Kurieuo wrote:I disagree with various reasoning you have provided. For example, that God is bound by the same rules as us otherwise He would be hypocritical. God is not us, but rather God is sovereign.
To drive this point home via analogy, what you are saying is on par with me saying, "you're a hypocrite for ripping up plants in your own garden while not allowing me to rip up your plants as well!"
Re: your issues with natural evil. Short answer: I don't believe there is "natural evil". Natural occurrences are just part and parcel of the temporary world we live within. There is nothing inherently evil about them. An earthquake is just an earthquake in the natural scheme of things. People may personify an earthquake, floods, hurricanes or some other natural occurrence and call them "evil" because death and tragedy hits them. However, while we may call such things evil, there is nothing evil about them in the moral sense of the term.
As for "evil", I'm not even sure how you get there beyond your own subjective view of it. For if God does not exist, then I'm entitled to believe there is nothing morally wrong if God did exist and created a temporary world where pain and suffering happened. What moral rule are you going to appeal to in order to show me wrong? Additionally, I can think of much worse worlds.
I was using good and evil as notions from the Bible. It's a check for internal consistency. I could have used a different choice of words, such as saying "good according to the Bible", "evil according to the Bible", every single time, but since I am speaking to a (mostly) Christian audience, I thought it would not be necessary. I do apologize for not making that clear in the original message. Good and evil cannot be accounted for truly without God, but the presence of God, at least certain conceptions of God, allow for that. I will attempt to demonstrate that a personal God would probably be giving us a morality, as there would be at least a purpose (doesn't have to be knowable/understandable to us) for our creation.
God is bound by the same (moral) rules as us because God is the very standard for our moral rules. God is a hypocrite if he tells us to do one thing (not do any injury to innocents) and he does it. It's not the same as in your plant example. The plant example is merely about defending private property. The other person that doesn't rip plants currently can go home and rip their own plants but not allow the person currently ripping their own plants to come over and rip the second person's plants. That would be true hypocrisy. If the current person ripping plants doesn't allow the second person to rip their plants, but then expects to be allowed by the second person to rip their plants. I agree that there are things about God we cannot understand, but I think it is fair to expect that we can at least understand that which concerns us (that being morality and what is holy, and since what is holy comes from God, we at least have to be able to make sense of this part of God, not everything of God, just that which is relevant to our life here). I don't even wish to know everything. Just what's relevant to me and expectations of me.
I have no issue with the wars the Israelites had against the Canaanites, etc. If those people truly were evil, then obviously the Creator can take away their life, since he gave it. But only within what is considered to be a just action by the moral standard found in God's nature. If God is a hypocrite and doesn't adhere to the very moral standard that he gives us, then why would we have to follow him? Do as I say, not as a I do? Sounds like were back to the Euthyphro dilemma (don't bother to comment, I'm actually quite satisfied with the answer Christians have for this one). The answer given by Christians to that issue is that what's right is in God's very nature. Handled well. But then if it's in God's nature to be holy, clearly he cannot lie, or be a hypocrite (Jesus rebuked hypocrites). Thus, God is indeed bound to the same rules as us, because he gave them to us. Not physical laws, or rational limitations, etc. None of that, but God IS limited in his moral behavior. This is a monotheistic God we're talking about here, not pantheism. God cannot both do things he considers holy (what is holy is told to us in the Bible), and unholy (this is a contradiction, and the very intellectual promise of MONOtheism [thus, since God is truth, ONE, OBJECTIVE, TRUTH] is ruined, welcome to some form of pantheism).
[By natural evil I don't mean simply suffering. I also refer to actual harm beyond just temporary pain. Death would be one of them. Especially if innocent. I am (somewhat) fine for example with God taking David's son even. Why? Because it would mean that it happened for a reason, to punish David, and number two, though the child was innocent, he wasn't killed randomly, it could have been a dual reason behind it, not just to get back at David, but also because God decided that the boy need not be tested in his own life anymore for whatever reason, God has seen enough be convinced of his nature.]
