Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Problem of Evil (2015)

plato.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 84 posts

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#21

Post by throw0101a »

liberalbias998 wrote: post #9
pmoriarty wrote: post #4

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…

> 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.

If you actually think the universe is deterministic, then cross the street without looking both ways. If you were "meant" to get hit by a car, looking won't matter anyway; if you are not meant to, you'll be safe. Or perhaps play golf during a thunderstorm?

> 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.

"Man does not live by bread alone." There are needs besides beyond mere sustenance that people have:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

Your idea doesn't solve problems like jealousy and envy and a whole host of other problems people have between each other. In a performance of Swan Lake only one person can play Odette, the Swan Princess: you don't think that's not going to cause issues of jealousy?

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#22

Post by pmoriarty »

Zababa wrote: post #10
pmoriarty wrote: post #4

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…

I don't know much about theology but couldn't this be justified as punishment for the original sin, at least in the Christian/Catholic worldview? From what I understand, the real perfect world is in paradise, after you die. But during your life you have to """prove your worth""" in a world where evil exists. Maybe the problem is on the "benevolent" part.

"couldn't this be justified as punishment for the original sin, at least in the Christian/Catholic worldview?"

Then why did god create humans such that they could sin (and would sin, as an omniscient god knew full well they would) and then punish them for it?

It seems sadistic and perverse, and yes, it leads one to question whether god is really benevolent after all (which, if he/she/it is not would likewise shatter most major religions).

Of course religion has answers for all of these questions... mainly having to do with humans having free will or evil being a "privation of good" (ie. there's no such thing as evil, but only a lack of good), etc.. but that's where the arguments start.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#23

Post by [deleted] »

david422 wrote: post #13
tovej wrote: 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. 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.

[deleted]

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#24

Post by mgh2 »

nine_k wrote: post #11
alex_young wrote: post #3

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.

We should only look at where the data tell us, not what we want to believe. Humans are great deceivers, even to themselves

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#25

Post by breuleux »

tovej wrote: post #7
breuleux wrote: 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…

Right. And considering the existence of natural disasters and horrible diseases, which conventionally moral humans would prevent if they could, the problem of evil is really about arguing the possibility or plausibility that if you were omniscient and omnipotent, you would see that there are in fact good reasons to allow natural disasters and horrible diseases. And if there are, well, maybe there are good reasons to torture babies as well. Who's to say, except God?

Plus, there is no real evidence that God rewards followers. A conventionally moral human, perhaps, would do so. But if you were omniscient, isn't it possible that you wouldn't? Instead, perhaps you would see that it is in fact best to reward sufferers and punish those who lived happy lives, regardless of their moral character. Or perhaps you would see that afterlives are entirely pointless. But it is difficult to take these considerations seriously without degrading one's motivation to worship, so they generally aren't.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#26

Post by pmoriarty »

alex_young wrote: post #3

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.

"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."

Again, this doesn't explain at all why there is suffering caused by natural forces like hurricanes, earthquakes, and diseases.. and such sources of suffering are (along with human-caused ones) central to the Problem of Evil.[1]

But even were we to only focus on human beings, and even were we to grant for the sake of argument that we have no free will, then there's still the question of why we are the way we are.. if the answer is evolution and the physical laws of the universe and the history of the universe, then why is it all the way it is?

To theists the answer is "god". But why did god (a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing god) choose to make it that way... a way that entailed a lot of (or even any) suffering?

That's The Problem of Evil.

It's really a theological and philosophical question having to do with why the world is imperfect and yet supposedly the product of a perfectly god.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27801917

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#27

Post by heythereguy »

This is how I see it. I’m actually open to a creator of our simulation or our reality simply because it’s the best explanation we have right now. Existence coming out of nothing is ridiculous. We really have no clue how we even got here. Maybe our existence could be proven scientifically down the line, but right now creation is actually the most feasible to my mind, strange enough.

So with that the problem of evil comes up and I gotta give it up to the late great Epicurus. And I quote:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

The other stance you can have are God’s plan is unknowable to us. His mystical plan is not for us to know and grasp. Which is a huge leap of faith and so wishy washy I can’t bring myself to adopt it.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#28

Post by danuker »

> How would one go about establishing via a purely deductive argument that a deer’s suffering a slow and painful death because of a forest fire, or a child’s undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, is not logically necessary either to achieve a greater good or to avoid a greater evil?

Gods can't make a square circle, even if they're omnipotent? They could rewrite our brains to just make the words mean the same. Logic problem solved.

The more complex a situation, the more opportunity for this supposed omnipotent being.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#29

Post by pmoriarty »

breuleux wrote: 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…

"It seems kind of presumptuous to think that God's conception of morality would bear any similarity with ours."

If God's conception of morality is not equivalent to the human conception of morality, then what does it mean to claim that God is good?

The fact is that a lot of people worship God in great part because they do think that God is good in the ordinary human sense: that he loves humanity, cares for them, wants only the best for them, and -- crucially -- wants to ease their suffering.

The vast majority of believers pray to God to ease them of their pain and suffering.

Many of them would be completely outraged if they thought that, far from easing their suffering, God was actually the cause of their suffering (though some religions do believe that God is the cause of not only all good but also all evil).

So that's where the problem lies, and why so many theists are so concerned with theodicy (ie. the defense of the concept of a perfectly good god against charges like these).

Saying that God is good in some unknowable and incomprehensible way that would allow for human suffering to exist just isn't a very satisfactory answer for a lot of believers, who continue to believe in a benevolent God who's good in a very human way.

Re: The Problem of Evil (2015)

#30

Post by enugu »

alex_young wrote: post #3

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.

You can imagine a robot actively planning to cause damage to others. The fact that this it is programmed doesnt change that it is an evil act. We can see evil as a property of action rather than an agent - this means we dont need to involve free will. But it does mean we have to account for intention.
Post reply on HN