The Problem of Evil

Justice4243 · 2013-01-30 13:27:20

I felt like it was time for a philosophical discussion.

Simply put, "The Problem of Evil" is the suggestion that that a benevolent, omnipotent/omnipresent God should be able to eliminate evil from the world. The existence of evil in the world is often used to attempt to disprove this notion of God (in this specific sense). Now, many counter arguments or solutions have been suggested for the problem of evil over the centuries. Broadly speaking, evil is often considered necessary for us have good, or perhaps the concept of good. Otherwise we'd lack an opposite for which to consider this concept.

Let's explore this further.

Obviously, when one considers evil, the first thing that often pops into people's minds are Wraiths. Wraiths perform nothing but evil. It might even be simpler to consider the problem of evil as "The Problem of Wraiths".

So, how could a benevolent, omnipotent/omnipresent God allow wraiths who spread misery and death wherever they go? Well, we all know the negatives of Wraiths, but let's consider the positives, or "Silver lining to our miasma cloud" (see Irenaen Theodicy).

Wraiths create an important contrast to people. Where's Wraiths are wholly evil, it can be shown that people are mostly good. When people perform evil, it's often because of the influence of wraiths.
Wraiths create an even more important contrast to Magic Girls. Where's Wraiths are wholly evil, Magic Girls can be shown to be wholly good.
Wraiths allow for bypassing the Second Law of Thermodynamics and allows for postponing the onset of universe entropy. Possibly forever.

By seeing true evil, we reflect more positively on our fellow humans. Without Wraiths, it might be that humans might commit the same evils by their own volition. Then we'd have to reconsider human nature as even "mostly good". It might be neutral, or worse, "mostly evil".

Magic Girls also give us a greater hope or "good" then we'd experience. A common counter-argument here is "Why can't God give us Magic Girls without Wraiths". Of course the argument here ignores that without Wraiths, Magic Girls would have little to no reason to exist. Even if this "No Wraith" world where to exist, Magic Girls would serve little purpose than to be minor icons who perform the odd major deed here or their, or worse, reduced to mere entertainment where their exploits are fictionalized, having no REAL threat to fight.

Another common argument is that God could at the very least make it so Magic Girls do not disappear once their power is depleted. However, this is an important aspect of the Magic Girl. If their abilities did not require sacrifice, then they would not be held in such the high regard they are today. Magic powers would just be handed out to every middle school girl and the whole phenomenon of magic girls would become common place. Their sacrifice not only makes them people to be greatly respected, but allows for what their doing to be seen as "wholly good" as their gifts are seen as a sacrifice instead of an undeserved power-up. Though it is argued that their wishes balance this out to a nuetral "good/evil" at best, their wishes are almost always used to perform good acts, adding to the good they bring to the planet (See Usagi Tsikimo's study on the phenomenom of Magic Girls and their impact in society.)

The last point is obvious. The collection of energy from Wraiths is a boon to all, and even if we can argue the good vs bad amounts, it's undeniably that the Wraiths allow for a complete upheaval of physics that benefits the known universe. Similarly, Magic Girl energy seems to come from nowhere. Certainly nothing that's covered under the laws of thermodynamics. It's often argued that God could allow for this extra energy without the Wraiths, but this just brings us back to arguments I've covered above.

One more point is that the world could be so much worse. Wraiths could be even more difficult to defeat, or it could be that these "Super-Wraiths" come when a Magic Girl depletes her power, making "Witches" (if you want to keep with gender appropriate titles here...) therefore spreading as much if not more misery than the amount of hope and good they did when they where a Magic Girl. Of course this is mere conjecture, but it shows that the world allows for a "Net amount of good" at least in the form of Magic Girls as opposed to a world where Magic Girls are sort of a "wash" from a good/evil perspective. (See Gottfried_Leibniz's "Best of All Possible Worlds" idea detailed in his work: Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal)

Now, this, of course, doesn't prove the concept of a benevolent, omnipotent/omnipresent God. But at least shows that "The Problem of Evil" is hardly an iron clad argument. For further reading, I suggest looking into the works of St. Thomas, St. Augustine of Hippo, and Sakura Kinomoto.

