Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by GE Morton »

value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 12:51 pm
How can that what 'created' (fundamentally underlays) Being be a Being?

I've asked this question several times but you did not answer and your current topic is again based on the idea. Could you please answer the question?
You've probably received no answers because the question is nonsensical. "Being" is not a thing that is created, or which requires a cause or "underlayment." It is not a "thing," of any kind, at all. The term's only legitimate use is for denoting some particular, tangible, perceptible, concrete existent, particularly biological entities. We can speak of human beings, living beings, alien beings, etc., but not of "being as such." You're indulging in the Platonic fallacy of reifying an abstraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
value
Premium Member
Posts: 750
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by value »

JackDaydream wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 6:20 amFrom your previous posts I understood that you are an atheist so I am unsure why you are framing the problem of evil and suffering in the context of there being a God. I am not traditionally religious or an atheist, but not a materialist, believing that there is some underlying creative consciousness in the universe. However, there is also the nature of destruction, like the opposition between yin and yang.
It seems that the question is driven by social interaction with people with religious backgrounds and their arguments, which makes it additionally interesting in my opinion that the question is pursued from the perspective of atheism. How else can one achieve a critical examination?
Astro Cat wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 1:54 amThe question the PoE-giver is asking in this instance is, "if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then He is culpable for the existence of physical suffering in the world." The theist may give the greater good theodicy by responding, "well, maybe God had a good reason for building the universe with physical suffering." The PoE-giver may ask, "ok, what reason?" The theodicy-giver responds, "well, since we are mere humans, we can't know. It's beyond us to know."

The idea of God being a being might be a fallacy. But perhaps that idea is not invalid from the perspective of religions. Do religious people view God as a being?

I am not religious myself but I am also not an atheist. Atheism in my view is principled disbelief that stems from an attempt to escape religious exploitation of the weakness that is caused by the fundamental inability to answer the why question of life. Similar to Astro Cat I have sought discussions with atheists in the past to examine the illogical basis of their reasoning, and not in defence of a God or anything religious.

In my view all is in a sense philosophical of nature (fundamentally so) and philosophy is questionable.

Astro Cat wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 1:54 amI do wonder about the problem of evil and suffering and wrote a thread on the topic in the last week. During that discussion what has been one of the prominent issues is to what extent are the concepts of good, evil and suffering human constructs?

I see the problem of understanding of suffering as a real one because it is an existential one, looked at differently from various worldviews. Your outpost seems to be similar to the one on omnipotence but with a long thought experiment. However, unless your post is simply about trying to argue there is not a God, which does not rely on the issue of evil, I am unsure what philosophy question you are actually raising. So, perhaps you could clarify your own position in regard to the issue of good, evil and suffering.
The idea of serving a 'greater good' seems to be questioned more specifically in the face of social arguments by religious people in response to the assertion that God allows suffering.

I personally found it very interesting to view the OP from that perspective. That is because one could argue that a practice in religions might somehow be based on plausible reasoning although the factual arguments might be considered invalid. In this case I would say that respect for nature and correspondingly suffering might be defensible in some cases.

The OP cites diseases for example. From the outlook no individual human wants disease for themselves or for their children. But what is best for nature?

As you may know I have some experience with the subject from my decades long investigation of eugenics and correspondingly GMO. I have addressed the idea of removing suffering and diseases from humanity.

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. Some perceived defects may be part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival. The fight to overcome the defects or diseases makes life forms stronger in the future. Filtering out genes or diseases (eugenics) would be like fleeing instead of overcoming problems and results in increased weakness over time.

It may be best to serve life instead of trying to stand above it. Serving life is a form of pro-active respect and that would justify reasoning that claim that (in some cases) suffering might serve a greater good.

Some hints:

Down syndrome: occurs 1 in 700 births, genome called "Super Genome".

(2018) The Down syndrome 'super genome'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 090148.htm

Huntington's disease: 80 percent less cancer than the general population.