Nature has no mind. But the logic of nature is designed by God. If I were to have some dogs in my back yard, and put out some snakes, a few bear traps, land mines, etc. in the back yard, would you hold me liable for their deaths (I *designed* the *way* [read logic], or *state of being* of the back yard)? The laws of nature (back yard) that were created for us by God, and our consciousness operates in these laws (I'll remain mostly neutral with regards to the two main views of either dualism or physicalism --- I agree with Jaegwon Kim that non-reductive physicalism doesn't really make too much sense, which is why I *think* I gravitate towards dualism personally, I like the Argument from Reason by C.S. Lewis and others), frequently punish us even if we did nothing to warrant a punishment. A baby that was born with a genetic disorder will suffer even though they haven't yet committed a sin. You say "it's for the greater good", or that "God is testing us this way". I used to be much more open to this argument. I'm much more skeptical though not 100% ready to throw it out. My reasoning is thus: Yes, God needs to be able to have times when he can test us, but free will can allow for that. Do you believe (according to the most common interpretation of Biblical morality that I have heard of) it is fair to sabotage your child as he is growing up in an effort to see how well he listens to you? Other human evil is enough to test other humans, God need not interfere this way (because, yes, nature is hurting us, but again, nature was designed this way by God, and so it hurts us, ultimately because of God [I am focusing on innocents, guilty people struck by lightning is acceptable], and I am not sure exactly how the above explanations ["greater good"/"testing us"] can escape the "ends justifies the means paradigm" ---> "the ends justifies the means" leads to God breaking his very morals in order to accomplish something else [testing us], it would mean essentially bypassing morality;
this is one area where I am willing to change my mind, if you can prove they are not part of the "ends justifies the means category"). This especially allows more people to live (no genetic diseases, etc.) to be tested morally, so this might potentially be a counter to the argument of "being tested through natural evil". Performing a total reduction I understand we get to even smaller issues like are the effects of aging necessary? One the one hand, you can have aging but with no negative side effects as we encounter when we grow older. We could just die suddenly at age 75. Not necessarily with the abilities of athletes (I would argue that these abilities are more of a bonus, sort of like being a bit spoiled, at least in my interpretation of what is truly morally important according to the Bible, maybe I'm wrong you know, but I *think* the Bible says what is good isn't these temporary things, it's your behavior with regards to God which is important towards eternity), but at least no diseases that harm us, so it would be neutral, or amoral. We don't need to be born with adult minds also. There's nothing evil (from the Bible) about being young or old mentally. But physical harm for no reason other than being around for a period of time can be considered to be part of natural evil. The Bible doesn't speak too highly of death (I include aging with it). But, that's supposed to be our fault, because we chose the wrong tree in Eden. Disobey God, no Tree of Life. Fine. I accept that. Which leads me to another point here. Another solution from certain Christians that addresses this is the Fall of Man and the associated decay of the world. Even there though, it's a problem for me to understand how God punishes everyone for the sins of Adam and Eve. I find it hard to comprehend why we should be affected in any way by what they did, especially in such a huge event. It's not like the events of our parents affect us. That's fine. The life that humans have built then isn't fair. It's our fault. But this is God being involved here instead. I always wondered, why doesn't God try the Garden of Eden test with each one of us, individually? Why is it that we have to suffer because Adam and Eve messed up? While it's true that we can be saved, it makes little sense to me (using the information I have at present, that helps me build a certain conception of God according to the Biblical belief) that we even have to be put in this situation in the first place.
I am also open to changing my mind if you can justify why the Fall should affect every one of us. Quite open to it, mainly because I haven't quite heard any explanations yet for it --- it's not the most important question on my list, I figured I'll get to it eventually.
