Kinda Sorta Theological/Philosophical Conundrum

[keenir]

Is a novelist evil because bad things happen to the characters?

no, but that's only as clear because novel characters -or the conpeople in our conworlds- are not real and do not suffer,

Sure, that's a good common sense view: novels and conworlds are some other thing that is unreal, or just not as real as ours. (Though it's also a coherent position that ethics does apply to subcreation, just not in the same way it applies to other human beings.)

But then it seems a bit odd to not consider that God might view us the same way. I mean, in a lot of theologies we are just as unreal, in God's view, as characters in a novel are to the novelist. That's what creation means!

*nods* and omnibenevolence would kinda insist that God/gods/other assure (and reassure) humans that we matter. no matter what the disparity (in power, composition, etc) between us and God/gods.

(I've heard that in some theologies, humans were something of an accident - though i'm starting to wonder if this was an urban myth. i know that, for the Sumerians, the world was flooded because humans were making too much noise, but thats another matter)

[Ares Land]

Really? We're all conworlders here; can anyone sketch out a world where nothing bad ever happens, where everyone is happy, and which isn't boring after 24 hours?

This isn't to say that evil is really good, or progress isn't possible, or anything like that. Obviously a lot sucks about our world, and we can and should imagine a better world. But imagining a perfect world is far harder than it sounds. There's a famous sf story that imagines it-- "With Folded Hands" by Jack Williamson-- and it's actually a nightmare.

I'm more and more inclined to think that whatever good or bad happens to you is at best incidental to happiness anyway.
It's the old Stoic saw that unhappiness is a product of our opinions, and the gap between our opinions and reality.

A lot of people have horribly miserable lives even though, they are, by any objective standard, leisured, wealthy and comfortable. See most of recent mainstream literature for examples!

[Raphael]

Really? We're all conworlders here; can anyone sketch out a world where nothing bad ever happens, where everyone is happy, and which isn't boring after 24 hours?

Depends entirely on what a person's idea of "boring" is.

[Travis B.]

Really? We're all conworlders here; can anyone sketch out a world where nothing bad ever happens, where everyone is happy, and which isn't boring after 24 hours?

Depends entirely on what a person's idea of "boring" is.

E.g. if all my programming projects just worked without me having to put in extra work to figure out WTH they don't work despite all my trying.

[Ares Land]

E.g. if all my programming projects just worked without me having to put in extra work to figure out WTH they don't work despite all my trying.

There's an interesting logical puzzle here. If our programming tasks were that trivial, we'd probably use the time to tackle more complex problems.
And if the universe existed in such a way that there were no complex problems, intelligence wouldn't have evolved in the first place.

Even from a creationist perspective; I suppose we could have been created with intelligence, in the absence of issues to test our intelligence against it... But does intelligence exist even in the absolute sense? I mean, is it an absolute quality, or does it only exist when tested against real life?

[linguistcat]

My personal view is that there cannot be a god that has all the traits the Christians claim theirs has, so there are either no gods or godlike entities or there are many, and they have varying natures and levels of ability. Disasters can be chalked up to either a mechanical universe, or to the conflicting natures of many gods. Human cruelty can be chalked up to circumstances that people live in and the choices people make.

And if someone can find a positive side to a negative experience and grow from it, that's good. But we have to be mindful that not everyone does, or can. Something that might be a minor worry for me could make or break someone younger, or less experienced. Something that would make one person mildly ill will kill someone else or disable another for a life time. Etc etc.

If there were one god and he/she/they left the world the way it is to "teach us lessons" I would be pretty angry. It sounds like some kind of unethical experiment to me, we might as well be ants under a magnifying glass. At least with no gods it's just indifference, and with many gods it's a lack of coherency.

[Travis B.]

IMO Deism (in some of its forms) is much easier to justify than the "three omnis" because there is no need to have a God live up to any "omnis" but rather they can be posited as simply a "first mover", who created the physical universe and set everything in motion but then stepped aside after that point.

[Raphael]

IMO Deism (in some of its forms) is much easier to justify than the "three omnis" because there is no need to have a God live up to any "omnis" but rather they can be posited as simply a "first mover", who created the physical universe and set everything in motion but then stepped aside after that point.

There are some relatively good and well-thought-out arguments for the existence of some kind of god. OTOH, I can't think of any good or well-thought-out arguments for the idea that all of the theology of one of the world's major religions or denominations is true. That's why, to the extent to which I'm an agnostic, the god that I'm agnostic about is more or less the god of Deism.

[zompist]

There are some relatively good and well-thought-out arguments for the existence of some kind of god.

There are? Like what?

I mean, I know the standard Christian arguments; the best I'll say for them is that some are narratively satisfying. But I don't think they're compelling logically. And I'd say the same for the standard arguments against God.

[Raphael]

There are? Like what?