Obā-san · 2013-01-30 13:32:05

man I can't tell if we are discussing the problem of evil, the problem of evil in the context of anime, or anime.

So

／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼

Contract?

Justice4243 · 2013-01-30 13:38:50

Sadly, I am of the inappropriate age or gender to form a contract.

...Wait...Could I wish to be a of the appropriate age and gender then form a contract?

Though, I guess all my powers would center on my wish which was basically to be a teenaged girl. I'm not even sure how that would work...

Obā-san · 2013-01-30 13:40:10

Justice42 said:
Though, I guess all my powers would center on my wish which was basically to be a teenaged girl. I'm not even sure how that would work...

They would be based based on being a huge bitch to your mother and/or being insecure about your self image.

Justice4243 · 2013-01-30 13:43:58

THAT'LL SHOW THOSE WRAITHS! I'LL SPREAD GOODNESS BY WHINING THEM TO DEATH!

Obā-san · 2013-01-30 13:44:24

Broadly speaking, evil is often considered necessary for us have good, or perhaps the concept of good. Otherwise we'd lack an opposite for which to consider this concept.

I've always found the argument that we have to have free will to perform truly good acts, and that free will also allows the performance of evil acts to be a more solid version of this argument.

Justice4243 · 2013-01-30 13:45:32

Truth be told, I prefer free-will arguments here, but those didn't lend to dropping the words "Wraith" and "Magic Girl" all over my post.

Obā-san · 2013-01-30 13:45:59

Things I know about puella magi madoka magica

Kyubey is an adorable cat alien thing
Kyubey is a sociopath

Obā-san · 2013-01-30 13:47:27

Also there is this one scene

[Malicious URL removed. It's been 8 years, so nobody cares now, but...I don't like HH pages throwing up phishing warnings! -- Central Avenue]

that shows up on tumblr all the time and i have no clue what is going on but it looks important/surreal?

Justice4243 · 2013-01-30 13:48:41

That's SORTA true. I could tell you the story, but that's kinda spoileriffic.

It's a really good watch and only twelve episodes.

Obā-san · 2013-01-30 13:49:18

Only 12? I guess I will have to watch it then.

Justice4243 · 2013-01-30 13:49:18

There's a lot of surreal scenes in Madoka.

Also, ouch, right in the feels...

Justice4243 · 2013-01-30 13:57:21

Actually...a good 20%- 33% of Madoka is probably surreal scenes. So if you're a fan of that, then you'll probably be a fan of Madoka.

Viani · 2013-01-31 02:11:08

I don't think that God is benevolent, ever. The fucker invented space after all. You know, the completely irradiated, volatile environment where temperature fluctuates to insane levels, dust from destroyed planets can actually shred through human skin, where black holes and extreme gravity fields can obliterate any fucker that goes into there without advanced technology...

He also invented the concept of telling strange people on Earth that he existed, instead of making it an instinct to know who the fuck he is, and you shouldn't be raping children or cutting people's heads off with farming tools. Not only that, he invented the concept of coming in hundreds of different forms to different people, and then telling all of them that the image they saw of him is real and no others are true. Leading of course, to his favorite little animals fighting over it.

And then the Vatican cashed in on Gods shortcomings and is making tons of money and fucking up a lot of people's lives.

But, if it wasn't for him, or her, Fallout 3 wouldn't have existed, or I wouldn't have existed to enjoy it.

So, even though he has a horrific track record and has shown to be an extremely ineffective planner, I guess all of this child molesting bullshit happening in exchange for the existence of people making fun video games is perfectly ....fine?

Wait, I'm starting to think

[wmg] What if God is a Capitalist, and our souls are currency?[/wmg]

So his corporation is competing with hundreds of other religions, and of course, Satan, who was probably a really okay person who sold amazing products, but thanks to brand loyalty, he stated that Satan was a bad fucker and nobody should trust him, only as a way of getting people to not vote for him or buy his products?

Justice4243 · 2013-01-31 13:24:19

Well, we don't really have to DEAL with space. Unless we go there. Most of paragraph two could be blamed on free will and humans. Yes, even the "other religions are false" bit. This isn't as clear cut in the Bible as people make it out to be (unless it's idolatry). Though, it probably would be considered Islam canon.

