Kinda Sorta Theological/Philosophical Conundrum

[zompist]

However, that does not adequately explain is what is known as natural evil - evil with no non-divine perpetrator. Yes, people have pointed out that the activities of humans have often made natural evils worse, they have failed to demonstrate that natural evil is ultimately caused by humans or other beings with free will in the general case.

I presume you mean non-human things that can produce suffering-- earthquakes, hurricanes, fire, plague, wild animals, etc.

I don't see that these are a big problem for theology, unless you want to claim that a benevolent God must prevent all human suffering. But I'd say that claim is only held by people who want to create paradoxes for theists.

We have another term for trying to prevent all suffering: infantilization. If someone-- your mother, your teacher or coach, the government-- came to your house and removed all the electrical outlets (because they can shock you) and the stove (because it could start a fire) and your car (because it could kill you or someone else) and all the meat in the fridge (because it's unhealthy for you), you would be outraged. You don't have to be a libertarian, or a bad person in general, to value the freedom to manage your own life... including the freedom to take on risk.

That God ought to behave in that way is extremely dubious. God too might think you should and can behave as a mature adult. That includes allowing you to (say) make a home in an earthquake zone, or in an area where all the animals are dangerous (i.e. Australia).

Admittedly, there are theists who do seem to want that sort of infantilizing God. I remember listening to a pastor who was convinced that Jesus was deeply interested in what pants he wore that day. I always found that both silly and rather callous (because it's a very unattractive God who's interested in the pastor's pants but not all the other evil in the world).

[Travis B.]

However, that does not adequately explain is what is known as natural evil - evil with no non-divine perpetrator. Yes, people have pointed out that the activities of humans have often made natural evils worse, they have failed to demonstrate that natural evil is ultimately caused by humans or other beings with free will in the general case.

I presume you mean non-human things that can produce suffering-- earthquakes, hurricanes, fire, plague, wild animals, etc.

I don't see that these are a big problem for theology, unless you want to claim that a benevolent God must prevent all human suffering. But I'd say that claim is only held by people who want to create paradoxes for theists.

We have another term for trying to prevent all suffering: infantilization. If someone-- your mother, your teacher or coach, the government-- came to your house and removed all the electrical outlets (because they can shock you) and the stove (because it could start a fire) and your car (because it could kill you or someone else) and all the meat in the fridge (because it's unhealthy for you), you would be outraged. You don't have to be a libertarian, or a bad person in general, to value the freedom to manage your own life... including the freedom to take on risk.

That God ought to behave in that way is extremely dubious. God too might think you should and can behave as a mature adult. That includes allowing you to (say) make a home in an earthquake zone, or in an area where all the animals are dangerous (i.e. Australia).

Admittedly, there are theists who do seem to want that sort of infantilizing God. I remember listening to a pastor who was convinced that Jesus was deeply interested in what pants he wore that day. I always found that both silly and rather callous (because it's a very unattractive God who's interested in the pastor's pants but not all the other evil in the world).

It has been recognized that some sorts of natural evil can be tied into human choices, e.g. choosing to live, and especially to follow poor building practices, in an earthquake zone, or a floodplain, or an area that is frequently hit by hurricanes or tornadoes, or Australia. And yes, it makes sense for a God who has given humans free will to permit humans to make such choices.

However, the bigger question is forms of natural evil without a clear tie-in to human action, such as many cases of cancer. (Some cases of cancer can be clearly linked to human action, such as lung cancer after years of smoking or mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos, of course.) Would it be infantilization if God simply did not create humans in such a fashion that they would develop cancer?

[zompist]

It has been recognized that some sorts of natural evil can be tied into human choices, e.g. choosing to live, and especially to follow poor building practices, in an earthquake zone, or a floodplain, or an area that is frequently hit by hurricanes or tornadoes, or Australia. And yes, it makes sense for a God who has given humans free will to permit humans to make such choices.

However, the bigger question is forms of natural evil without a clear tie-in to human action, such as many cases of cancer. (Some cases of cancer can be clearly linked to human action, such as lung cancer after years of smoking or mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos, of course.) Would it be infantilization if God simply did not create humans in such a fashion that they would develop cancer?

Quick clarification: I don't answer for God-- I'm interested in theology and religion but I'm an agnostic.

Still, if you accept the free will and infantilization arguments at all, I'm not sure why cancer is a big problem. Dying from a madman's attacks, or a hurricane, is unpleasant. In fact, dying at all is unpleasant! Yet it happens to all of us.

My point is mainly that "omnibenevolence means no suffering" does not follow at all, and isn't well thought out. To the extent that people (e.g. sf writers) have tried to work out a world where no pain ever happens, it's often a nightmare of some sort (e.g. being in the hands on an omnipotent, totalitarian AI)-- or else it's boring, which is a subtler form of suffering.

(But then, I am dubious about all the omni's. Theists often go along with the philosophers because it sounds pious to not limit God. But it's also pious to not assume we understand everything about God...)

[keenir]

Not sure I understand "no non-divine perpetrator"...do you mean that The Problem Of Evil requires a divine (or at least a more-than-human) source?

Wouldn't a natural evil, a non-divine perpetrator of evil, dovetail or at least overlap with the moral evil required by free will?

Whether or not evil includes things like yanking people off the farm to do other work & then wondering why the harvest didn't produce much...evil certainly includes things like Year Zero and the Holocaust. Wouldn't they be both natural and moral evil?

What I mean is that the existence of evils without a perpetrator other than God necessarily contradicts the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God and cannot be explained away by invoking free will.

ah, okay.

hang on, I think I see a...not sure if its a quibble, a bit of wiggle room, or some grey area: the existence of an ombi-benevolent & -potent & -scient God does not in and of itself prevent the existence of non-God perpetrators of a divine or semi-divine nature. (most faiths whose members talk about the various omni.s, say that their God is the only True God; few say that there is Earthly life, humans, God, and nothing else)


When it comes to perpetrators, even with a God who is all the omni-descriptives, even if we dismiss all the examples of "um, God, why did you make places like Greenland and the Atacama, where people can die if they aren't careful?"...we still have have the personification issue.

I.e., when a schoolbus full of children freezes, is it just bad luck (and thus not Evil), or is it Jack Frost taking action against them (and thus Evil) ?

[keenir]

However, that does not adequately explain is what is known as natural evil - evil with no non-divine perpetrator. Yes, people have pointed out that the activities of humans have often made natural evils worse, they have failed to demonstrate that natural evil is ultimately caused by humans or other beings with free will in the general case.

I presume you mean non-human things that can produce suffering-- earthquakes, hurricanes, fire, plague, wild animals, etc.

Reminds me of the claim that the Victorians had utterly no problem with lions eating antelope, because that prevents overpopulation and other forms of suffering (including starvation caused by desertification caused by overpopulation)...

...but they had problems with things like parasites.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Parasitism and parasitoidism are both rather disturbing, from a human perspective.

[Ares Land]

I don't see that these are a big problem for theology, unless you want to claim that a benevolent God must prevent all human suffering. But I'd say that claim is only held by people who want to create paradoxes for theists.

I'm not so sure about that. Several people have lost faith over, for instance, the suffering of children. Writer Emmanuel Carrère mentions that a particularly sickening case involving a child led him (among other things) to losing faith. Dostoevsky thought it an insoluble problem.

There are, of course, theological answers. But it's something believers struggle with too.

[Raphael]

I'm not so sure about that. Several people have lost faith over, for instance, the suffering of children. Writer Emmanuel Carrère mentions that a particularly sickening case involving a child led him (among other things) to losing faith. Dostoevsky thought it an insoluble problem.

There are, of course, theological answers. But it's something believers struggle with too.

Going of on a tangent not really related to the main topic here: I think this nicely illustrates how different people can react to very similar experiences in very different ways, so that statements along the lines of "If you'd seen what I have seen, you'd see things my way!" are on very shaky grounds. Experiencing horrible things has led some people to seek solace in faith and turned other people into atheists. (Somewhat related to that last point, some people came home from war as pacifists, others as foreign policy hawks.)

[zompist]

I don't see that these are a big problem for theology, unless you want to claim that a benevolent God must prevent all human suffering. But I'd say that claim is only held by people who want to create paradoxes for theists.

I'm not so sure about that. Several people have lost faith over, for instance, the suffering of children. Writer Emmanuel Carrère mentions that a particularly sickening case involving a child led him (among other things) to losing faith. Dostoevsky thought it an insoluble problem.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound glib. What I meant was, if someone already accepts that evil is a necessary consequence of free will, then natural evil becomes a much smaller problem. The worst suffering is caused by other human beings.

