Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[Meow Mix]

The text about the parent is not an analogy.

The original proposition was that any case where suffering is permitted must definitely mean malevolence.
Is it not the text about the parent a valid counter example to the original proposition?

For reference this was my quote again:

Not a good analogy for this reason: God is ostensibly omnibenevolent, and could actualize any logically possible outcome without causing any suffering.

What I was saying here is that it is not a good counter-example because parents are not omnipotent and omniscient: in order to solve some problems, they have no option but to cause suffering (e.g. giving a vaccine). However for an omnipotent and omniscient being, they could just actualize the goal without requiring some means to an end that causes suffering to accomplish it: they could just directly go to the result. Poof, immune to smallpox (as opposed to being forced to use a means like a needle).

 

[Meow Mix]

Good and evil are a matter of feelings, not facts.
The mistake is trying to apply logic to this.
A person feels God must be good in order to meet their expectation of God.
Maybe after a while, those feelings will change but humans tend to cling desperately to those feelings that support their worldview.

Note that I've presented my argument in terms of suffering. "Problem of Evil" is just an unfortunate historical name for the mode of argument. I don't need to define "good" nor "evil" for the argument to work, as suffering is introspective.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Today I'd like to address a particular response often given to the Problem of Evil: that God has a good reason for allowing evil to occur, even if we're don't know what that reason is. This theodicy usually looks something like this:



This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

There are two objections to note here. One comes in the form of a parody:

Say that an extraterrestrial lands on planet earth and blasts a bunch of people seemingly at random with a ray gun. Inexplicably, the extraterrestrial agrees to stand trial for its actions. "I am immensely more powerful and more intelligent than you are," ET says to the judge and to the people of Earth. "You cannot say that my actions were malevolent. I have benevolent reasons for them that you couldn't possibly understand."

Intuitively, is it the case that we are incapable of arriving to the conclusion that what ET did is malevolent in a reasonable fashion? They may be more powerful and more intelligent than humans, but it seems to me as though we are still behaving reasonably by concluding the actions were malevolent in the complete absence of any evidence they were benevolent. Do you agree?

The second objection is the consequence of allowing special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacy for a reason.

Let's say that our theodicist from the earlier conversation dies, and finds themselves in a throne room before God. God gets off His throne, whips out a holy flanged mace, and begins to mercilessly beat the everloving snot out of the theodicist.

"It's okay," the theodicist might think. "This is God, God is smarter and more powerful than me. I may not understand it, but God has a good, benevolent reason for doing this."

A day passes of beatings. A week. A month. "God must have a good reason for this," the theodicist continues to think. A year goes by. A decade. Millennia. Eons.

Is there ever a point where the theodicist can break out of their special pleading argument? Is there ever a stopping point where they may admit, "ok, maybe God is just malevolent?" No -- they can continue their special pleading argument infinitely. Can you see why that's a problem?

This of course does not apply to all, as also kind people suffer greatly, but had I personally not gone through the hardships that my life presented me with, I have a terrifying suspicion that I would still have been the rather awful person I once was. I will always have many human flaws, but my hardships have unquestionably taught and changed me - in time, for the better.

Our struggles have many causes. Sometimes, they’re directly self inflicted but more often, they are not. Often, they’re collectively “self” inflicted (illness and natural catastrophes, for instance). And, we also very frequently cause much hardship on each other, of course.

Every time we ask ourselves “why me/my children, etc?” What is it that we are saying…? Truly? That another deserve our hardship more…?

Once, when my child was in the midst of great suffering, I myself, in my despair, asked aloud why her and not I. She took my hand in hers and whispered “because it would have killed you - and I, I will make this work.”

Nobody escapes hardship, we do not have that as an option. What is in our hands is the ability to learn how to make our hardships count in constructive and contributive ways. The answer to why a benevolent god allows Man to suffer however, will not teach you how - only your hardships may.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Koldo]

You only show half of the picture, that is not fair

1) Humans were granted "Free Will" (or choice)
2) The Law of Karma (cause & effect) balances

Would you prefer to give up "Free Will"?

Why would we need to give up free will to prevent all suffering?

People often presume one thing justifies the other without actually explaining the connection they see.

 

[Meow Mix]

This of course does not apply to all, as also kind people suffer greatly, but had I personally not gone through the hardships that my life presented me with, I have a terrifying suspicion that I would still have been the rather awful person I once was. I will always have many human flaws, but my hardships have unquestionably taught and changed me - in time, for the better.