Not necessarily that people are worshiping nothing, though. They possible are worshiping Dijin's by Islam canon (if they're not Christian/Jewish/Muslim of course).

Anyhow, sorry if that was short and sweet. I've had way too many "super serieal" versions of this argument and am only going to expand on something if asked. I'll talk more about your other points.

Catholicism is definitely more of a mixed bag here than people give it credit for. It's quite possibly the biggest organization on the planet, so of course not everything it does is going to vibe with what people want to see. And let's not forget the times when it just straight up effs up. Still, the Church does a lot of good as well. Lots and lots of charity work and helping people across the globe. People like to concentrate on the bad and say it's mostly an "EVIL organization" but also keep in mind America Christians are mostly Protestant, and Catholics often come from the same races and groups that are under privileged in this country. Many groups are still "fighting" the Catholics here in the US, so it's not uprising the negatives of the Catholic church get a lot of focus,

The video game point is sort of interesting. We probably wouldn't have many forms of entertainment if it weren't for evil, since much of this entertainment focuses on overcomming evil... albeit with sort of matching it more evil, but employed for a good reason (except for some video games where you're allowed just to be evil). This sorta ties into another point that seems to be gaining a little more focus on the problem of evil. That evil gives humanity something to do and to rise above, and that we probably wouldn't have done much if it weren't for evil or obstacles to overcome. Or rather, why would we invent things like cars, or computers, or even Fallout 3 if these things didn't actually solve anything because we had no problems that needed solving?

Now! As far as the WMG goes, if Satan was a really okay person who sold amazing products, he needs to invest some money into PR. Because neither Satanism or some of the Gnosticism out there that celebrate him are doing much for his image at the moment.

Previous Calica · 2013-01-31 16:33:45

What about the view that has Satan as a prosecutor(the original Hebrew meaning of the word, IIRC), with the purpose of tempting people to reveal the evil that's already there?

Justice4243 · 2013-01-31 18:02:14

There's a few ways to interpret the word. But the "Lucifer/Satan/The Devil is the source of all EVIL" is definitely not a concept that's as old as most might think and would qualify as "dogma" for the most part and not Biblical or Hebrew canon.

Viani · 2013-01-31 22:26:47

...maybe God likes evil and lying, and it's mostly evil liars telling people that God doesn't like evil and lying.

Tachyon · 2013-01-31 22:36:07

If that were the case, he would be so far from God as He is worshipped as to be a functionally different entity. It wouldn't really make sense to call that being 'God'.

Viani · 2013-01-31 22:37:39

So are the Protestant, Catholic, Hebrew and Judaic version of God different?

Tachyon · 2013-01-31 22:39:27

The Judeo-Christian God is believed to be one God, but beliefs about Him differ.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-01-31 22:39:57

Judaic means Jewish. Hebrew is the Jewish ceremonial language. So Judaic=Hebrew.

Also, arguably, yes. And Allah is also the same God.

Tachyon · 2013-01-31 22:41:54

In spite of the bizarrely common misconception that Allah is completely unrelated to the Judeo-Christian God.

Viani · 2013-01-31 22:54:05

All in all, I don't think there is a problem with evil at all on Earth. Everything is fair game, which does sound very pessimistic and sounds like something I would never say, ever. So I won't...I think?

In the immortal words of the famous virologist Miyo Takano "Not all evil is equal".

Justice4243 · 2013-01-31 23:12:19

Well, it's more a problem with the concept of God and existence of evil, but I wasn't really expecting the thread to be taken all that serious in the first place given how I wrote the op.

But I'd be happy to discuss it peeps as long as I'm not required to write giant paragraphs on the topic. Otherwise, I might have to shoot a bitch.

Mr. Darcy · 2013-01-31 23:12:49

Sredni Vashtar said:
Judaic means Jewish. Hebrew is the Jewish ceremonial language. So Judaic=Hebrew.

Also, arguably, yes. And Allah is also the same God.

But Termagant is totally different, right?