Ok, let me rephrase it: there are some arguments that a lot of people have put a lot of thought into.

[Frislander]

A position of that which I'm sympathetic to is the Kabbalistic Jewish idea of tzimtzum, which as it's traditionally formulated seems to me to allow so-called natural evil on the basis that in order to even have any kind of creation separate from the pre-supposed perfection of God themself requires creating something that is by its very nature not perfect, since if it was perfect it would basically be indistinguishable from just "more of God", i.e. kind of an extension of the idea of free will to encompass the whole of creation, not simply the actions of humans.

[Travis B.]

An argument for a God that allows natural evil yet is still, well, benevolent could be posited in terms of a God which has devised a world in terms of natural laws, and who is even themself subject to logic, so natural evil will automatically arise from however God has constructed the world, and God cannot prevent it in many cases without either violating logic itself or disrupting the function of their creation. Furthermore, God has constructed a world such that humans would evolve in it, but by its very nature such a world must contain natural evils despite however powerful God is, because if God were to act to prevent such natural evils the world they created would not function as a whole.

[Travis B.]

Of course, that requires a Deist-ish type of God, not the Judeo-Christo-Islamic personal God for whom the whole concept of the "three omnis" applies in the first place...

[Travis B.]

Of course, the argument against this sort of Deism is that many universes exist, but we just happen to be in one that seems fine-tuned* to the development of sentient life due to the Anthropic Principle, i.e. it only seems fine-tuned because it enables us to exist in it as observers, so there is no need to have a First Mover that fine-tuned the universe such that humans would evolve in it.

(* For the unfamiliar, "fine-tuning" refers to the observation that it seems, off-hand, that too many fundamental parameters of our universe are just right for sentient life to evolve for it to be a coincidence, and if even a few of these were slightly different, it would be unlikely that sentient life would come to be.)

[zompist]

Of course, that requires a Deist-ish type of God, not the Judeo-Christo-Islamic personal God for whom the whole concept of the "three omnis" applies in the first place...

Why do you think that? Christians have been poring over these issues a thousand years; you're not coming up with anything new or even heretical. Your position ("God which has devised a world in terms of natural laws, and who is even themself subject to logic, so natural evil will automatically arise from however God has constructed the world, and God cannot prevent it in many cases without either violating logic itself or disrupting the function of their creation") is essentially the same as C.S. Lewis's in The Problem of Pain and Miracles. It is not at all incompatible with a personal God who makes certain dramatic interventions in history.

If anything isn't blessed by tradition, it's the notion that God is deeply interested in making individual lives pain-free. All religions developed in a world where pain is blatant and widespread. The deeply-hands-on God is favored mostly by atheists and Evangelicals.

(I don't want to speak for Islam and Judaism, but all three religions are compatible with a view that God acted dramatically in the past, and will in the future, but can't be relied on to do such things right now.)

[zompist]

Of course, the argument against this sort of Deism is that many universes exist, but we just happen to be in one that seems fine-tuned* to the development of sentient life due to the Anthropic Principle

That may well be the case! But it's not a statement of fact, it's a cosmological speculation just like "God exists".

[Torco]

Is a novelist evil because bad things happen to the characters?

no, but that's only as clear because novel characters -or the conpeople in our conworlds- are not real and do not suffer,

Sure, that's a good common sense view: novels and conworlds are some other thing that is unreal, or just not as real as ours. (Though it's also a coherent position that ethics does apply to subcreation, just not in the same way it applies to other human beings.)
But then it seems a bit odd to not consider that God might view us the same way. I mean, in a lot of theologies we are just as unreal, in God's view, as characters in a novel are to the novelist. That's what creation means!

I mean, that's one sense of creation, but we also speak of creation when we make things which are exactly as real as we are: for example, the other day I created a chair, which is real in a way my conworlds aren't. that being said, i totally agree that many theologies are, in a way, a narrative about why the real world is not, in fact, real, and what's real is this other thing... which makes this very weird.

That's kind of a caricature-- like saying that to a Marxist, any amount of suffering is fine so long as it ushers in the communist state. You get weird extremists in any belief system.

it's not a caricature, it's a straightforward interpreation of quite a few theologies. Marxism is somewhat particular, in this context, in that it does not, in fact, promise infinite bliss for all of time, just the overcoming of this or that particular social system. people will still get sick, trip and fall on their face, get cancer and experience unrequited love after capitalism. sure you get more and less zealous believers in any system, but let's not kid ourselves that all belief systems call believers to zeal in the same way or magnitude: "Liverpool is the best team, go Liverpool, also fuck Chelsea" is very different from "your entire life is a test set out before you by the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all reality: if you do what he wants you'll get literally the best good that there can be. oh and if you don't do everything in your power to fulfill this purpose the creator assigned you you'll be tortured horribly forever". in this christianity is not that unique either, look at zoroastrianism (reality is an epic struggle between good and evil, and you must choose your side), buddhism (this is how you escape an infinite succession of horribly suffering-laden lives where none of your desires will really be fulfilled anyway), or mormonism (here's how you become a god). perhaps a fundamental thing about at least some types of religion is one of these narratives about how this or that is literally the most important thing in the universe?

