or simply for fun. At the very least this excludes those instances where someone else could reasonably be said to be the agent involved. Its an attempt to let God off at least a little bit perhaps? There's still a huge amount of suffering with no discernible agent. <br /><br />Indeed if you are God even the marathon runner's travails are pointless. Plenty of people achieve their goal through long hard work without actually suffering. For example staying in and practicing the violin for two hours every night instead of going out with friends. So make the runner show discipline, hard work and self sacrifice but why make him suffer? The only time suffering has a point <i>per se</i> is surely when the suffering <i>is</i> the point. Torture and punishment basically.wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13075332751257196132010-05-06T12:04:09.284+00:002010-05-06T12:04:09.284+00:00re: your 11.45 comment first, I think "empiri...re: your 11.45 comment first, I think "empirical" re court cases is different from "empirical" re philosophical/scientific discussion. I could be wrong.<br /><br />re: your 11.43 comment, I'd remind you of my original comment in this thread, ie what does 'pointless' add to the argument? Why don't you just restrict it to 'suffering', ie creator makes world with lots of suffering, therefore can't be good?<br /><br />Given a premise of 'God intends there to be (no or minimal) suffering' I would accept that there is empirical evidence (of suffering) that counts against that premise. I see that as the core of your argument.<br /><br />I still don't see what the language of 'pointless' adds, except as an amplifier.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56190843180053993132010-05-06T11:45:52.296+00:002010-05-06T11:45:52.296+00:00In any case, aims and intentions are empirically e...In any case, aims and intentions are empirically establishable. They do it in court every day.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89365663669102103802010-05-06T11:43:47.236+00:002010-05-06T11:43:47.236+00:00Yes except you forget I am running an argument ag...Yes except you forget I am running an argument against the hypothesis that there is a God with such aims.<br /><br />If I see someone has been mixing flour, water etc, but instead of adding yeast has added chalk, I will justifiably conclude that either this was a mistake on their part, or else their aim was not to make risen, edible bread.<br /><br />As the all-powerful creator doesn't make mistakes, his introduction of huge quantities of pointless suffering into his creation is similarly excellent evidence that his aim is not to maximize good. In which case he ain't your God.<br /><br />I guess you'll now switch to different question: "But how do you know it is pointless?" etc.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31017534959732457552010-05-06T11:08:34.013+00:002010-05-06T11:08:34.013+00:00Stephen, you seem to be importing the conclusion i...Stephen, you seem to be importing the conclusion into your premise. You've changed the language to 'aims' but the substantive point is still there, you've just shifted the language. Are 'aims' empirically establishable? I would say no, in just the same way as establishing something as 'pointless' is not empirically establishable.<br /><br />Just to spell it out:<br /><br />a) my aim (or 'point') is to make bread;<br />b) adding yeast to dough and cooking it will make bread;<br />c) it is empirically establishable that b) is true<br /><br />doesn't establish that b) is either pointless or not without assuming the truth of a), which you've assumed, rather than argued for or demonstrated.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12883780209194114782010-05-05T11:20:12.202+00:002010-05-05T11:20:12.202+00:00Sam - no don't go away - only trolls are banne...Sam - no don't go away - only trolls are banned, and you are not one.<br /><br />But you do ask very ambiguous questions, and also switch questions, and endlessly ramify questions, which leads to considerable frustration for me (and no doubt also for Geert A., whom you now claim has misunderstood what you are asking and why).<br /><br />Hence my insistence that you clarify which precisely which question you are asking, and why.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17086318639788730282010-05-05T11:13:09.959+00:002010-05-05T11:13:09.959+00:00OK. QUESTION: Stephen, you say that whether or not...OK. QUESTION: Stephen, you say that whether or not an action is pointless/has a point can be empirically established. How?<br /><br />ANSWER: Whether an action has a point, or is pointless, depends on what ones aims are. If I want to make bread rise, there's a point to adding yeast, and not much point in adding chalk.<br /><br />That there is a point in adding yeast, and not much point in adding chalk, is empirically establishable.<br /><br />Notice the above example has nothing to do with morality.<br /><br />Re the good god hypothesis, I assume that a good god will aim to maximize good. He will not aim to introduce or allow pointless suffering (suffering that is not e.g. the price he has to pay for some greater good.)<br /><br />*Some* suffering might clearly have such a point, given the larger aims of such a being. That it might have such a point might even be empirically established (e.g. we might empirically discover that certain pains are inevitable if we want to achieve other goods). <br /><br />However, in the absence of any evidence of it being for some such point, huge quantities of (thus "seemingly pointless") suffering is evidence that there is no all-powerful all-good god who aims to maximize good.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26802278876373540702010-05-05T11:13:04.295+00:002010-05-05T11:13:04.295+00:00From that earlier post: "Oh dear, someone has...From that earlier post: "Oh dear, someone has just made a very telling objection to one of your cult's core beliefs. How do you respond? Why not use that time-honoured bullshitter’s technique: the way of questions. First, suggest your critic is being crude and unsubtle in his or her thinking. Then ask them a rather vague question that is only tenuously related to their objection (but make sure it contains some of the same key words as the objection, so it seems like it could be relevant)."<br /><br />Hmm. Seems like a perfect description of your response to me in this thread!! <br /><br />Going back to my earlier comment, how exactly is my saying "I dispute that "pointless" is an empirical judgement" in any way obscure or unclear? You continue to obfuscate and confuse, bringing in old posts and arguments to what is surely a very simple and straightforward issue. <br /><br />Perhaps I've stumbled on something more significant than I realised.<br /><br />I'll shut up and go away if you want me to.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.com