(2018) Huntington's disease provides new cancer weapon
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 084458.htm

(2007) Biologists Link Huntington's Disease To Health Benefits In Young
A new hypothesis has been proposed to explain prevalence of the disease by suggesting that people with Huntington's disease are healthier in childbearing years and have more children than general population. Huntington's strengthens the immune system during most fertile years allowing them to produce more offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 130029.htm

At question could be: would it be possible that the presumed diseases/disorders serve a purpose? Perhaps in a time-span that is difficult to comprehend from the limited individual human's perspective?

An attempt to stand above life as being life logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.

Life is a fight.
User avatar
thrasymachus
Posts: 520
Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by thrasymachus »

GE Morton wrote
I admit I've not read Kierkegaard, and have only a vague idea of the thrust of his philosophy (he is a traveler on what I consider a rather sterile philosophical sidetrack with little explanatory power or value). But I'm not sure just what (based on your claim above), or who, he is criticizing. Descartes? Kant? Neither of them ignore the "actualities" of personal experience. Indeed, those personal experiences are what all of philosophy strives to explain, and what drives individuals into "grander schemes." (The thread in the forum on Arendt and totalitarianism deals with those issues).
Reminds me of Wittgenstein who petitioned to be sent to the front lines in the war. He wanted to face death. He was a big van of Kierkegaard and he realized that the human existence was, somehow, deeply important, and he wanted to understand this. The Good, he wrote, was divinity, and this was one of a very few times he talked about ethics and value. His Lecture on Ethics mostly followed the Tractatus affirming that value, ethics, existence had to be passed over in silence, for one cannot talk about what is given simpliciter, and this iwhere my reference to Kierkegaard is to the point: The "pure intuitive givenness" of the world is unspeakable. This is played out carefully and at length in certain strains of phenomenology, but ethics, certainly a historical an largely invented complex institution, finds its essential meaning here, in the essential givenness of things, about which there is very little (if anything, says Witt) to say, for one shouldn't try to "speak" the world. So terrible headaches and delicious apples, or whatever---of course, again, you may actually hate apples and desire headaches, but this is not what is being argued about here at all: It is the liking or hating anything at all, the hating-something AS hating and the objective condition that is there, being hated. The two are one? Yes, I say; hating an apple possesses a bit of language habit that issues directly from the "hating experience" itself. One cannot hate, outside of a verbal abstraction, without some existential counterpart to the judgment, and it is this existential counterpart that is at the center of my thinking.
Er, no. I said it is not possible to isolate value from a valuer. A valuer must exist for there to be any values. Of what or whose factual existence are you speaking there?
But this is obviously true. Just as a storm in the sky needs, say, converging weather systems to occur, the value of a "beautiful" day needs a valuing agency. But you want to say that episodes of valuing are somehow factually different from those of the weather. You seem to want to place value outside of factual existence (which, in a deeper analysis, which not being discussed here, is true. This discussion would require another context of thinking).
Yes indeed. If no one values a certain thing --- a rock, tree, or anything else --- then it has no value. Any proposition asserting such a value would be non-cognitive (it has no determinable truth value).
You mean non cognitive in the trivial sense, that if there is nothing there to think about, then thinking-about-it is absurd. But I would want to reword this: it is not that the rock or tree therefore has no value, for even when there is a valuing agency there to value the tree, it is not the tree, but simply that value has been brought into existence (and here, again, I am suspending other issues to talk like this). The contingency of the value on the tree, its properties, is a descriptive part of the value, but this contingency is independent of the tree that sits there. In plain physicalist talk, you could localize the value in the brain-agency, if you will, but this changes nothing, just as nothing would effect this argument if it were truly powerful aliens causing the weather to change. The matter here goes to the existence of the storm, the value, and so forth. Value simply IS, and the contingencies of it being there are simply assumed, as we assume causality itself (another qualified notion).
That is easy: "It is raining" has publicly-verifiable truth conditions. "X has value V" does not (though "X has value V to P" might).
But a headache is not publicaly verifiable. Certainly, one can observe correlation between the brain activity and headaches, but so what. Public verifiability is hardly what confirms the existence of a headache.
But that is a rather eclectic construal of "context."
In THIS discussion, I am being rather mundane. Things, facts, affairs, do not emerge ex nihilo.
No, it is not. Nor do I know of any modern philosopher who would so claim (well, perhaps some "naïve realists").
I don't think you want to go down this rabbit hole. It's just that such a premise draws new lines of basic assumptions. If not a mirror, then a dark mirror? But a brain is none of this.
Of course it is. Who disagrees with that? (we're speaking of "pointing out" via speech here, of course --- one can also communicate quite a bit by physically pointing, silently).
Then the pointing, the language symbol, or the physical direction, is received interpretatively. It is not as if our sounds and gestures actually "bear" some condition of the world apart from these. This "apart from" takes the discussion of value into a very difference place, a move toward accepting a world that is always already an interpretative synthesis of what is said, and so forth, and what is there, existing in one's perceptual field. The talk, if you will, cannot be abstracted from the world as the world (unless conceived analytically, as we might with Kant's pure reason: there is no pure reason; such an idea is just a descriptive abstraction. Not is there any pure value. Value-in-the-world is a feature, a non-natural property, G E Moore calls it, of what is there, some nameless original unity).
Nope. Some external things may give rise to affective responses (confirmable by third parties via behaviors and perhaps neural tracings), but whether they are pleasurable or not is a judgment, and subjective. For some people, the taste of cilantro is pleasurable. For others it tastes like soap, nasty, unpleasant. (There is actually a specific gene responsible for this).
Yes, but see the above. My pain IS pain apart from what others think, feel and say about headaches. The objective conditions that converge here, in this head, such that pain is registered as pain, is no different than a storm occurring at its particular locality under converging conditions of its own.

