Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[Shakeel]

I was curious if you thought the use of childrens’ pain as some kind of lesson was good, but nevermind.

Had I said yes, it would sound heartless and we don't think of punishment so much as good but rather as necessary. Had I said no, I would be saying God has done something bad which is impossible. So it is perfectly clear why you didn't receive a simple answer.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. I asked why a sign Allah is in control would have to be as traumatic as child leukemia. You say it is absurd for me to claim it’s “dramatic” (I assume you meant traumatic since that’s what I said, but don’t want to put words in your mouth). Why can’t I see leukemia and find it extreme, find it traumatic? Why would that be absurd?

No, I meant dramatic. You claim a softer sign would be enough, something less harsh and even with the harshest of signs, you don't believe. Then how can you claim less is enough?

The topic is this: it’s possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to make “points” without causing unspeakable suffering. So why does such suffering exist unless the b

What kind of points would you like? We receive what is best for us. God knows us better than we know ourselves. He knows what we can handle and what moves us.

 

[George-ananda]

That is the same argument, only structured in a different manner. "It'll all make sense in the end"

I was saying it makes sense in the 'now' from an Eastern Advaita Hindu philosophy.

 

[Shakeel]

do you really believe in such a being as the standard of objective morality, for you, and everyone else?

Yes. A child's life may well have ended up worse if they continued to live it. Have you thought of that? There is so much you don't know.

 

[PureX]

If a man owns a slave, but then decides to set that slave free, and then the freed slave runs down the road and commits a crime, is the slave owner the one responsible for that crime?

 

[Quagmire]

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:

Here's what special pleading actually is:

spe·cial plead·ing
/ˈspeSHəl ˈplēdiNG/

noun

1. argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

Note that it says the speaker deliberately ignores aspects . . .

In your scenario the speaker isn't ignoring anything, they're just acknowledging that they may not have all the information needed to make a judgment.
Not the same thing.

normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent.

Which would mean that every physical therapist, personal trainer, every doctor who's ever had to set a broken bone, every first responder who's ever had to pull an injured person out of a dangerous situation, every mother who's ever had to apply an antiseptic to a scraped knee, is malevolent or criminally negligent.

But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable;

I believe the general consensus in reference to the concept is all-powerful and all-knowing.

It's an important distinction.

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?

Absolutely, for you see even though his actions seem random to us, he was in reality selectively eliminating carriers of a hybrid strain of super-herpes and covid-19000000000000and1/2 that would have wiped out half the population of the planet and greatly inconvenienced the other half.

Do you want people to get super herpes and covid-hyper-etc. MeowMix? Do you???

Don't you think we all owe ET an apology?

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?

Of course, because jumping to conclusions always turns out so well for us as a species.

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

Yes it is. Deliberately ignoring certain aspects of an argument that are unfavorable to your point of view is definitely fallacious.

For instance dropping "all" from all-powerful or all-knowing in order to make the subject seem more reasonably accountable to our own finite standards.

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?

It definitely would be and if I ever find myself standing before God being beaten mercilessly for all eternity with a holy flanged mace, feel free to say I told you so.

 

[firedragon]

do you really believe in such a being as the standard of objective morality, for you, and everyone else?

Im curious. What do you mean by this question? You mean this "being" is the standard. That means this beings own morality is the standard, not the proposal. Is that right?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I would, actually. Might be tactless to say ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not just tactless.

If we conclude that Tsunami's are some result of "bad karma" (actions of human beings deemed to be punishable offenses by some authority), then we must posit that there is some cognizant force (of "justice"?) in control of these natural forces, correct? Otherwise, a completely natural event that has ZERO correlation to any poor choices made by humans (for example, a volcano that was going to erupt anyway, rather than a tsunami that one might [barely] be able to argue could be a weather result caused by human's mistreatment of the environment) could not be considered a result of bad karma. A force or being with the power to enact the volcano, that is cognizant of human transgression, and gets involved based on judgment of this must necessarily be involved.

So, if we take that to be the case in ANY amount of seemingly natural occurrence (like volcanoes), and therefore deem the damage caused to be due to "bad karma" or "divine justice" of some form, then there is a basic problem with this method of doling out punishments or "lessons."

