Theodicy: The Question of why Evil Exists
Jul 19, 2022 2:26:24 GMT
Post by Admin on Jul 19, 2022 2:26:24 GMT
.
An ancient question - why does evil exist ?
The question is often asked under the guise of the trope of the Abrahamic creator God being true:
" Why does God allow evil to exist ? "
Variations on this include questions like:
" Why do babies get cancer ? "
" Why do children starve ? "
" Why do we suffer ? "
Arguments based on the reasoning this creator God is either evil / bad or indifferent are common
" If God was really kind, just and benevolent, we'd all have perfect health "
" If God was really kind, just and benevolent, he'd fix everything "
" If God was really kind, just and benevolent,____________________ "
You can just insert whatever you like in there and it seems like a rational argument
" Where was God when all those kids got killed ? "
Aside from being a statement based on an erroneous trope ( God ) this question really deserves a dive into theodicy and rationale itself
Morality and morals in the antiquities were decided by priest-kings and pharaohs ( Cf the Sumerian Mes )
Some people argue that there are no " set in stone " objective morals, that morality is subjective ( Moral relativity )
Others argue that this has already been set in stone by God ( The 10 commandments )
Obviously, the following statements are based on specious reasoning:
" If God was really good, everything would be perfect "
" Everything is not perfect / all messed up, therefore God is not good "
Generally: " God is bad because _____ "
Aside from the faulty trope of the creationist God, the logic used in this type of argument holds water like a sieve
If " Perfect " has no objective definition, neither does " imperfect "
" Good " and " bad " are subjectively defined concepts
I would consider this Gedanken:
Let's say for the sake of argument, that there actually is a thing as " objective perfection " that can be achieved, perhaps something like the Omega Point
If everything in the universe were in it's " perfect state " of existence, then no change would be necessary
If no change were necessary, nothing in the universe would move, as any change could only be " negative " in the sense that any change or movement is a reversal of the events that led to the state of perfection to begin with ( A reversal of causality )
If nothing moved, there would be no time
If there is no time, there is no causality
We'd be living in a universe where nothing moved
Reality and the existence of the universe then become completely meaningless and pointless
So..
We can certainly argue that objective morals do not exist, yet we could also say this is no reason not to try and develop a sense of morality
Human ideas of morality change like landscapes over millions of years ( Age of consent laws are a prime example )
They erode, they change, they rise and fall
All of these happen with the struggles we face as humans, collectively
With this comes the need for time, causality, change and movement - the foundations for existence and the human interpretation of the universe
But let's take this a step further...
Let's consider the words " bad / evil " and " good "
These subjectively defined concepts underlay our sense of morality
People, when it comes down to it, generally share a sense of morals, like don't kill, don't steal, etc, yet this is certainly not true from one person to the next
If you really start to question deeply, any person's morals and how they developed them, you'll find that there are major differences in the small details
" Why don't you eat meat ? "..." Oh, well ,I _____________ " ( Insert reasoning )
Now, it's very common that people paint our ancestors as uncivilized savages, always waging war, yet both Egyptian and Mesopotamians had a whole class of literature devoted to the concept of Virtue ( Wisdom literature )
The very life of a priest-king / pharaoh, his words and speech, were what influenced the morality of the people he ruled
His thoughts, his words, his actions, all having a direct effect on the people he ruled
As " God ", this ruler literally decided what was just and fair, but in order to come to the decisions they did, concerning what was just and moral, they had to play the " good / bad " game ( Hence why the " God " in the Hebrew Bible creates both " good " and " evil " )
" Let us make man in our own image "
They were considered divine, yet they were fully human, and wrestled with the same basic emotions all people do, anger, fear, sadness, elation , etc
( Cf thread on the journey of a priest-king, gnosis, being in the pit, etc )
Ultimately, the pillars of morality rest on the foundation of emotion, in such, the human experience becomes necessary for the concept of morality itself to be rational. The foundation is the product of emotion / logic
Morality = emotion / logic
------------
Of course, if we just consider the argument:
" God is bad / doesn't care, because babies get cancer "
..we'll see that it is a flawed argument
What happens when we eventually development medical sciences to the point where no babies ever get cancer ?
Then we could attempt to insert another shim into the argument:
" Well,.....maybe so, but people will still be killing people, God isn't stopping that with technology, therefore God is still bad / doesn't care "
All of these arguments are variations of Epicurus' trilemma:
" If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good "
Sounds great, and people routinely spit this out in chats and forums, but it's actually highly flawed reasoning ( The erroneous God trope, the subjective concepts of good and evil, ignoring the necessity for struggle and change in the universe, etc )
------------------------------
Question - Why do murderers exist / why does God allow people to get murdered ?
Answer - No baby is born a murderer, a human's life itself is the causal foundation of the status as a murderer ( The events that shaped that person's life and sense of morality developed by wrestling with emotions and logic )
We cannot say " God is evil because murders exist " if society eventually became so highly virtuous that nobody ever feels the need to resort to murder
Eventually, the argument falls apart time and time again
All struggles, eventually overcome, are no longer a solid foundation for an argument against a trope that's incorrect to begin with
==================
Notes
An ancient question - why does evil exist ?