Our struggles have many causes. Sometimes, they’re directly self inflicted but more often, they are not. Often, they’re collectively “self” inflicted (illness and natural catastrophes, for instance). And, we also very frequently cause much hardship on each other, of course.

Every time we ask ourselves “why me/my children, etc?” What is it that we are saying…? Truly? That another deserve our hardship more…?

Once, when my child was in the midst of great suffering, I myself, in my despair, asked aloud why her and not I. She took my hand in hers and whispered “because it would have killed you - and I, I will make this work.”

Nobody escapes hardship, we do not have that as an option. What is in our hands is the ability to learn how to make our hardships count in constructive and contributive ways. The answer to why a benevolent god allows Man to suffer however, will not teach you how - only your hardships may.


Humbly
Hermit

While this sentiment is nice (and I agree that since we do suffer, we need to make the most out of it -- so your point is not lost), this does not resolve the ultimate problem: some people suffer without ever having the chance to better themselves due to it; in fact, the example of childhood leukemia is one such case for many unfortunate people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This proves that you are the wrong person to explain these things to me


Yes, I read that, you were willing to make an offer. And I was clear that there is no point in making below offer

It is not about "having my mind changed". I know that my POV is true. Your opinion about my POV cannot change my truth, so it's pointless to even try


And in other "Theist POVs", my POV makes perfect sense, and you are the irrational one and I am not

Hence I said "you stick to your belief, and I stick to mine". I never try to change others their beliefs or lack thereof, it might even violate RF Rules "Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions..."

I share my beliefs/truths, and you share yours. If I like yours, fine, if not, that's fine too (and v.v.)

I see no use in proving each other's POV false. Just share opinions/POVs and definitely not belittle my POV.

Why try to prove my faith is false? If you make a very good case of your belief, then I am smart enough to accept it,

This has nothing to do with proving your faith false.

Think for a minute:

- what is "free will"? It's the ability to decide to act on your desires. It's not the ability to choose your desires or to cause your desires to happen.

- your free will can only choose amongst the desires you actually have. For example, I just don't have the desire to murder anyone, so my free will would never cause me to murder.

- "free will" has nothing to do with what you can actually make happen. The physical laws of the universe prevent us from doing most of the things a person might want to do. You're never going to kill someone with telekinesis even if that's the sole focus of your free will.

And that is why saying "free will!" as if you've explained something is a nonsense, garbage, irrational response to the Problem of Evil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For reference this was my quote again:


What I was saying here is that it is not a good counter-example because parents are not omnipotent and omniscient: in order to solve some problems, they have no option but to cause suffering (e.g. giving a vaccine). However for an omnipotent and omniscient being, they could just actualize the goal without requiring some means to an end that causes suffering to accomplish it: they could just directly go to the result. Poof, immune to smallpox (as opposed to being forced to use a means like a needle).

Even better: the omnimax deity just never creates smallpox in the first place.

 

[Meow Mix]

This has nothing to do with proving your faith false.

Think for a minute:

- what is "free will"? It's the ability to decide to act on your desires. It's not the ability to choose your desires or to cause your desires to happen.

- your free will can only choose amongst the desires you actually have. For example, I just don't have the desire to murder anyone, so my free will would never cause me to murder.

- "free will" has nothing to do with what you can actually make happen. The physical laws of the universe prevent us from doing most of the things a person might want to do. You're never going to kill someone with telekinesis even if that's the sole focus of your free will.

And that is why saying "free will!" as if you've explained something is a nonsense, garbage, irrational response to the Problem of Evil.

And this is why this is brought up in Toy World arguments too: what exactly would a person lack if the laws of the universe forbade slaying your neighbor?

You could still go to the store and decide on what to eat that day. You could choose which friends to go out with, to see which movie (which, I might add, would still be free to depict otherwise impossible things like violence for entertainment purposes).

It's easy to imagine a world where there is no physical suffering but where you can make meaningful choices. Whence then comes this argument that it's somehow better if you could hurt or kill somebody?

That's like saying if you stepped sideways into a parallel dimension where murder has never been invented and showing people how actually makes you a hero (somehow), because you've "enhanced" their world.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

QUOTE="Meow Mix, post: 7235332, member: 21927"]While this sentiment is nice (and I agree that since we do suffer, we need to make the most out of it -- so your point is not lost), this does not resolve the ultimate problem: some people suffer without ever having the chance to better themselves due to it; in fact, the example of childhood leukemia is one such case for many unfortunate people.[/QUOTE]


I agree with you that no child (or adult, probably) “deserves” to slowly die of anything.