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-01-31 23:13:27

Well, evil is pretty relative/subjective. I mean, my personal definition of what true evil is would probably be unsatisfactory to a great number of people.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-01-31 23:16:20

Gilda said:

Sredni Vashtar said:
Judaic means Jewish. Hebrew is the Jewish ceremonial language. So Judaic=Hebrew.

Also, arguably, yes. And Allah is also the same God.
But Termagant is totally different, right?

Mediaeval Europeans had a very weak understanding of how non-Christian theology worked—and how other Christian theology worked, really.

Then again, I'm willing to bet that there were some pre-Renaissance-era Muslims who were under the impression that the Germans were still pagans, or maybe cannibals.

Actually, come to think of it, Termagant was probably a corruption of Yazidi beliefs.

Viani · 2013-01-31 23:16:54

It's not like we have to be an asshole to you if concepts of evil don't match up, or adopt your view on evil. So let's hear it. :3

And, the concepts of evil that were developed way before necrophilia banks, the venezuelan child sex slave trade, hypocritical dictatorship and capitalist-driven abortion were even a thing. It was mostly like "don't kill the farmers and hump their daughters without their permission" stuff.

Even back before developing anthrax or nuclear weapons too.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-01-31 23:20:09

It's simple: Evil is unjust suffering, particularly if it is wilfully inflicted.

Yarrun XIX · 2013-01-31 23:23:32

A theory that I particularly like is that evil doesn't exist, just as darkness doesn't exist.

Darkness has no matter or form. It is simply the absence of light. Likewise, evil is merely the absence of good.

I think this explains many of the issues that come up when one discusses the creation, emergence or propagation of evil. If one considers evil to be a lack of good, then evil can come into the world without God actually creating evil.

Viani · 2013-01-31 23:30:36

Theory Adapted.

Tachyon · 2013-01-31 23:41:24

Well, i kind of didn't trust myself to discuss this without making everything turn inexplicably shitty, but i guess i do have some questions that hopefully won't ruin the thread, if we're putting our semi-serious hats on for a moment.

Like, i'm not really sure what's meant when we talk about evil needing to exist as a pre-requisite for good. If evil is simply the absence of good, then fair enough; it seems trivially true that to have the concept of good you would need the concept of non-good as well. If evil is willfully-inflicted unjust suffering, it's less clear why something like that would need to exist.

But let's talk about Wraiths. Justice, you suggested that Wraiths, by providing an example of true evil, enable people to reflect more positively on their fellow human beings. But does it follow from that that human beings are actually any better with wraiths than without? Is it not equally if not more probable that people in a world full of wraiths would be at least as evil as they would otherwise be, but would excuse themselves by saying, 'At least i'm better than a wraith'?

i think we can extend this to non-metaphorical, real world instances of evil. Does the committing of murder enable people not to be murderous, or does it allow them to lower their standards on the basis that, whatever they might be doing, at least it isn't murder?

And with regards to free will (hey, you said you preferred free will arguments :p), i am not sure i follow how this is supposed to reconcile the existence of evil with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator God, assuming that the human soul is itself of divine origin.

i seem to remember a lengthy discussion of this before (involving different flavours of ice cream i think?) and everyone getting exhausted very quickly, which is why i didn't ask before, but if the free will argument provides a solution to the problem of evil, i'm afraid i don't see it.

Viani · 2013-01-31 23:54:34

There's always the exceptioneon approach to non-metaphorical instances of evil. Such as, murder is always evil, except when it's not. Then, you delve into "when is murder not evil?" and you come up with the solution like "killing Wraiths is not evil, for they are evil." Strangely enough, the Wraiths themselves may have an inversion of evil that cannot mix with ours, such as "Humans are evil, so it's okay to kill them."

But in order for them to be evil, they must be humanistically evil. If Wraiths were their own strand of evil, or had their own evils and taboos, and they conflicted with ours, it's like Chocolate Ice Cream not being served.

Then there's EVP, or Evil Points. Is murder evil, or is the suffering and pain that comes from murder evil?

Say I murder a wraith, and I am witnessed by a group of Wraith War II Veterans and People for the Ethical Treatment of Wraiths, the WWII Veterans praise me, and the PETW people call me evil. I gain a certain amount of EVP from the PETW people.