Those are three separate propositions ("It is raining in Cincinnati," "It is raining in Paris," "It is raining somewhere." They have different truth conditions. All are objective. (An objective proposition is one which has publicly-verifiable truth conditions). "It is raining" simpliciter (no time or place specified or implied by context) is also non-cognitive. It says nothing.
This kind of thinking subordinates the world of actual encounters to what is in public totality. Note the absurdity that steps forward: One's being, say, scalded by boiling water is thereby reducible to the totality's standard's. The event of the headache is subordinated to the interpretative values of the culture, reducing the world to an ontology of talk, so to speak. But this is analytically absurd, for the "ache" is not a public phenomenon as an ache, and it is not the condition of public access to the ache that makes the absurdity, for we can conceive of all subjectivity to be public and the absurdity would still stand. No, it is the simple understanding that the painful event is not reducible to language and culture. It is taken up, certainly, in countless contexts, but these contexts of interpretation stand apart from (qualitatively apart, as Kierkegaard put it) the actuality, and the actuality is the very Real that is the existential grounding of the contextualizing at all. That is, no actuality, then no language agreement in socially objectivity about the world!

The actuality of our experiences are the foundation for any subsequent public thinking. You do stand close to Heidegger on this, but if you follow him on this, you will find yourself far and away from familiar thinking.
No, the value is not "there," if you mean, "in the porkchop." It acquires no value until someone tastes it and deems it "good." Until then that value does not exist. The pork chop, salted or unsalted, is just a bunch of chemicals. No analysis will reveal any component or ingredient answering to "value."
No. This is elementary: "Until then that value does not exist" says, if course, it does exist afterward. But you want to insist that value experiences are always contingent. First, you will have to show that other things are NOT contingent in order to set value apart from the "facts" of the world. Can't be done, you agree. But then you have to show how one set of contingencies is, for a headache or a being in love, say, disqualifying for objectivity vis a vis things that you want to say are truly objective, the ordinary facts of the world like the sun being larger and the moon, and the like.
Yes, it does. "Good" means, "I (or someone) likes it." "Bad" means, "I (or someone) dislikes it."
Of course. But this liking is not a fact? Like the suspension properties of a bridge? Per the above, it is senseless to think not.
True, we didn't invent pain. What we did invent are terms for expressing our opinion of it.
Yes. But it you should know what stands there clear as a bell: we invented the terms but not the pain. Exactly a point I have been driving at!
value
Premium Member
Posts: 750
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: February 5th, 2023, 1:20 pm
value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 12:51 pm
How can that what 'created' (fundamentally underlays) Being be a Being?

