Live data from Hacker News

The Problem of Evil (2015)

plato.stanford.edu

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#11

If you can get to the understanding that all of the outcomes in human thought and behavior are based on inputs of some level, be they genetic, or nurture, or through interaction with others or impacts from the natural environment, then it seem truly odd to believe in a concept like evil.

This sort of removes any agency from humans. It's then easier to believe in a clockwork world where everything is predefined.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#12
post #7
post #5

It seems kind of presumptuous to think that God's conception of morality would bear any similarity with ours. Presumably God created what It considers to be the perfect world and therefore everything that happens in it is good according to God's own definition of goodness, including torturing babies (if and when it happens -- and when it doesn't happen, then it is good that it doesn't). Perhaps God never had any inte…

If we limit god to any god worth worshiping, i.e. one that prescribes a set of morals on their followers and answers the prayers of those who follow the god's morals, you would expect that the god has the same set of morals as their followers. Unless the god is playing games with their creation, maybe studying them to see how they would respond. But even then, this would tell us something about the nature of a god. T…

> maybe studying them to see how they would respond

Have you ever looked at the Book Of Job [1]?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#Contents

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#13
post #6

If you can get to the understanding that all of the outcomes in human thought and behavior are based on inputs of some level, be they genetic, or nurture, or through interaction with others or impacts from the natural environment, then it seem truly odd to believe in a concept like evil.

Following this argument, nobody is culpable for any crime they may commit, because their behavior is fully determined by their biology and environment. Try that in a court. Evil is a perfectly straightforward concept. It may have many definitions but it's easy to conceive of one, e.g.: willingly making others suffer unjustly. The concept of evil is quite different from what is being argued in the source material. The…

> Following this argument, nobody is culpable for any crime they may commit, because their behavior is fully determined by their biology and environment. Try that in a court.

It's pretty simple. If you have no choice but to commit murder because your fate is predetermined, the court is also predestined to put you in jail.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#14

If you can get to the understanding that all of the outcomes in human thought and behavior are based on inputs of some level, be they genetic, or nurture, or through interaction with others or impacts from the natural environment, then it seem truly odd to believe in a concept like evil.

This and the implication that free will is an illusion - supported by ample evidence.

https://m-g-h.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf80...

Note: Evil exists and has a purpose though

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#15
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following this argument, nobody is culpable for any crime they may commit, because their behavior is fully determined by their biology and environment. Try that in a court. Evil is a perfectly straightforward concept. It may have many definitions but it's easy to conceive of one, e.g.: willingly making others suffer unjustly. The concept of evil is quite different from what is being argued in the source material. The…

> Following this argument, nobody is culpable for any crime they may commit, because their behavior is fully determined by their biology and environment. Try that in a court. I’m not sure I understand the contradiction there. Are you saying that a court doesn’t care enough about any mental disorder which may have led one to commit a crime to completely absolve them? That’s does indeed seem to be the case in many area…

I'm saying that determinism doesn't remove issues of ethics.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#16
post #2

Just relative to the world that we live in now, I'm much less interested in traditional concepts of 'good and evil' and much more interested in fanaticism. While there are certainly genuinely evil human beings out there, in my (maybe totally naive, I dunno) view, they are generally not very effective- more like low-level street criminals. Psychopathy is a real thing, but I think most of them lack the foresight and pa…

> On the other hand, fanaticism where the fanatic believes they're good […]

Everyone thinks they're doing good when they before an action; no need to be a "fanatic".

Speeding? I need to get there on time. Lying? Don't want to hurt the other person's feelings. Stealing? I need this more than the rightful owner, and they won't miss it / insurance. Cheating? I have needs that aren't being met. Etc.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Problem of Evil is not really about "evil" people doing "evil" things... or at least only tangentially so. It's about why there is suffering (or imperfection even) in a world created by an ostensibly omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god. Terrorism would qualify as being one of the causes of suffering, as would completely impersonal forces such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and diseases. If god exists and real…

This sort of discussion usually gets trapped in discussions about God allowing Evil in order to allow free will; but that is an evasion; especially since the universe is probably deterministic; and consciousness is probably an illusion. The problem of evil; is logically caused by the existence of life that strives and competes within an environment of finite resources. Give us a universe where all the beings are powe…

"especially since the universe is probably deterministic"

Not at the subatomic level.. and the subatomic level may well have some significant impact on (or even be responsible for) consciousness.

"consciousness is probably an illusion"

This is an extremely controversial claim which is far from settled. We can't even settle on a definition of consciousness.

"The problem of evil; is logically caused by the existence of life that strives and competes within an environment of finite resources. Give us a universe where all the beings are powered by an infinite source of energy so they don't need to chase, catch, kill and eat each other."

Again, this explanation doesn't even attempt to account for sources of suffering that have nothing to do with human agency, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and disease.

But even were we to focus only on humans it doesn't explain why some people actually enjoy making others suffer or hate one anohter. No amount of resources would be sufficient to fix this.

Finally, even were this a perfectly deterministic universe with no free will (which is contrary to the core beliefs of many of the major religions) in which there is suffering, then there's still the question of why a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing god made it that way.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#18
post #5

It seems kind of presumptuous to think that God's conception of morality would bear any similarity with ours. Presumably God created what It considers to be the perfect world and therefore everything that happens in it is good according to God's own definition of goodness, including torturing babies (if and when it happens -- and when it doesn't happen, then it is good that it doesn't). Perhaps God never had any inte…

Sure, a deity could believe that children dying from painful diseases is righteous and good: perhaps it finds it entertaining, and it believes the greatest good is its own amusement.

That's a good argument for atheism. Because if such a god is real, we're in a waking nightmare we'd best bury our collective heads about, for our psychological wellbeing.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#19
post #12
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we limit god to any god worth worshiping, i.e. one that prescribes a set of morals on their followers and answers the prayers of those who follow the god's morals, you would expect that the god has the same set of morals as their followers. Unless the god is playing games with their creation, maybe studying them to see how they would respond. But even then, this would tell us something about the nature of a god. T…

> maybe studying them to see how they would respond Have you ever looked at the Book Of Job [1]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#Contents

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. I would argue that whether or not the set of morals that god expects Job to follow are the ones that god considers good and correct makes a difference here.

If they aren't, god is not worth worshiping. If they are, at least god is consistent, and may be worth worshiping if he exists.

Post reply on HN