Then say I murder a person, which according to the society I live with, is very evil, but the person has no friends, no family, and absolutely no identifiable information about them. Then it comes to reason, is the reason I kill the person evil?

Justice4243 · 2013-02-01 02:20:10

But let's talk about Wraiths. Justice, you suggested that Wraiths, by providing an example of true evil, enable people to reflect more positively on their fellow human beings. But does it follow from that that human beings are actually any better with wraiths than without? Is it not equally if not more probable that people in a world full of wraiths would be at least as evil as they would otherwise be, but would excuse themselves by saying, 'At least i'm better than a wraith'?

This is getting into kinda silly hypothetical situations here. I didn't really intend for the op to be debated seriously, hence many of the links to non-existent research papers. At this point we're not only trying to discuss the problem of evil in hypothetical world full of wraiths, but hypothetical people that we've modeled based on people here rather than people that actually exist in the world which we only have about five minutes worth of Anime to go on.

I mean, hypothetically, it's possible, but also hypothetically Wraiths are so prevalent that any and all evil actions in that world are basically solely because of them. Maybe we'll have more to discuss if there's a Madoka Magica OVA and we get to see how people behave in a world plagued by miasma and Wraiths.

i think we can extend this to non-metaphorical, real world instances of evil. Does the committing of murder enable people not to be murderous, or does it allow them to lower their standards on the basis that, whatever they might be doing, at least it isn't murder?

Well, let's say hypothetically there was a world without murder Wouldn't it follow that you could say the same thing about rape, or grievous harm to another person? Now let's say those things didn't exist. Now we're arguing about theft, the highest form of evil. Basically, this just leads to "Why is there any evil?" which just sort of brings us back to square one.

Also, that seems like a tad contrary to human nature of rationalizing crimes. I mean, I doubt many serial killers think "sure I'm bad, but I'm not Hitler", nor is the "Hitler defense" likely to help one in court. If anything, I'd say people try to justify their actions, not compare themselves to the next person up the evil ladder.

Basically, what I'm saying is we don't really praise people for "not doing the wrong thing" or cut them or ourselves some slack for "not doing a wronger thing" we praise people for doing the right thing or stopping the wrong thing. Most people walk around not committing murder, they don't get brownie points for it. However, if one if a cop or a federal agent, or someone who prevents or at least has made it their job to prevent these things, it's considered good.

The same thing works for disasters and diseases where we now have people who can do "good deeds" by overcoming or helping others overcome these things.

The point that people can look at the evil and say "well, at least I'm not doing THAT", while now possible as a concept doesn't really strike me as something that people engage in all that often...unless you're suggesting we do this subconsciously...which unless you are, I think I'll stop there 'cause then if I continued I'd be arguing with a hypothetical a8...

And with regards to free will (hey, you said you preferred free will arguments :p), i am not sure i follow how this is supposed to reconcile the existence of evil with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator God, assuming that the human soul is itself of divine origin.

Basically it states that "The ability for humans to go against God's plan is necessary for God to think the world has any value, and going against his plan is evil. Hence, evil is necessary for a world in which humans have any value to God."

This would cover evil acts performed by humans, but not say, disasters or diseases. For those, you'd need to either look to Augustine of Hippo (demons did it) or one of the points I made above (they are things that allow us to prove our worth, they give us something to better ourselves against, etc...).

Tachyon · 2013-02-01 02:41:41

No, i wasn't talking about subconscious behaviour. In any case, i just wanted clarification on your position there. i wasn't sure whether you wanted the Wraith thing to be taken seriously or not.

i kinda do get the impression that people often derive a level of reassurance from the existence of people worse than themselves; take the Internet's fascination with Chris-Chan, for instance. But yeah, fair point; 'At least i'm not Hitler' is not something anyone could use to excuse their actions.

As to the free will thing... that much, i understand, but thanks all the same. That argument always seemed like something of a non-explanation to me, but i'm certainly not sufficiently versed in scholastic philosophy or theology to be the judge of that, so never mind.

Justice4243 · 2013-02-01 02:54:01

i kinda do get the impression that people often derive a level of reassurance from the existence of people worse than themselves; take the Internet's fascination with Chris-Chan, for instance.