I've asked this question several times but you did not answer and your current topic is again based on the idea. Could you please answer the question?
You've probably received no answers because the question is nonsensical. "Being" is not a thing that is created, or which requires a cause or "underlayment." It is not a "thing," of any kind, at all. The term's only legitimate use is for denoting some particular, tangible, perceptible, concrete existent, particularly biological entities. We can speak of human beings, living beings, alien beings, etc., but not of "being as such." You're indulging in the Platonic fallacy of reifying an abstraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
Being underlays any 'thing' of which it can be said to exits or to have been created. It is correct that it cannot be a thing itself because that would be absurd. What can be said however, is that the why question is applicable.

We've had this discussion before and my argument is that it is not justified to use for example your cited argument 'Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore something has always existed.'.
GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pmThere is no need for it to have an origin. It may well be eternal:

"Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore something has always existed."
---Robert Nozick (which argument he attributes to his 9-year old daughter)
The idea that Being (with that implying the whole cosmos) either magically sprung into existence from nothing or magically always existed makes the mistake to exclude from consideration the 'potential' required (the why question) for any option to be possible in the first place.

BEFORE you make the choice to consider the cited argument ... Why (is that choice possible)?

In my opinion it is not justified to deny that the why question is applicable. The question might lead to an area of 'meaningful relevance' that precedes the concept space and time and thus is of a nature other than 'repeatable'.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 750
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by value »

JackDaydream wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:19 pm... on this forum there often seems little discussion in which both sides are looked at critically. ... it can seem like while the theists are preaching so are the atheists.
Have you ever wondered why atheists might do so? I've been interested in that question for many decades and again, not for religious motives.

Take for example the international atheism campaign with big billboards along highways and with bus and taxi advertising.

There is no god - atheism campaign
There is no god - atheism campaign
no-god-400.jpg (35.86 KiB) Viewed 1399 times
Dios no existe
Dios no existe
dios-no-existe.jpg (54.42 KiB) Viewed 1399 times

I noticed an emotional factor at play with atheists. An emotion that would make them angry when certain sensitive topics are questioned (e.g. 'facts of science') and that naturally leads them to corrupt which would be justified for them by a fundamental disbelief that anything in the cosmos matters (a fundamental and ideological abolishment of morality). This was the reason of my interest in the exact nature of their belief.

My conclusion has been that atheism is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they seem to hope to find stability in life.

The emotional urge to attack people that do not share a dogmatic belief in the facts of science could originate from a feeling of vulnerability for religious exploitation of the weakness that results from the inability to answer the Why question of life (“What is the meaning of life?”).

I've also considered that atheism - as an organization - revolts against religions as it does to counter balance for good. Religions have committed atrocities such as the persecution of scientists. However, for many people it seems to be something personal (a real belief) and not strategic.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by GE Morton »

value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 2:15 pm
I am not religious myself but I am also not an atheist. Atheism in my view is principled disbelief that stems from an attempt to escape religious exploitation of the weakness that is caused by the fundamental inability to answer the why question of life.
While I don't describe myself as an atheist and won't pretend to speak for all atheists, that has not been the source of disbelief for those with whom I've discussed the question. Their atheism stems, instead, simply from the incoherence of the "God" concept and/or from the absence of any evidence supporting the theistic thesis.

