#78288 problem of evil

[Portia]

The flowchart and the answers all presuppose there is a God.

I have arrived at some very different conclusions about the nature of the universe. I am a materialist who does not believe in mind/body dualism. I think everything has a physical explanation, from love (neurons firing) to transcendent experiences (more neurons firing) to cancer (mutations and bad luck) to natural disasters (human shortsightedness building on fault lines, for starters). Just because I think, say, love has a biological basis doesn't mean that it's any less real, any more or less so than hunger is less real to me because I think it has a biological basis. The phsyical laws of the unvierse operate on the very small and the very large: both the electromagnetic force and gravity are real.

So, what is "evil"? I don't believe in "sin," which has an almost exclusively religious connotation, but I do believe in consequences for actions. (Physics again.) Just because you don't believe in the Word of Wisdom does not absolve you of, say, the physical or emotional effects of alcohol abuse. If you betray someone, you lose their trust. If you blow through your money, don't expect some nebulous force or others to save you. I believe in the social contract, and think it is civilization which has advanced the human condition much more than any theology. So too many Mormons and other Christians, in my opinion, ascribe to the Dostoevskian view (it can be questioned whether he meant this in earnest or ironically) that if God ceases to exist, everything is permitted. That's self-evidently b.s. Embezzle money, you go to jail, religion or no. Eat a bunch of crap and you gain weight. When weighing the pros and cons of decisions, we will always be subject to imperfect information, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our utmost to act ethically.

I don't know if I'm a determinist or not. I don't think there are any supernatural influences on my behavior or anyone else's (the thought of that is frankly disturbing, and no better than black magic). However I do think that a lot of what we perceive as "free will" may be an illusion. A lot of our actions happen at the pre-conscious level, which is interesting!

So I don't think that my consciousness will enter some other realm when my cells cease functioning. I don't think that I will get some kind of recompense for whatever crap I've gone through in this life. I especially don't think that a God thought that a demi-God should anticipate any errors of judgment I make, much less any pain I go through, and take it on himself. That has long struck me as profoundly unfair. Despite all this, I am still a deeply ethical person. Finding a set of paradigms by which to judge your own and others' behavior is not necessarily simple, but I think it is profoundly necessary, religion or no.

"Why do bad things happen to good people?" My response: "why shouldn't they??" To quote a ridiculous YA novel, "Life is not a wish-granting factory."

[Emiliana]

Yeah, ditto most of what Portia said. This is the main reason I became an atheist.

[Digit]

[Emiliana]

I think any worldview is going to have some cognitive dissonance involved with it...this is definitely one of the ones I experience.

[Marduk]

The purpose of the flowchart was to disprove the existence of the Christian God. It is perhaps the oldest philosophical argument, and it remains ongoing. The reason is quite simple: it is impossible to use deductive logic to disprove God.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you can prove Him, either. Alma's logic has some major problems with it. I think the strict theist position and the strict atheist position are both illogical.

That doesn't mean that I don't see the usefulness of the belief system, as well as the usefulness of allowing people the freedom to hold irrational beliefs (including myself.) As Emiliana pointed out, there really is no belief system, or ethical system, that is devoid of logical errors. And that may be by design.

I think it overly reductionist to say civilization has advanced the human condition much more than any theology, because theology itself is part of the human condition, as much as, say, language. Both were created by humans (or handed down by God, it really doesn't matter) and govern most of their thought processes. Even materialism is a lens to view events that makes a number of assumptions which may not be rational.

Logic and reason are useful tools. In fact, I think most people in this world could use a much larger dose of both. But I find them insufficient to govern human action. Even throwing observation and empiricism in there still remains incomplete.

[Portia]

Both were created by humans (or handed down by God, it really doesn't matter)

I'd have to disagree. That's a fundamental point of disagreement. (I think it can be polite disagreement, but I don't think it's helpful to say that those are the same. They're not.)

[Marduk]

I'm not saying the two are identical, merely that for the given point (that theological belief is a fundamental of human development, and the development of civilization) the two are functionally equivalent.

[Emiliana]

As Emiliana pointed out, there really is no belief system, or ethical system, that is devoid of logical errors. And that may be by design.

Whoa, this is such an interesting article. Existing without a psychological narrative is pretty much impossible if you want to keep your sanity and not go all Waiting-For-Godot on yourself. I like that the author mentions the "no atheists in foxholes" cliche without using it as "proof" of god's existence. (Yes, I prayed at my nephew's funeral; no, that doesn't change the fact that I think not believing in god is the most logical choice.)