Well, I think people mostly do this out of bile fascination or schadenfreude, not really as something to excuse their own behavior.

As to the free will thing... that much, i understand, but thanks all the same. That argument always seemed like something of a non-explanation to me, but i'm certainly not sufficiently versed in scholastic philosophy or theology to be the judge of that.

It works for me. I mean, it's a tad more complex than I've made it out to be. Since it's also contingent on a certain interpretation of Omnipotent.

Honestly, I don't think I could possibly do a better job of explaining it than Alvin Plantinga.

Also...is it just me, but does the sections below the section I linked make people just want to throw things?

I dunno...I guess I've just gotten to the point where I've read enough pages of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that when I see any more made up phrases to explain a philosophical concept I'm allowed to throw things at the people who made up the words.

Justice4243 · 2013-02-01 02:57:29

Seriously, I really like some of Plantinga's work, but that section on Transworld depravity makes me wish I could travel back in time to 1977 and punch him in the face.

Tachyon · 2013-02-01 04:38:15

It doesn't make me want to throw things but i did have to read it a bunch of times before i could figure what the hell (i think) it means.

Anyway, i don't really agree with some of the stuff there (i think his quoted comments about compatibilism suggest a limitingly narrow definition of 'freedom', and aspects of his argument seem kind of implausible to me) but i follow the reasoning and as far as i can tell it's valid.

Viani · 2013-02-01 04:58:26

So for evil to exist, it needs the following protein components:

* emotional catalysts
* sentient observation

correct?

So fish and people in comas cannot comprehend "evil", and people without emotions (or the gland in their brain that allows emotions to be felt is completely inert) cannot understand evil either.

Justice4243 · 2013-02-01 10:51:31

Oddly enough that hits on an issue I have with the "problem of evil", It's basically an appeal to emotion. When it's posed, it has to be presented in rather vague terminology, otherwise it's sort of glaringly apparent what it's attempting to do.

It doesn't make me want to throw things but i did have to read it a bunch of times before i could figure what the hell (i think) it means.

I guess that's my problem with it. I've simply had to do this too many times with philosophical concepts and am not sure how much value I'm getting from spending hours pouring over a couple of paragraphs.

Anyway, i don't really agree with some of the stuff there (i think his quoted comments about compatibilism suggest a limitingly narrow definition of 'freedom', and aspects of his argument seem kind of implausible to me) but i follow the reasoning and as far as i can tell it's valid.

I agree that he's focusing on a certain type of 'freedom' here, but I tend to agree with him when it comes to the compatabilist counter-arguments. Not that I don't think compatabilism wouldn't work with the free will defense, just that the suggestion of "What if God created a world where people had free will to make evil choices, but God makes it so everyone is predetermined not to" is in fact, paradoxically absurd.

What parts do you consider implausible, exactly?

Odradek · 2013-02-01 12:06:32

http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/schelling-and-evil/

Here's Schelling on the issue. It's pretty dense, and intensely speculative and weird, like most of Schelling's stuff but maybe it can add something to the issue.

If I wrote a post discussing the relationship of the German Idealists to the problem of evil, would it be out of place? I feel like it might add something, but I'm not sure.

Justice4243 · 2013-02-01 13:32:48

Go ahead. I'm kinda surprised we're actually discussing the topic in earnest given how I wrote the OP, but it's not like we're ill equipped to discuss it seriously and I think most people here are more interested in a discussion than actually having a "horse in the race".

Obā-san · 2013-02-01 18:50:45

Odradek · 2013-02-01 20:30:36

I'll have that post up tomorrow. Probably.

Obā-san · 2013-02-01 20:53:14

Odradek said:

i want to die

please somebody kill me

lee4hmz · 2013-02-01 21:17:58

Odradek said:

Not good enough, F--.

Tachyon · 2013-02-02 05:07:59

Starting to get what you mean about made-up phrases, Justice. i must have read more Latin words in that one Ross Wolfe blog post Odradek linked than i did in all of January. Schelling's argument was interesting, though. Still kinda digesting it, but on first reading it actually strikes me as more convincing than Plantinga's, not least because Schelling's defence incorporates a serious examination of the implications of free will and the universe having a first cause.