There are? Like what?

Ok, let me rephrase it: there are some arguments that a lot of people have put a lot of thought into.

and it's quite telling that they haven't gotten anywhere despite very motivated attempts.

[keenir]

That's kind of a caricature-- like saying that to a Marxist, any amount of suffering is fine so long as it ushers in the communist state. You get weird extremists in any belief system.

it's not a caricature, it's a straightforward interpreation of quite a few theologies. Marxism is somewhat particular, in this context, in that it does not, in fact, promise infinite bliss for all of time, just the overcoming of this or that particular social system. people will still get sick, trip and fall on their face, get cancer and experience unrequited love after capitalism. sure you get more and less zealous believers in any system, but let's not kid ourselves that all belief systems call believers to zeal in the same way or magnitude: "Liverpool is the best team, go Liverpool, also fuck Chelsea" is very different from "your entire life is a test set out before you by the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all reality: if you do what he wants you'll get literally the best good that there can be. oh and if you don't do everything in your power to fulfill this purpose the creator assigned you you'll be tortured horribly forever". in this christianity is not that unique either, look at zoroastrianism (reality is an epic struggle between good and evil, and you must choose your side), buddhism (this is how you escape an infinite succession of horribly suffering-laden lives where none of your desires will really be fulfilled anyway), or mormonism (here's how you become a god). perhaps a fundamental thing about at least some types of religion is one of these narratives about how this or that is literally the most important thing in the universe?

Wait, are you comparing claims - "liverpool is best" vs "escape recincarnation" - or are you comparing levels of zeal? if the latter, I'm pretty dang sure sports fans can and do kill fans of rival teams...and at least a few times have rushed the field to go after the rival team themselves. if thats not a high level of zeal, i'm scared to know what it is.

There are? Like what?

Ok, let me rephrase it: there are some arguments that a lot of people have put a lot of thought into.

and it's quite telling that they haven't gotten anywhere despite very motivated attempts.

I'd wager they proved quite effective at convincing some people. Not sure where where you're sure they haven't gotten to (by what/where do you mean "anywhere"?)

[Torco]

i'm more talking about how inherently big a deal a claim is. if I say "i'll sell you nice lemonade, come here", it's different from "i'll save you from the omnipocalypse in which your soul will be captured by the demon and consumed, digested for a billion trillion years before he destroys and then reforms you only to consume you again, but not without before making you watch for a thousand lifetimes of the universe as everyone you care about is horribly tortured forever, come here"

[zompist]

But then it seems a bit odd to not consider that God might view us the same way. I mean, in a lot of theologies we are just as unreal, in God's view, as characters in a novel are to the novelist. That's what creation means!

I mean, that's one sense of creation, but we also speak of creation when we make things which are exactly as real as we are: for example, the other day I created a chair, which is real in a way my conworlds aren't. that being said, i totally agree that many theologies are, in a way, a narrative about why the real world is not, in fact, real, and what's real is this other thing... which makes this very weird.

You're conflating a few doctrines. The Christian idea, at least, is that God is not the same kind of thing as us, and his creation is not like creating a chair that exists in the same way you do... much more, in fact, like creating a novel.

The idea isn't that the real world isn't real... the usual Christian idea, in fact, is that God will do some reforms, but in this world... that's why the idea is that Christ comes back, rather than that we go to a "more real world" where he is. The idea is not to attain the same sort of hyperreality as God.

(Yeah, lots of people think that while waiting for that, people can hang out in heaven. But... most people's ideas of heaven are pretty inchoate, and frankly way more pagan than Christian. Being with dead friends and family, mostly.)

in this christianity is not that unique either, look at zoroastrianism (reality is an epic struggle between good and evil, and you must choose your side), buddhism (this is how you escape an infinite succession of horribly suffering-laden lives where none of your desires will really be fulfilled anyway), or mormonism (here's how you become a god). perhaps a fundamental thing about at least some types of religion is one of these narratives about how this or that is literally the most important thing in the universe?

Sure, all these religions have dramatic stories about heaven or the end time, and so what? Singularity fans dream of being uploaded in a computer; Marxists dream of a better earth where the capitalists can all be hung from lampposts. If you prefer, there are belief systems where there is no heaven or hell, or no promise of a future utopia.

Those stories are not unimportant, but if you look a little deeper, they're also kind of insubtantial and unrelated to the actual praxis of the belief system, which is almost always focused on what the believer can and should do in the world today.