But you're right, natural evil can be very hard to bear. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book on The Problem of Pain... and then wrote a very anguished book, very angry at God, when his own wife died.

[Ares Land]

No problem. That didn't sound glib at all.

As an aside -- but hey, we're talking philosophy here -- I have doubts about evil and free will.

Most of us do have free will; we're capable of judging the morality of our actions, to regret them, or at least to think about our own morality.

But we all know about narcissists -- as far as I can tell, they seem absolutely unable to comprehend what evil they may do. They're simply incapable of processing that sort of thought. It even seems they're unable to change, and even incapable of conceiving of changing their behavior.
All the more true for sociopaths -- by this I mean serial-killer types. If I understand correctly, they're simply incapable of morality; their brain (whatever the reasons) lacks the necessary wiring, so to speak. Apparently this even shows up on an MRI if you know where to look.
It seems besides both conditions are at least in part a consequence of childhood trauma (physical or psychological.)

Do narcissists have free will? How about serial killers?

(FWIW a psychiatrist I talked to told me they do.)

[Raphael]

As an aside -- but hey, we're talking philosophy here -- I have doubts about evil and free will.

Most of us do have free will; we're capable of judging the morality of our actions, to regret them, or at least to think about our own morality.

But we all know about narcissists -- as far as I can tell, they seem absolutely unable to comprehend what evil they may do. They're simply incapable of processing that sort of thought. It even seems they're unable to change, and even incapable of conceiving of changing their behavior.
All the more true for sociopaths -- by this I mean serial-killer types. If I understand correctly, they're simply incapable of morality; their brain (whatever the reasons) lacks the necessary wiring, so to speak. Apparently this even shows up on an MRI if you know where to look.
It seems besides both conditions are at least in part a consequence of childhood trauma (physical or psychological.)

Do narcissists have free will? How about serial killers?

(FWIW a psychiatrist I talked to told me they do.)

My guess is that if free will exists - I'm less sure about that than you seem to be - then narcissists and serial killers have the same free will as everybody else; they just use it differently than everybody else. Where a person who belongs to neither of these groups might use their free will to think about matters like "Should I do this?" or "Is it right if I do this?", a serial killer might use their free will to think about matters like "Whom should I target next?" or "How can I best avoid getting caught?".

[rotting bones]

I agree with LingEarth's observation that rare events are more common than people think. The classic example is the birthday problem: https://youtu.be/LZ5Wergp_PA

However, this doesn't seem like a rare event since you say you are often awake at night. Being unable to sleep is relatively common. I've seen claims that insomnia is prevalent among 10% - 30% of the population, with some figures being as high as 50% - 60%. (Edit: Google says the figure in Germany is 4%.)

If you want to convince me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you're not trying to convince anyone else, feel free to believe whatever you like. Attributing skills or quirks that preserve the tribe to higher powers is a classic in our species. Often whether or not there is any actual preservation going on.

---

Additionally, in contemporary philosophy of science, it is considered illegitimate to find patterns in the data and present them as theories. What you are supposed to do is to come up with predictions for unseen data. Eg: If there is an unknown fire hazard near me, then I will not fall asleep. After you come up with a hypothesis, you are supposed to subject it to rigorous double blind experiments.

Science currently excises all patterns that can't be formulated in terms of such predictions from objective reality. This is why so many otherwise intelligent people think science must be missing something: What does predictive power have to do with objective reality? That's a question you might have to answer for yourself.

The official answer goes something like this: No matter what the data is, there are always multiple theories that explain it. If you can see all the data and there is no limit on the complexity of the theory, you can always find theories that overfit to the seen data but generalize poorly to new data. In this view, the scientific theory is less of a truth than a prediction-generating machine. See the bias-variance tradeoff, statistical learning theory, regularization, etc.

(Disclaimer: Speaking for myself, I'm a militant atheist and a physical reductionist. While particle physics is the only thing I really believe in, I see that as kind of liberating. Eg. In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein tried to show how little of human experience is logical. It has been argued that he thereby tried to liberate most activities from logical straightjackets. I try to effect a relativizing of "science" through a reduction to particle physics.)