Yet take leukaemia, as you did: it does not come from “nowhere”, but would you say it is from God? I would say it’s more from Man and how he (collectively) chooses to use his worldly resources…

Illness is an effect of Man’s collective living. It will exist and follow laws of cause and effect. For as long as it exists (as effect of Man’s living), it will and must impact someone …somewhere …at some point. Some of those someone’s will be children and some of those children may at times be our own.

It depends on how we choose to see it but in my view, this is Man’s doing, not God’s.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[stvdv]

Why would we need to give up free will to prevent all suffering?

People often presume one thing justifies the other without actually explaining the connection they see.

My thought was like below, in the context of a God who created everything:

IF God created human without free will/choice, and no option to do evil, then they would not do "evil"

BUT

God created human with free will/choice, so he is free to choose also "evil", hence there can be "evil" in the world

 

[stvdv]

This has nothing to do with proving your faith false.

Think for a minute:

- what is "free will"? It's the ability to decide to act on your desires. It's not the ability to choose your desires or to cause your desires to happen.

- your free will can only choose amongst the desires you actually have. For example, I just don't have the desire to murder anyone, so my free will would never cause me to murder.

- "free will" has nothing to do with what you can actually make happen. The physical laws of the universe prevent us from doing most of the things a person might want to do. You're never going to kill someone with telekinesis even if that's the sole focus of your free will.

And that is why saying "free will!" as if you've explained something is a nonsense, garbage, irrational response to the Problem of Evil.

Okay, thanks, now I understand why you wrote what you wrote. I call that "Free Choice". And I understand that from your POV my response seemed/was irrational

I use a different definition of Free Will; the Masters I met taught us that it means that you have the Will Power and the ability to change things

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And this is why this is brought up in Toy World arguments too: what exactly would a person lack if the laws of the universe forbade slaying your neighbor?

We almost live in that universe now. The desire to murder doesn't translate to actual murder most of the time.

I mentioned how we can't murder by telekinesis, but even murdering with a knife or a gun isn't a sure bet. Attempted murder is a thing. Even if someone's entire will is focused on killing someone and they get weapons, set up an ambush, etc., if circumstances work out so that the intended victim never walks through the ambush, the murder doesn't happen.

Our will (free or not) gets thwarted so much that people will go on about "the best-laid plans of mice and men" and many Muslims will say "inshallah" (i.e. "God willing") any time they talk about what they're going to do.

... but then people like @stvdv act as if having our will thwarted would make us akin to robots. It's like they don't live on the same world as the rest of us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, thanks, now I understand why you wrote what you wrote. I call that "Free Choice". And I understand that from your POV my response seemed/was irrational

I use a different definition of Free Will; the Masters I met taught us that it means that you have the Will Power and the ability to change things

So then you meant something that doesn't exist? There are plenty of things we can't change.

 

[Koldo]

My thought was like below, in the context of a God who created everything:

IF God created human without free will/choice, and no option to do evil, then they would not do "evil"

BUT

God created human with free will/choice, so he is free to choose also "evil", hence there can be "evil" in the world

Ok, but there is a problem here: Do all humans have free will?

If you answer 'Yes', you would be saying that even tetraplegic people have free will. However, they are unable to murder other people with their arms and their legs which means that murdering people with our arms and legs has nothing to do with free will. Meaning you now have to explain why it is possible to murder people this way, since free will does not justify it.

If you answer 'No', you would need to justify why that is the case and why free will is important in the first place.

 

[stvdv]

Ok, but there is a problem here: Do all humans have free will?

If you answer 'Yes', you would be saying that even tetraplegic people have free will. However, they are unable to murder other people with their arms and their legs which means that murdering people with our arms and legs has nothing to do with free will. Meaning you now have to explain why it is possible to murder people this way, since free will does not justify it.

If you answer 'No', you would need to justify why that is the case and why free will is important in the first place.

Your example does not apply to my reply where I used the words "Free Will" and "Law of Karma"

 

[Koldo]

Your example does not apply to my reply where I used the words "Free Will" and "Law of Karma"

I am afraid this post of yours, given the context, is unintelligible. Can you clarify what you mean?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

When God gives people reason to reject it since it lacks goodness itself, what choice has God given? It's a duty for humans to reject the agent who lacks goodness, and that is God, despite it's occasional act of goodness.

We should stand up for morality, even if we must stand against God.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And what of all the evil people that life a life without health problems? It's almost as if this whole scenario is nonsense and none of the popular interventionist Gods exist.

So many people would side with Job’s “friends “ even though God Himself said that they were jerks.