The "why question of life," BTW, is a nonsensical question, if the "why" is meant in the purposive sense (rather than the causal sense). When you ask it in the former sense you beg the "God" question (because only sentient creatures have purposes). The universe as a whole doesn't need a purpose, and all attempts to impute one to it are vacuous flapdoodle.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by GE Morton »

value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 3:37 pm
Being underlays any 'thing' of which it can be said to exits or to have been created.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't "underlay" the thing to which it is applied. The term simply denotes something that exists, especially biological organisms. By construing it as denoting some sort of Y which "underlays" something X you've invented a new, superfluous entity, the Y. There is no Y; there is only the X. That view proceeds from compounding two fallacies: first, construing "existence" or "exists" as a property of things (a universal), and then "reifying" that universal.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3219
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by JackDaydream »

value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 5:51 pm
JackDaydream wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:19 pm... on this forum there often seems little discussion in which both sides are looked at critically. ... it can seem like while the theists are preaching so are the atheists.
Have you ever wondered why atheists might do so? I've been interested in that question for many decades and again, not for religious motives.

Take for example the international atheism campaign with big billboards along highways and with bus and taxi advertising.


no-god-400.jpgdios-no-existe.jpg


I noticed an emotional factor at play with atheists. An emotion that would make them angry when certain sensitive topics are questioned (e.g. 'facts of science') and that naturally leads them to corrupt which would be justified for them by a fundamental disbelief that anything in the cosmos matters (a fundamental and ideological abolishment of morality). This was the reason of my interest in the exact nature of their belief.

My conclusion has been that atheism is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they seem to hope to find stability in life.

The emotional urge to attack people that do not share a dogmatic belief in the facts of science could originate from a feeling of vulnerability for religious exploitation of the weakness that results from the inability to answer the Why question of life (“What is the meaning of life?”).

I've also considered that atheism - as an organization - revolts against religions as it does to counter balance for good. Religions have committed atrocities such as the persecution of scientists. However, for many people it seems to be something personal (a real belief) and not strategic.
The problem is that when someone creates a thread to specifically attack theism, just as some threads which are aimed at attacking atheism, it is often done based on some fantasised conception of what the 'other' believes. Such thread topics frequently develop to become ones which go on for many pages because they are based on lack of any sound arguments in the first place and are simply distorted projections.

From my own perspective of having been raised in Christianity, specifically Catholicism, most religious people do not believe in a specific 'being. Paul Tillich argued that God is not a being but Being itself, as the if the spark of nature. Sometimes, as GE has done in the post above this one, is to hone in on the word Being as a buzz word, taking it so concretely.

I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 750
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by value »

JackDaydream wrote: February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.
I would disagree. The concept toy worlds as it is named by Astro Cat is simply Simulation Theory, an increasingly 'hot topic' in philosophy and as I learned recently, has been worked on by David Chalmers since he began his career.

David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism (book Reality+ about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy)
A philsopher comes full circle
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =2&t=17829

I personally would disagree with the concept but David Chalmers has written over 1,000 pages to convince readers of the plausibility of Simulation Theory.

In my opinion an examination of the 'greater good' arguments by religious people in response to the PoE argument is valuable and interesting. It wouldn't matter in my opinion that the tone is set from an atheism perspective.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3219
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by JackDaydream »

value wrote: February 6th, 2023, 8:10 am
JackDaydream wrote: February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.
I would disagree. The concept toy worlds as it is named by Astro Cat is simply Simulation Theory, an increasingly 'hot topic' in philosophy and as I learned recently, has been worked on by David Chalmers since he began his career.

David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism (book Reality+ about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy)
A philsopher comes full circle
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =2&t=17829

I personally would disagree with the concept but David Chalmers has written over 1,000 pages to convince readers of the plausibility of Simulation Theory.

In my opinion an examination of the 'greater good' arguments by religious people in response to the PoE argument is valuable and interesting. It wouldn't matter in my opinion that the tone is set from an atheism perspective.
I have had a look at David Chalmers' book in a bookshop I was browsing in but not read it in detail. I do agree that simulation theory does have value and is interesting. It may be how far it is taken because it is about imaginary possibilities or realities. It probably doesn't matter whether the person coming to it is a theist, atheist or whatever. The only problem which I see is when the imaginary is used to try to simply argue that any perspective is nonsense, just as when realism is used in such a way.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Astro Cat »

JackDaydream wrote: February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.
Both threads are about responding to classical theist responses to iterations of the Problem of Evil. The "could God create omniscient and omnibenevolent people" is actually more of an offshoot than this thread is, I would consider this thread the "main" thread. The other thread was just to get some quick analysis from folks while I was in the midst of a separate conversation.