[Torco]

The defense of "why do bad things happen to people despite there being an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God", i.e. the problem of evil, that I have seen is that God has given people and other creatures free will, which necessarily has allowed such things because free will necessarily requires the possibility of moral evil (e.g. look at Alvin Plantinga's thoughts on the subject). However, that does not adequately explain is what is known as natural evil - evil with no non-divine perpetrator. Yes, people have pointed out that the activities of humans have often made natural evils worse, they have failed to demonstrate that natural evil is ultimately caused by humans or other beings with free will in the general case.

"life doesn't matter", because it's a test or because of infinite bliss/torture afterwards, or any of those.... they logically work against that one much better than the "oh, it's free will", even if they're emotionally unpalatable for anyone but the zealous enough. "what matters is aesthetics", or something like that, also works: The somewhat heroic, illiadic notion that what gods love is beauty and not suffering/pleasure also serve to do away with the problem of evil: god makes evil so people rise above it, or succumb to it, or struggle even if they don't succeed in the end. of course, this makes the god absolutely evil in the utilitarian sense, but almost nobody's moral sentiments are truly utilitarian. by contrast, the "it's free will" swiftly falls to the notion that, if god is omnipotent, he surely can make it so everyone has free will in such a way that no suffering, injustice and the rest of it is visited unto people. or people who don't deserve it, or whatever appeals to the philosophical appetite of the faithful.

[keenir]

by contrast, the "it's free will" swiftly falls to the notion that, if god is omnipotent, he surely can make it so everyone has free will in such a way that no suffering, injustice and the rest of it is visited unto people. or people who don't deserve it, or whatever appeals to the philosophical appetite of the faithful.

I can buy that God/gods/other could've made a world where nothing bad can ever happen...but is that a world that most people would want to live in?

(as a vacation site, sure, a world like _Super Mario Bros_ without any goombas, koopas, etc, would be a great place for relaxation and strolling about...but I'm not sure even I would want to live there - and I have always done my utmost to avoid pain, awkwardness, inequality and injustice, and any other bad thing)

[zompist]

"what matters is aesthetics", or something like that, also works: The somewhat heroic, illiadic notion that what gods love is beauty and not suffering/pleasure also serve to do away with the problem of evil: god makes evil so people rise above it, or succumb to it, or struggle even if they don't succeed in the end. of course, this makes the god absolutely evil in the utilitarian sense, but almost nobody's moral sentiments are truly utilitarian.

I see the attraction of this idea, so long as one steers clear of the "suffering is good for you" nonsense. People we really admire are rarely just hedonists who never suffer; they're people who care for or fight for other people. Even love doesn't mean much in a world where nothing bad ever happens and the loved one has no needs.

If that were the plan, does it make God evil? Compared to a God who enforces pure happiness everywhere, mmmmaybe? I mean, we don't want parents or rulers acting like that. But what if God is more like a novelist? Is a novelist evil because bad things happen to the characters?

Admittedly, a novelist God is a little disturbing. But I think the happiness-enforcer God is making a lot of assumptions about how a God should behave. "Omnibenevolent" is the weakest leg of the traditional triad.

by contrast, the "it's free will" swiftly falls to the notion that, if god is omnipotent, he surely can make it so everyone has free will in such a way that no suffering, injustice and the rest of it is visited unto people. or people who don't deserve it,

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.

[rotting bones]

1. I don't understand why this higher power is unlikely to be omnipotent. See the parable of the drowning man. Eg. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... management Because the omnipotent God is said to be omnibenevolent, He is usually said to give us freedom by alienating us from his absolute power.

2. At the risk of sounding condescending, I really don't think relying on insomnia to detect fires is a good idea in the long run. I think Raphael should consider installing more or better smoke detectors, and treating his insomnia by taking 2 mg Melatonin when he can't sleep. Even if the insomnia is caused by a higher power, maybe the higher power has better things to worry about? What if repeatedly preventing this one fire is taking its attention away from feeding orphans or something? Or if the fire hazard is repeatedly being caused by similar factors, then those definitely need to be dealt with.

3. There's a difference between challenges and disasters. Will our lives really be meaningless without hurricanes tearing families apart, painful illnesses that are very difficult to detect or treat, the shortage of essential resources, and other senseless cruelties of the natural world? At the same time as they say these things, religious apologists tell me that they don't trust Bertrand Russell's philosophy because he had relations with many women. As usual, the people who are presented to me as models of virtue look to me like representatives of absolute evil.

[Travis B.]