Justice42 said:
I agree that he's focusing on a certain type of 'freedom' here, but I tend to agree with him when it comes to the compatabilist counter-arguments. Not that I don't think compatabilism wouldn't work with the free will defense, just that the suggestion of "What if God created a world where people had free will to make evil choices, but God makes it so everyone is predetermined not to" is in fact, paradoxically absurd.

Compatibilism wouldn't work with Plantinga's defence because compatibilism is intrinsically determinist. Compatibilism doesn't challenge the determinist position that every action is causally determined by the conditions at the universe's origin state (i.e. anything that happens was always going to happen and probability is in the mind). Rather, compatibilists contest the claim that freedom need entail the metaphysical property of making decisions independent of one's causally determined being.

For instance, if in the context of a trial i were to say 'The accused acted of her own free will,' i am not making a metaphysical claim about the nature of the universe. i am saying that the accused acted according to her own motivations, that is, not under coercion or duress. According to compatibilists, those motivations will be themselves by the product of the accused's reason, her sense experiences, and possibly also her innate or instinctive characteristics, all of which are ultimately material in origin, but they are her motivations nevertheless; so long as nobody if forcing her to do something she doesn't intend she is acting of her own free will. Within a compatibilist framework, this is the only possible kind of freedom, since human beings have their origins within a determinist reality, in which the ability to do good is identical to the state of being predetermined to do good. It's a worldview that is fundamentally incompatible, no pun intended, with the basic premises of Plantinga's argument.

Justice42 said:
What parts do you consider implausible, exactly?

Well, firstly, that Plantinga's argument posits that every person has an independent soul which contributes a 'world segment' to creation, in effect elevating each human individual to the status of co-first-cause (since while Plantinga's God created human beings, He enabled them to make their own decisions and thereby contribute to the process of creation). This runs counter to the findings of modern neuroscience, which strongly suggest that thought is the result of physical processes in the material brain (Crick's 'astonishing hypothesis' - 'You're nothing but a pack of neurons!').

The neuroscientific, physicalist position is also more attractive to me because it more closely reflects my perceptions of my own decision-making process. When i make a decision, i consider what course of action seems most conducive to achieving some particular aim, based on my own experiences of material reality. i'm also likely influenced by how i'm feeling at the time, which is a product of my material drives, hormones, etc. In two identical situations, where i am presented with the same choice, have the same knowledge and am in the same mood, i would always make the same decision; i can't see how anything else could be the case without removing some of my agency (e.g. as a result of quantum indeterminacy or demonic possession, say). i certainly can't see how i would gain freedom from the ability to make a decision that contradicts my own motivations.

Secondly, Plantinga makes no attempt to address the question of why God, having created a universe in which human beings may freely choose to commit atrocities, doesn't at the very least then intervene to prevent the resulting suffering. The fact that great evils such as the Holocaust are permitted to happen in a universe ostensibly ruled by an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is difficult for me to accept.

Mr. Darcy · 2013-02-02 07:30:28

^ What's easier to accept? That killing just is omnipresent and effective, with no punishment of the violent by an unstoppable Good?

Tachyon · 2013-02-02 07:51:40

For the atheist, yes, precisely that; an atheistic cosmos need not be just or kind. It's not a nice prospect, but it doesn't pose any logical difficulties.

From a Christian standpoint, however, the problem seems insurmountable. As far as i can see, all that's left is to have faith, on the understanding that God's ways are mysterious and that, as the Bible teaches, death is not the end.

Tachyon · 2013-02-02 08:14:42

...is this now a rerun of a debate Justice and i had in 2011? i have a feeling it is.

Though i do at least now understand the libertarian position better than i did then, which is something i guess.

Edit: er, in fact, my mansplaining of compatibilism is also a rehash. So, sorry about that.

You get where i'm coming from, though, right? Maybe i'm being presumptuous, since i imagine Plantinga understands the concept better than i do, but, well, what exactly is the paradox in the compatibilist argument? As far as i can see there is no paradox, and they're simply operating under an entirely different definition of 'free will', one which can't be reconciled with Plantinga's understanding of the concept.

The Problem of Evil

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories