Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
October 8, 2011 at 5:53am
My father so enjoyed last week's contest that he suggested another one. He'll be adjudicating again.
Proposition: The problem of evil is as great for atheists as it is for believers.
This week's prize is a handsome 1953 Buick Skylark in matador red or one of two handsome Ricochet glory badges. There are three doors, behind one of which is the Skylark. Say you pick Door 1. I open Door 2 to reveal a Glory Badge. Do you want to switch your pick?
- Comment (260)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Mostly.
People suffer, but don't want to, and if they have compassion they don't want others to suffer either.
Most of morality is a variation on: how can we suffer less?
Jan '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Why is caring for others relevant? If you care for someone, great, but if you don't, is there anything wrong with that?
(I agree that it's wrong. But I want to hear the explanation why.)
Aug '10
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Benjamin Finlay
Some moral principles are objective in the sense that they arise from the universality of some aspects of human experience, and from the correct application of some of the (absolute) principles of logic. · Oct 8 at 2:21pm
I think this would be interesting to see in practice. Could you give us a demonstration of the correct application of some of the absolute principles of logic to the universality of human experience to support or refute some statement about evil?
And no fair if the universality of human experience includes a sense of the transcendent, as that is just a belief in God by another name.
Edited on October 9, 2011 at 12:34amFeb '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Joseph Stanko
Your argument so far is that:
Correct? Now, let us suppose an alternate reality where an omnipotent benevolent god does exist. By your own line of reasoning such a god would prevent all evil acts from occurring, correct?
Clearly this would be a preferable state of affairs, would it not? How then can you say your are glad such a god does not exist? · Oct 8 at 3:16pm
I don't know what a benevolent god should do, just that if there is a god he clearly does not deserve to be called benevolent.
When I say I am glad there is no god, what I mean is I am glad that the god described in the Bible (or any other holy book I know of) does not exist, in part because he is clearly not benevolent. Any specific hypothetical god we could think of would have to be judged individually as to whether I would like it. But I wouldn't like to be in the position of picking a god, either.
Jun '10
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
KC Mulville
Benjamin Finlay
Why couldn't God pull the strings to prevent all suffering?
Why indeed.
Why? Freedom. That's what we've been saying.
Once you say that God should prevent some suffering, there is no logical way to stop the slippery slope to demanding that God prevent all suffering. But to do that requires removing all human freedom. · Oct 8 at 3:05pm
I suppose as in Minority Report, God could punish us for crimes we have not yet committed. We would retain the freedom to decide to commit a crime but God would intervene before we could actually harm anyone.
Aug '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Benjamin Finlay
Being prevented from doing harm does not restrict his choice to do harm.
Are you saying that God is incompetent? A ten year old could have saved her by calling the police.
There we go. Your god does not meet the moral standards we set for the lowest members of society. · Oct 8 at 2:49pm
Please explain your first response better. It doesn't seem strong. He can chose to rape (in his mind) but God should stop him right before he gets to doing the heinous deed? I don't want to be unfair to your argument here.
Your second point is a variation on your last point. I can't assume that God acted along the most efficacious routes available? Not at all possible? God can't be loving at the expense of being just. He navigates this tension.
Your last point... we simply disagree and you obligate God to prevent all harm. Let me push this some. Why assume that our moral standards are perfect, perfect enough (for this particular case) or right for judging God? Why assume we have enough knowledge to weigh all that God weighs?
Jun '10
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Benjamin Finlay
I don't know what a benevolent god should do, just that if there is a god he clearly does not deserve to be called benevolent.
Any specific hypothetical god we could think of would have to be judged individually as to whether I would like it.
[1] And the LORD said to Job:
[2] "Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
He who argues with God, let him answer it."
[3] Then Job answered the LORD:
[4] "Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer thee?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
[5] I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further."
[6] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
[7] "Gird up your loins like a man;
I will question you, and you declare to me.
[8] Will you even put me in the wrong?
Will you condemn me that you may be justified?
Jan '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
No time travel, please. Cas Balicki would kill me! :)
Feb '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Mark Woodworth
I think this would be interesting to see in practice.
The only principles that I would say are objectively true are the most obvious ones. It is wrong to wander the streets killing people randomly. Human experience of death is sufficiently universal that one can say with certainty that to kill randomly is to do grievous and unwarranted harm. Any moral principle that would say otherwise is perverting the definition of the word "moral"
I can't enumerate all of the justifications for killing, but I think from an objective standpoint "because I enjoy killing" is not one of them. That reasoning does not seek to minimize harm and so does cannot be considered moral by any reasonable definition of the word. Euthensia, war, and the death penalty are all tricky - these may have objective answers but I do not pretend that I know them. I have opinions, but I might be wrong.
So when I say objective morality exists, I don't mean to suggest that I have all the answers. All of the problems of ethics remain, and we just have to do our best with what we have.
Jun '10
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Benjamin Finlay
So when I say objective morality exists, I don't mean to suggest that I have all the answers. All of the problems of ethics remain, and we just have to do our best with what we have.
Earlier you denied that "absolute" morality exists. Perhaps this was just a difference in terminology, to me absolute morality simply means objective morality. It means moral rules that are always and everywhere valid because they are part of the structure of objective reality.
Feb '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Goldgeller
Why assume that our moral standards are perfect, perfect enough (for this particular case) or right for judging God? Why assume we have enough knowledge to weigh all that God weighs? · Oct 8 at 3:36pm
I think in the heat of debate I have been unclear on some things. I don't know what God should have done, I don't know how or when he should have intervened. But a person who would watch and not act cannot claim to love that woman. By the standards that the law and common decency set, any person who could have acted would be obligated to act. God does not meet that standard.