3. There's a difference between challenges and disasters. Will our lives really be meaningless without hurricanes tearing families apart, painful illnesses that are very difficult to detect or treat, the shortage of essential resources, and other senseless cruelties of the natural world? At the same time as they say these things, religious apologists tell me that they don't trust Bertrand Russell's philosophy because he had relations with many women. As usual, the people who are presented to me as models of virtue look to me like representatives of absolute evil.

Agreed completely - it is one thing for people to be given challenges to surmount, and it is another thing to inflict meaningless disasters and tragedies upon people for no good reason, which really do nothing to "build character" as some would like to put it. An God that does not do the former can scarcely be considered "omnibenevolent" in the first place - after all it would be equivalent to not giving a child schoolwork to do - whereas it is hard to consider a God that does the latter to be "omnibenevolent".

[rotting bones]

Agreed completely - it is one thing for people to be given challenges to surmount, and it is another thing to inflict meaningless disasters and tragedies upon people for no good reason, which really do nothing to "build character" as some would like to put it. An God that does not do the former can scarcely be considered "omnibenevolent" in the first place - after all it would be equivalent to not giving a child schoolwork to do - whereas it is hard to consider a God that does the latter to be "omnibenevolent".

This is where they say that you need to have faith in God's plan. And that's where they lose me.

I suspect that in older societies, "God" was a symbol for the social network, especially in the form of the authorities currently in power, and a comforting reminder that things will work out in the end. This might have kept people from betraying each other in times of disaster.

Under capitalism... Actually, long before that, but especially under capitalism, this strategy tends to make chumps out of really passionate believers. Belief should be optional, but as for the function of the God concept in traditional societies, we need to arm ourselves with game theory and analyze what's actually going on in the world.

For a concrete example, under feudalism, a bondsman could have expected to be bonded to his lord through ties of love. Obviously, lords hardly ever loved their bondsmen, but that was at least the prevailing theory. Under capitalism, if an employee expects his employer not to fire him out of love, he's being an idiot.

[Torco]

I can buy that God/gods/other could've made a world where nothing bad can ever happen...but is that a world that most people would want to live in?

I mean, that's debatable (I'm attracted towards the position that yes, people would like to live in better places than in worse places, no one's life is that much improved by cancer) but I don't think that position needs defending.

Sure, I said he can make it so no suffering or injustice, but he also can make it so that less bad things happen too! the omni-god (omniscient, omnipotent, etcetera) could also have made a world where no really bad things happen, for whatever value of really bad things one wants, but where your milk still sours and your tacos are sometimes subpar, or whatever other minimum level of suffering one wishes to imagine that would satisfy this notion that it would be bad if no bad things happened. loved ones can still have needs, people can still fall out of love, glorious individuals can still live out histories of great innovation, or bravery, or whatever else, without, maidaneks, or people being randomly born with immensely painful diseases that have no cure.

of course, this opens the following counterpoint to the clever priest: what do you know of the unspeakable horrors god as, in his providence, shielded us from with his omnipotence and providence that would otherwise had befallen us save for his grace! this is, ultimately, the story of Jesus: he -in some nebulous way I'm not sure I totally understand- died on the cross to save us all from damnation. But this does nothing to remove particular indictments of apparently unjust things anyone with the moral sense of a schoolchildren would have decided to just leave out of the design.like, I don't know, the Holocaust. or Elsevier.

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, or if we assume some esoteric all fiction is somehow real, we've decided their suffering, and the quality of their lives in general, does not matter other than literarily: we have other similes for people who contrive real people into acting in specific ways just for the aesthetic pleasure of them acting in those ways regardless of the consequences those manipulated people may experience. In many ways, though, I think part of the attraction of the novelist god idea is shared with the religious more generally: denying the relevance, or reality, or finality of, well, reality, is a staple of religious thought, I think, from "reality is all an illusion" to "this life doesn't matter the true life awaits us in heaven" to "it's sad if you got a bad life, but if you behave well next incarnation will be better"

it is not necessary to defend the strong position that omnipotence and omnibenevolence plus the notion that suffering in the real world matters are inconsistent with *anything but a perfect world*, but it does appear inconsistent with, say, kids being born with multiple sclerosis. or Elsevier.

[zompist]

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!

denying the relevance, or reality, or finality of, well, reality, is a staple of religious thought, I think, from "reality is all an illusion" to "this life doesn't matter the true life awaits us in heaven" to "it's sad if you got a bad life, but if you behave well next incarnation will be better"

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.