The question is often asked under the guise of the trope of the Abrahamic creator God being true:
" Why does God allow evil to exist ? "
Variations on this include questions like:
" Why do babies get cancer ? "
" Why do children starve ? "
" Why do we suffer ? "
Arguments based on the reasoning this creator God is either evil / bad or indifferent are common
" If God was really kind, just and benevolent, we'd all have perfect health "
" If God was really kind, just and benevolent, he'd fix everything "
" If God was really kind, just and benevolent,____________________ "
You can just insert whatever you like in there and it seems like a rational argument
" Where was God when all those kids got killed ? "
Aside from being a statement based on an erroneous trope ( God ) this question really deserves a dive into theodicy and rationale itself
Morality and morals in the antiquities were decided by priest-kings and pharaohs ( Cf the Sumerian Mes )
Some people argue that there are no " set in stone " objective morals, that morality is subjective ( Moral relativity )
Others argue that this has already been set in stone by God ( The 10 commandments )
Obviously, the following statements are based on specious reasoning:
" If God was really good, everything would be perfect "
" Everything is not perfect / all messed up, therefore God is not good "
Generally: " God is bad because _____ "
Aside from the faulty trope of the creationist God, the logic used in this type of argument holds water like a sieve
If " Perfect " has no objective definition, neither does " imperfect "
" Good " and " bad " are subjectively defined concepts
I would consider this Gedanken:
Let's say for the sake of argument, that there actually is a thing as " objective perfection " that can be achieved, perhaps something like the Omega Point
If everything in the universe were in it's " perfect state " of existence, then no change would be necessary
If no change were necessary, nothing in the universe would move, as any change could only be " negative " in the sense that any change or movement is a reversal of the events that led to the state of perfection to begin with ( A reversal of causality )
If nothing moved, there would be no time
If there is no time, there is no causality
We'd be living in a universe where nothing moved
Reality and the existence of the universe then become completely meaningless and pointless
So..
We can certainly argue that objective morals do not exist, yet we could also say this is no reason not to try and develop a sense of morality
Human ideas of morality change like landscapes over millions of years ( Age of consent laws are a prime example )
They erode, they change, they rise and fall
All of these happen with the struggles we face as humans, collectively
With this comes the need for time, causality, change and movement - the foundations for existence and the human interpretation of the universe
But let's take this a step further...
Let's consider the words " bad / evil " and " good "
These subjectively defined concepts underlay our sense of morality
People, when it comes down to it, generally share a sense of morals, like don't kill, don't steal, etc, yet this is certainly not true from one person to the next
If you really start to question deeply, any person's morals and how they developed them, you'll find that there are major differences in the small details
" Why don't you eat meat ? "..." Oh, well ,I _____________ " ( Insert reasoning )
Now, it's very common that people paint our ancestors as uncivilized savages, always waging war, yet both Egyptian and Mesopotamians had a whole class of literature devoted to the concept of Virtue ( Wisdom literature )
The very life of a priest-king / pharaoh, his words and speech, were what influenced the morality of the people he ruled
His thoughts, his words, his actions, all having a direct effect on the people he ruled
As " God ", this ruler literally decided what was just and fair, but in order to come to the decisions they did, concerning what was just and moral, they had to play the " good / bad " game ( Hence why the " God " in the Hebrew Bible creates both " good " and " evil " )
" Let us make man in our own image "
They were considered divine, yet they were fully human, and wrestled with the same basic emotions all people do, anger, fear, sadness, elation , etc
( Cf thread on the journey of a priest-king, gnosis, being in the pit, etc )
Ultimately, the pillars of morality rest on the foundation of emotion, in such, the human experience becomes necessary for the concept of morality itself to be rational. The foundation is the product of emotion / logic
Morality = emotion / logic
------------
Of course, if we just consider the argument:
" God is bad / doesn't care, because babies get cancer "
..we'll see that it is a flawed argument
What happens when we eventually development medical sciences to the point where no babies ever get cancer ?
Then we could attempt to insert another shim into the argument:
" Well,.....maybe so, but people will still be killing people, God isn't stopping that with technology, therefore God is still bad / doesn't care "
All of these arguments are variations of Epicurus' trilemma:
" If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good "
Sounds great, and people routinely spit this out in chats and forums, but it's actually highly flawed reasoning ( The erroneous God trope, the subjective concepts of good and evil, ignoring the necessity for struggle and change in the universe, etc )
------------------------------
Question - Why do murderers exist / why does God allow people to get murdered ?
Answer - No baby is born a murderer, a human's life itself is the causal foundation of the status as a murderer ( The events that shaped that person's life and sense of morality developed by wrestling with emotions and logic )
We cannot say " God is evil because murders exist " if society eventually became so highly virtuous that nobody ever feels the need to resort to murder
Eventually, the argument falls apart time and time again
All struggles, eventually overcome, are no longer a solid foundation for an argument against a trope that's incorrect to begin with
==================
Notes