Where we disagree, I think, is on whether or not we can judge God by our standards. I say we can and should. Our morality is not perfect, but it is what we have and we ought to use it as best we can. And when I judge God morally, I find him lacking. Having read the Old Testament, I find him morally repugnant and barbaric.
Feb '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Joseph Stanko
Earlier you denied that "absolute" morality exists. Perhaps this was just a difference in terminology, to me absolute morality simply means objective morality. It means moral rules that are always and everywhere valid because they are part of the structure of objective reality. · Oct 8 at 4:01pm
To me the difference is that what is absolute exists outside of man (math is true whether we exist or don't). We can make, I believe, object statements about morality in the sense that we can know as fact rather than as opinion that random acts of violence are immoral. Any definition of the word moral that allows random acts of violence as moral is a perversion of the word moral.
Jan '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
That makes morality relative.
Jan '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Benjamin Finlay
We can make, I believe, object statements about morality in the sense that we can know as fact rather than as opinion that random acts of violence are immoral.
Why?
That's no different from saying that you'll know morality when you see it. That's simply relying on your certainty of your intuition.
The reason you need to explain your moral theory is that without an explanation, you're merely relying on your feelings. And that's as much a result of your socialization and training as it is any intellectual assessment of logic. It turns morality into the mentality of the herd, where moral reflexes are nothing more than herd defense.
That's why we start with the question of what morality is based on. If there is no God, then there is no higher authority to appeal to. What are we left with? Non-binding speculations on human nature, or appeals to the mutual benefit of lawful behavior. But then you have no way to rebut someone who decides that he can act illegally but not get caught.
Feb '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
KC Mulville
Why is caring for others relevant? If you care for someone, great, but if you don't, is there anything wrong with that?
Fair question.
In a sense, caring for others doesn't matter. 5,000 people died of diarrhea today, and none of us shed any tears. That doesn't make us bad people.
If I were to say, "I don't care about those people, I'm going to hunt them in the streets," that does make me a bad person.
Any valid definition of morality has to deal with the well being of people. There are countless debates within that, and those debates may or may not yield answers. But empirically, I think, morality matters in peoples' well-being.
Most of us care, if only in a vague sort of way, about the well-being of others generally. The best way to bring that about is to promote morality, even to those who don't care about other people.
(I apologize for my writing getting sloppy; I am getting a little bit exhausted from responding to everything - I think so far the debate has been excellent.)
Jan '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Benjamin Finlay
(I apologize for my writing getting sloppy; I am getting a little bit exhausted from responding to everything - I think so far the debate has been excellent.)
No apologies necessary. Ricochet is for conversation, and I don't know about you, but I love this stuff. (Besides, my wife wants to get on the computer, so she's kicking me off soon. Do you hear all that cheering? Oh never mind. )
-----------------------------
As for your suggestion about fellow-feeling being the basis of morality, you're not alone. David Hume argued much the same, calling it sympathy. After all, we're not the first people to explore the subject.
I hope you guys keep it going. Like I say, I enjoy these conversations.
TaTaForNow.
Jun '10
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Benjamin Finlay
Cas Balicki
I claim that it is silly to apply logic in circumstances where its application is idiotic. · Oct 8 at 2:01pm
Edited on Oct 08 at 02:01 pm
Agreed. Are you then suggesting that it is idiotic to think logically about religion? 'Cause that's usually the point where I claim victory. · Oct 8 at 2:07pm
I claim it's silly to think logically about something that is impossible to prove, and even sillier to claim victory, 'cause that's usually the point where your precious logic falls apart. What is the basis for your victory, for instance? Who judged you victorious if there is no provable claim to be made? If there is no proof or provable claim, what did you say that was not subjective, or worse still pure fiction? Hold on a minute, maybe we've just discovered an all new definition of silly!
Jun '10
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
KC Mulville
No time travel, please. Cas Balicki would kill me! :) · Oct 8 at 3:47pm
No I would just find a time before or after you lived and go on quite merrily without a mass of legal bills that would otherwise be necessary to prove temporary insanity.
Feb '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
I have been stumbling towards my conception of secular morality, so I think I had best just state it as clearly and succinctly as I can. (Please note that other atheists have given a number of other secular justifications for morality, this is not the only way to do it.)
Morality is a tool that humans use to promote the overall well-being of everybody. We try to act in ways that bring as little harm to others as possible. We admonish people for immorality and praise people for moral uprightness because we want to encourage everyone to be moral (and thus promote the greatest well-being/least suffering).
How do we know what is moral and what is not? Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes we rely on the experiences of past generations, sometimes we make reasonable assumptions. Objective morality is possible in some instances in that some actions objectively lead to greater harm or to greater well-being than others.
There is plenty of room for debate over the specifics of morality (maybe too much room), but I think everything I have said here is empirically verifiable.
Feb '11
Re: Weekend Contest: The Devil is in the Details
Cas Balicki
I claim it's silly to think logically about something that is impossible to prove, and even sillier to claim victory, 'cause that's usually the point where your precious logic falls apart. What is the basis for your victory, for instance? Who judged you victorious if there is no provable claim to be made? If there is no proof or provable claim, what did you say that was not subjective, or worse still pure fiction? Hold on a minute, maybe we've just discovered an all new definition of silly! · Oct 8 at 4:45pm
What I meant about claiming victory is that, to my mind, if you have decided in a debate that logic doesn't count, you have forfeit.