I have tried to give some background on why this thread exists, but let me try another way. What happens is I will present the Problem of Evil to some classical theist. The particular Problem of Evil I present is about the existence of physical suffering and innocent victims. This is where the Toy World bits come on: it's not that classical theism proposes God created a Toy World, it's to point out that a Toy World is possible on classical theism and demands an explanation for why, if God is benevolent, God didn't make the actual world a toy world (which is a world that doesn't have physical suffering).

So hopefully that answers your feeling that it is "so far away from the worldview of belief in God." It's because the question of the PoE is why God didn't make a Toy World; because choosing not to makes God culpable for physical suffering existing.

Then, the rest of the post is about analysing problems with the greater good theodicy. There is plenty of room for genuine dialogue (I'm having some on another forum for instance) that is fully on topic about it. Maybe this forum just doesn't have many people coming from a classical theism perspective so they are weirded out by it. I was thinking maybe people would be able to put on a classical theist hat to just feel it out maybe. "If I were a classical theist, these are my thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of a greater good theodicy" sort of thing.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Astro Cat »

value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 2:15 pm The idea of God being a being might be a fallacy. But perhaps that idea is not invalid from the perspective of religions. Do religious people view God as a being?
Yes, classical theism ascribes God the property of personhood, and so is a "being" in that context.
value wrote:I personally found it very interesting to view the OP from that perspective. That is because one could argue that a practice in religions might somehow be based on plausible reasoning although the factual arguments might be considered invalid. In this case I would say that respect for nature and correspondingly suffering might be defensible in some cases.
The Problem of Evil is only a problem for a particular group of premises aimed at classical theists. It's entirely moot to non-classical theists. The point of the Problem of Evil is not to bemoan the existence of suffering, it's to show that particular premises are incongruent with the existence of suffering in the world.
value wrote:At question could be: would it be possible that the presumed diseases/disorders serve a purpose? Perhaps in a time-span that is difficult to comprehend from the limited individual human's perspective?

An attempt to stand above life as being life logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.

Life is a fight.
So for instance, on omnipotence and omnipotence, no, the disease examples you mentioned wouldn't serve a purpose because the goal achieved by them could be achieved without the suffering in the first place.

Again, the PoE is only aimed at classical theists, it just doesn't apply to anyone else: it doesn't apply to anyone that doesn't think God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. That's the only thing it's aimed at.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by GE Morton »

JackDaydream wrote: February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm
From my own perspective of having been raised in Christianity, specifically Catholicism, most religious people do not believe in a specific 'being. Paul Tillich argued that God is not a being but Being itself, as the if the spark of nature.
"Being itself" is a vacuous phrase.
I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.
All arguments aim to establish a particular conclusion. How would you describe this "worldview of belief in God"?
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3219
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by JackDaydream »

Astro Cat wrote: February 6th, 2023, 10:48 am
JackDaydream wrote: February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.
Both threads are about responding to classical theist responses to iterations of the Problem of Evil. The "could God create omniscient and omnibenevolent people" is actually more of an offshoot than this thread is, I would consider this thread the "main" thread. The other thread was just to get some quick analysis from folks while I was in the midst of a separate conversation.

I have tried to give some background on why this thread exists, but let me try another way. What happens is I will present the Problem of Evil to some classical theist. The particular Problem of Evil I present is about the existence of physical suffering and innocent victims. This is where the Toy World bits come on: it's not that classical theism proposes God created a Toy World, it's to point out that a Toy World is possible on classical theism and demands an explanation for why, if God is benevolent, God didn't make the actual world a toy world (which is a world that doesn't have physical suffering).

So hopefully that answers your feeling that it is "so far away from the worldview of belief in God." It's because the question of the PoE is why God didn't make a Toy World; because choosing not to makes God culpable for physical suffering existing.