 

[halbhh]

Today I'd like to address a particular response often given to the Problem of Evil: that God has a good reason for allowing evil to occur, even if we're don't know what that reason is. This theodicy usually looks something like this:



This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

There are two objections to note here. One comes in the form of a parody:

Say that an extraterrestrial lands on planet earth and blasts a bunch of people seemingly at random with a ray gun. Inexplicably, the extraterrestrial agrees to stand trial for its actions. "I am immensely more powerful and more intelligent than you are," ET says to the judge and to the people of Earth. "You cannot say that my actions were malevolent. I have benevolent reasons for them that you couldn't possibly understand."

Intuitively, is it the case that we are incapable of arriving to the conclusion that what ET did is malevolent in a reasonable fashion? They may be more powerful and more intelligent than humans, but it seems to me as though we are still behaving reasonably by concluding the actions were malevolent in the complete absence of any evidence they were benevolent. Do you agree?

The second objection is the consequence of allowing special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacy for a reason.

Let's say that our theodicist from the earlier conversation dies, and finds themselves in a throne room before God. God gets off His throne, whips out a holy flanged mace, and begins to mercilessly beat the everloving snot out of the theodicist.

"It's okay," the theodicist might think. "This is God, God is smarter and more powerful than me. I may not understand it, but God has a good, benevolent reason for doing this."

A day passes of beatings. A week. A month. "God must have a good reason for this," the theodicist continues to think. A year goes by. A decade. Millennia. Eons.

Is there ever a point where the theodicist can break out of their special pleading argument? Is there ever a stopping point where they may admit, "ok, maybe God is just malevolent?" No -- they can continue their special pleading argument infinitely. Can you see why that's a problem?

Regarding God:
Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,' and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away."

As you can see, the child dying of leukemia, and anyone else dying anytime anywhere under God's Grace, will then live forever without any more suffering.

The basic idea of "God" is that after this temporary body comes another Life, for those that follow His way.

e.g. --
God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”

7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

While a person could imagine a different 'god' than in the scripture, it's merely a different one (different topic really), and not the one in scripture then.

 

[F1fan]

I agree with you that no child (or adult, probably) “deserves” to slowly die of anything.

Yeah, it's not the sort of thing we good folks would do if we created a world.

So for those who believe in a God that is also the creator of the world, when a child and adult suffers for anything it is a result of the design of what God created.

Yet take leukaemia, as you did: it does not come from “nowhere”, but would you say it is from God? I would say it’s more from Man and how he (collectively) chooses to use his worldly resources…

Illness is an effect of Man’s collective living. It will exist and follow laws of cause and effect. For as long as it exists (as effect of Man’s living), it will and must impact someone …somewhere …at some point. Some of those someone’s will be children and some of those children may at times be our own.

Except humans evolved in a way that benefitted from living in groups. Groups offer opportunity and safety vastly better than independent living. This happened well before humans understood diseases. Typically those with defects just died, and these weak genes didn't;t get passed on. But as science and medicine developed, as a result of humans living in huge settlements, people could be cured. So in one sense being able to cure diseases allowed some of them to be passed on. But more people can carry genes that aren't expressed but eventually affect some offspring. People can have genes tested for defects but this is too expensive for the average couple, so children remain a gamble.

But humans didn't plan any of this. This was an effect of evolution and the efficiency and benefits of large settlements, and the advances of science and medicine. At some point science may be able to efficiently gene edit to remove all defects. We don't know what effects THIS will cause.

That said genetic defects exist in humans, humans didn't cause them, not decide to pass on defects. These are just part of the lottery of life and reproduction. But what we can do is blame the designer, the God who made all this the way it is. So we humans get to judge the creator and decide for ourselves if this entity is moral and worthy of respect nd worship. Frankly I find the idea absurd since the God is either incompetent or a sadist. Believers are stuck with one or the other. Their option is to advance a deist perspective and God set all things in motion and has checked out. That doesn't seem appealing to theists who really prefer and interventionist God that is involved. But they are still stuck with serious ethical and moral problems. Being an atheist allows me vastly more freedom to judge, and not believe.

It depends on how we choose to see it but in my view, this is Man’s doing, not God’s.


Humbly
Hermit

Yet God made all this the way it is, man didn't. Humans are just the result of what your God created. If what reality happens to be isn't what your God wanted, then your God needs to assess how it screwed up. If this is what your God wanted, then we need to question its character. Either way, you're trapped in your belief to this God. I don't envy your inner turmoil and stress in reconciling it all.