That problem is that the "punishment" is NOT AT ALL connected to the "crime." The being/mind/whatever that is willing to conduct things in this manner is demonstrably irrational. Without being informed what it is you have done wrong, and just receiving punishment without any idea of how to repair the situation is a just plain ridiculous situation to conceive of or force other unaware beings to adhere to. I don't think anyone could argue for that type of system as an appropriate or worthwhile way of conducting things and maintain any shred of a façade of intellectual responsibility.

 

[firedragon]

The problem with that thinking seems to be to be this: once, cancer was pretty much a death sentence, but we mere humans have been working hard and learning more and more until, today, many formerly deadly cancers are routinely treatable. Thus, it appears that we are -- in your manner of thinking -- growing the strength to be able to thwart your God when he decides he wants to test the parents, test us. That we are, in fact, gaining control.

In the subject of theodicy, this type of answer has been addressed already maybe as early as the 13th century. Maybe even earlier. I am not propagating it, I'm just stating it.

The "test" theory in theodicy would answer you by saying humans are always developing, and they will with grace, but they will always be tested. Just that one can only assume what this "test" is, because nothing is universal nor eternal.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This life is a test. If it was perfect, it would be no test.

You fail to comprehend that theists believe in God. When someone believes in God and a message He sent, they don't need to understand everything.

God has told us about the day of judgment and what would happen and why so the confusion of the individual in your story can only be because he has no idea about those things and his punishment can be only due to his own sins.

A child's cancer is a test. It is a test to the parents. It is a sign to mankind that should remind you that you are not in control. That despite all your knowledge, you just can't cure cancer unless God wills it. We are inherently weak, needy and ignorant. Your child dying slowly of cancer in the hands of the world's best doctors should make you think a little.

What a vile and wicked god you describe... one who 'tests' people by tormenting parents with the horrible death of their child. Why would anyone worship a being with such a despicable message?

 

[JoshuaTree]

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?

If you discover God is whuppin you with a holy flanged mace you probably realize that you are no longer in control of the situation, and looking back on your life you might realize you never really had a choice in the matter, and perhaps that you were predestined for this very purpose. Who is going to save you? You? God? Satan? The more you struggle with the choices you made in your life the more tortuous the situation, so you make a decision and tell yourself you are going to accept your situation as God's plan for you and recant your notion of free will... But you can't... And now the situation becomes even more torturous to you. Suppose this situation continues for you until the observable universe goes dark and cold, and then, for some reason you can't fathom, you realize in a twinkling of the eye that, yes, this IS God's plan for me, that you never had a choice, that God is in absolute control of all that was, that is, and that ever shall be. In the instant you realize this you are transformed and your situation changes from darkness into lightness (not sure you know or care about religious ideas so just sprinkling them in) and your torture ends, sure, God is still whuppin you with that holy flanged mace but you accept your situation now as your part on God's perfect plan. Your peers surround you, trying to rob you off that newfound peace that passes all understanding () telling you you made your choices, now curse God and die () but you can't, you tell your peers your will isn't your own, your torment has ended!

I'm gonna guess you will object to what I just wrote that it is immoral for God to punish someone like you who has spent a lifetime making all the right choices, so I need to cover that angel, right?

In my opinion God's imagination is our reality, we are no more real than the chess pieces we move in our mind contemplating a move, in that contemplation we might move pieces in seemingly stupid (immoral) ways in exploration of a favorable outcome. Should you be held accountable for the moves you make in your mind, or rather should you be commended for your careful thoughtful planning?

That's how I see it. I'd like to continue to improve my presentation of this notion so feel free to hammer away at me debating this, but use small(er) words please, I'm gonna spend the rest of the afternoon in the sun on a tractor cutting hay.

 

[Link]

The world was meant to be a perfect place. But if God protected us from the devil and his misguidance, no creature would disobey God after out complete fear and obedience to God would lose value. So he let his creatures duke it out, unfortunately, Iblis is winning in bringing people to his party for a very long time and still is winning. If he we can unite on the rope of God though - suffering will end and corruption will stop in the land and sea, diseases cured and world peace would occur. We just go to accept God's chosen kings of our time.

 

[Link]

This an error handling world, a world not meant to be.

 

[Wildswanderer]

From a Christian point of view the point is not to have an explanation for suffering but the point is we have a God that agreed to suffer with us, and die so that we did not have to suffer forever. So whatever suffering you're going through is something that he can understand because of his own suffering.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This life is a test. If it was perfect, it would be no test.

You fail to comprehend that theists believe in God. When someone believes in God and a message He sent, they don't need to understand everything.

God has told us about the day of judgment and what would happen and why so the confusion of the individual in your story can only be because he has no idea about those things and his punishment can be only due to his own sins.

A child's cancer is a test. It is a test to the parents. It is a sign to mankind that should remind you that you are not in control. That despite all your knowledge, you just can't cure cancer unless God wills it. We are inherently weak, needy and ignorant. Your child dying slowly of cancer in the hands of the world's best doctors should make you think a little.

It's funny how the "tests" God uses always seem subservient to human knowledge.

God sure used a lot of bacterial infection to "test" us back in the day. Strange how God decided that testing us with the plague didn't need to be part of his holy plan at the exact same time that antibiotics came on the scene, eh?

 

[Yazata]

Seems to me that if one really believes in eternal life in heaven, then suffering in a short little Earthly life starts to look like your protagonist avatar getting killed in a video game. Really no big deal. Die here, wake up in eternity again.

Suffering in a life like this one might actually serve an important purpose. If we lived in conditions of perfection all the time, how could we ever know courage or compassion? Many of the virtues that we consider very important only make sense in conditions of imperfection. Kindness, persistence or mercy only make sense in the presence of their opposites. If we were omniscient, how could we ever learn or discover?

 

[Shakeel]

What a vile and wicked god you describe... one who 'tests' people by tormenting parents with the horrible death of their child. Why would anyone worship a being with such a despicable message?

That's not the message.
Muslims' children go to paradise.

Al-Tirmidhi (942) narrated that Abu Sinaan said: I buried my son Sinaan and Abu Talhah al-Khoolaani was sitting at the graveside. When I wanted to go out he took my hand and said, “Shall I not give you some glad tidings, O Abu Sinaan?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Al-Dahhaak ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Arzab narrated to me from Abu Moosa al-Ash’ari that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When a person’s child dies, Allaah says to His angels, ‘You have taken the child of My slave.’ They say, ‘Yes.’ He says, ‘You have taken the apple of his eye.’ They say, ‘Yes.’ He says, ‘What did My slave say?’ They say, ‘He praised you and said “Innaa lillaahi wa inna ilayhi raaji’oon (Verily to Allaah we belong and unto Him is our return).’ Allaah says, ‘Build for My slave a house in Paradise and call it the house of praise.’”

 

[Shakeel]

It's funny how the "tests" God uses always seem subservient to human knowledge.

God sure used a lot of bacterial infection to "test" us back in the day. Strange how God decided that testing us with the plague didn't need to be part of his holy plan at the exact same time that antibiotics came on the scene, eh?

I don't see the irony.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That's not the message.
Muslims' children go to paradise.

Who cares? The message remains that your god thinks it's okay to 'test' people by forcing them to watch their precious children die a truly horrible death. That's wicked and vile behavior and worthy of vehement condemnation, NOT worship.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That's not the message.
Muslims' children go to paradise.

Who cares? The message remains that your god thinks it's okay to 'test' people by forcing them to watch their precious children die a truly horrible death. That's wicked and vile behavior and worthy of vehement condemnation, NOT worship.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Jeez... I often forget what it's like to stick to my guns on beliefs that contradict my personal values. It's not a happy way to be.

Leaving behind the concept of a perfect, all powerful god really was a huge weight lifted from my shoulders. The problem of evil (and god's part in doling out suffering) was something that weighed on my conscience, which is weird to think about in retrospect, because that burden was never mine to bear... Not having to fight with cognitive dissonance and apply mental gymnastics to reason through such things makes life a lot more pleasant, though.