I was using the notions of good and evil as provided in Christianity and checking it for internal consistency. Personally, I do not have any view (objective view, that is; but I still follow moral values to maintain social cohesion, and because my own "subjective" [if nihilism is true] values line up with most people's morality) of "good" and "evil" at the *moment* (if it's random, it's total nihilism [nothing is occurring for a purpose, it's just random workings of the laws of nature that are neutral towards what we call good and evil; it can only be considered good or evil if the universe is here because it originated in the plan of a Creator, at least that's the only options my mind can gain knowledge of], and if that's the truth, it just is the truth, and that's that). It is not fair of you to make assumptions of my beliefs when I have not shared them with you. I am trying to figure out my views. As of now, I am a pure skeptic (with regards to our origins, that is; I realize that ultimate skepticism makes things far too difficult to function, which is not necessary, you can see through your actions that certain intuitions allow you to function in this world with a certain level of accuracy --- but this is an issue for another time) in the truest sense of the word, not an atheistic type skeptic. I will end believing a sort of hybrid of philosophical theism and deism if Christianity doesn't work out. I don't even believe the Big Bang theory or Evolution without more empirical proof (please don't start, ok? don't start) [I suppose objective morality could exist in theistic evolution if God's standard was always unchanging and only began to hold us accountable once we reached the level of reasoning required to understand these morals, or he holds us accountable gradually for more and more morals, like we do with people who suffer from reduced IQ due to brain damage; I haven't analyzed it yet thoroughly] . Therefore I will acknowledge that there is a greater chance that there is no morality if God doesn't reveal himself. But I have heard at least some Christian websites give value to conscience, and I can agree because it is reasonable to conclude that conscience comes from the Creator, just like instincts, except in the moral area. I see design in the universe. I see logic. Something non-physical. Even the information we have is merely an incomplete narration of how the design of this great big system works. But it could easily be a Designer that is indifferent to our notions of right and wrong. Still, one could make the rational (but not necessarily the most likely, but I think you have to admit it's at least a bit rational) claim that if the Creator took the time to make us, he must have done it for a reason. Unless the Creator did it randomly, it's also a possibility. Still, an impersonal God would entail that God has no inclinations towards one type of behavior or other, because he has no personal characteristics, he's in this "grey-ish" sort of area. Impersonal deities are a characteristic of pantheism, see Brahman in Hinduism. Therefore, even if this impersonal Creator has intellect, he has no direction on how to use it, because he has no personal likes, dislikes, etc. He neither likes nor dislikes. If the Creator has an ultimate goal for the universe, it is due to the fact that before he even undertook the mission of creating, he had an ideal in his mind, based upon something that he wanted to accomplish. But if he has no personality, how can he want something? Therefore it is random. Which, again, leads us to pantheism, and as Dawkins said, that's just a sexed up version of atheism, for the most part at least. It's just random, there's no ultimate meaning, at least not an objective one. I am not sure if this denies logic. Like I said, there's still room for intellect. But this intellect is not used for any purpose (random personality). It's like, the intellect allows God to do great things, but not meaningful things. He can open the doors, but if he chooses one, he does so randomly. Whereas without even the intellect, he doesn't even get the keys. I am inclined to believe it does deny logic, but not 100% sure. So, this means God has an ultimate purpose for us, in my view. I will not be dogmatic about it (assuming this remains my final view, though I would love for it to be temporary and move on to something greater, perhaps Christianity if I resolve all the issues I have with it; I never claimed my view is greater, I freely acknowledge that it's much more reinforcing to believe in these views of God were to reveal himself). But if God does things randomly, then, logic is just an illusion basically. What we perceive as logic is just the ABILITY to do great things (thanks to intellect), but not any purpose. It's just random. We could just as easily believe that the way we perceive reality is an illusion, it's not like God created us to be able to understand the world. Something like Descartes' demon, but not in the sense that nothing exists, rather, that all knowledge is perceived falsely somehow. Something like the Hindu concept of Maya perhaps. Or something similar. So, returning back to my point, if God has an ultimate purpose for us, then that purpose is objective. What actions of ours fall in line with achieving the purpose is what is "good" and what doesn't fall in line is what is "wrong". Presumably, again, the purpose is derived from God's personality, and not randomly. It would be interesting if God purposefully created us with a purpose/meaning of life that goes against what his personality is like. Then again, the simple fact that God is willing to contradict himself should tell us plenty about him. It still means that God had a reason to create something that has a purpose that will lead to behavior that is different to his own morals, so he still did it for an overall purpose (that serves himself, presumably). Just not one that we can find out. It would in effect make God a liar. But I digress, this is really far out stuff.
That is my reply. I think I answered all the first three objections. It took about an hour to write this (I had to take a break and eat), so if I missed any replies beyond the first three, I'll try to get to them later.
~ Vlad P.