Then, the rest of the post is about analysing problems with the greater good theodicy. There is plenty of room for genuine dialogue (I'm having some on another forum for instance) that is fully on topic about it. Maybe this forum just doesn't have many people coming from a classical theism perspective so they are weirded out by it. I was thinking maybe people would be able to put on a classical theist hat to just feel it out maybe. "If I were a classical theist, these are my thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of a greater good theodicy" sort of thing.
Probably what is complicated is that I am on the other forum and did interact with you there as well. Part of my response on this forum was in response to the reply to me on that one! It was the one in.which you argued that theodicy points to ad absurdism. It was a response to my query if you saw God as metaphorical because in order to embrace the concept of 'toy worlds' it is important to be able to understand the nature of the imaginary. I do think the debate on toy worlds has gone better on the other forum even though you have had more responses on this one, which is surprising as TPF has far more users. I do find the area you have raised as being interesting. A couple of times I have written a thread on both forums which was an experiment in itself but it practically drove me schizoidal following the discussion in two threads. Since then, I have found that it is more workable to write the threads a little while apart and, sometimes, in a slightly revised way. However, you may be finding the juxtaposition of the two threads as working well in your thinking and writing.

One other interesting aspect, which I do not wish to build out of proportion is how our different backgrounds come into play. You are a physicist whereas I come from a background in a mixture of psychology and philosophy, including some research on Jung and the theology of evil. What I am saying is that these different backgrounds impact on our thinking. I am certainly not trying to say that these restrict us and that we should stick to our specialities. If anything, I think the opposite and that creative discussion takes place with people who go across the spectrum of disciplines. I am just suggesting that it is an important starting place for thinking about the formation of our unique perspectives.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Gertie »

JackDaydream wrote: February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm
value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 5:51 pm
JackDaydream wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:19 pm... on this forum there often seems little discussion in which both sides are looked at critically. ... it can seem like while the theists are preaching so are the atheists.
Have you ever wondered why atheists might do so? I've been interested in that question for many decades and again, not for religious motives.

Take for example the international atheism campaign with big billboards along highways and with bus and taxi advertising.


no-god-400.jpgdios-no-existe.jpg


I noticed an emotional factor at play with atheists. An emotion that would make them angry when certain sensitive topics are questioned (e.g. 'facts of science') and that naturally leads them to corrupt which would be justified for them by a fundamental disbelief that anything in the cosmos matters (a fundamental and ideological abolishment of morality). This was the reason of my interest in the exact nature of their belief.

My conclusion has been that atheism is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they seem to hope to find stability in life.

The emotional urge to attack people that do not share a dogmatic belief in the facts of science could originate from a feeling of vulnerability for religious exploitation of the weakness that results from the inability to answer the Why question of life (“What is the meaning of life?”).

I've also considered that atheism - as an organization - revolts against religions as it does to counter balance for good. Religions have committed atrocities such as the persecution of scientists. However, for many people it seems to be something personal (a real belief) and not strategic.
The problem is that when someone creates a thread to specifically attack theism, just as some threads which are aimed at attacking atheism, it is often done based on some fantasised conception of what the 'other' believes. Such thread topics frequently develop to become ones which go on for many pages because they are based on lack of any sound arguments in the first place and are simply distorted projections.

From my own perspective of having been raised in Christianity, specifically Catholicism, most religious people do not believe in a specific 'being. Paul Tillich argued that God is not a being but Being itself, as the if the spark of nature. Sometimes, as GE has done in the post above this one, is to hone in on the word Being as a buzz word, taking it so concretely.

I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.
Jack the problem of evil/suffering is a major ongoing issue in philosophy of religion. There's a whole field of theodicy arising from it. That's why apologists like Swinburne (an Oxford Philosophy prof) are still trying to resolve it with eg hypothetical possible (toy) world arguments. He's not trying to debunk a caricature, he's presumably using it to supplement his free will theodicy.

It's a proper topic for this forum and the OP did a very good job of laying out some of the issues.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021