Here is a version of the argument from evil.
(1) Gratuitous evils probably exist
(2) Gratuitous evils are incompatible with the God of theism (omnipotent, omniscient, all-good
(3) Therefore, the God of theism probably does not exist.
Gratuitous evils are unnecessary and pointless evils. On the face of things, there seems to be a number of those. My back hurting a lot of the time seems on the face of things to be unnecessary. In fact evolutionary biologists explain it as what happens when creatures transitioned from four legs to two legs, and started standing up straight. That put's pressure on a back that was evolved from creatures with four legs who didn't put so much pressure on their backs.
What is the best way to respond to an AFE that is spelled out in this way?
13 comments:
I've also heard back pain (and other bodily ailments) explained with complete seriousness by SETI enthusiasts as evidence that the human race did not originate on the Earth, but on some other planet of lesser gravity.
The best response, to me, is pointing out that this is a no-see-um argument. The only way to contend for gratuitous evil is to claim that one sees no point in it, therefore it's gratuitous. It's an argument from ignorance.
Furthermore, it's kind of an arrogant claim, considering that the God in question is the classical God, with all the traditional omni-attributes - including omniscience. So, essentially, the claim is that because some finite being cannot conceive of a justification, neither could an omniscient being, therefore that omniscient being (probably) does not exist.
JB Chappell, do you really accept this answer, really? Such an answer proves too much, for then one could equally say that although God exists we are in mo position to know that he exists. Fideism take that route, you know. So what would you say in response, no seriously? How can you use the no-see-um argument and at the same time deny fideism?
How can you use the no-see-um argument and at the same time deny fideism?
Providing arguments and evidence for God's existence would obviate fideism on the spot, which is exactly what's done in the case of the classical God.
And it's not as if the two arguments are comparable to begin with. Really, pointing out that claims that X is a gratuitous evil is an argument from ignorance somehow validates a position that is based on no evidence? What? Really, work through the reasoning there, it'd be interesting to see.
I think the most honest approach is to agree that the argument seems true - it makes the existence of God less probable.
But it isn't the only argument about God!
The cosmological, teleological and moral arguments, the historical facts about Jesus and people's personal experience of God including miraculous healings, all with a basis in evidence like the argument from evil, all show that the existence of God is probable.
So the arguments for God far outweigh the argument(s) against God - you could even use Bayes Theorem to demonstrate it if you were of a mind.
That is how I have worked it out in my mind, and how I would therefore answer the argument.
Such an answer proves too much, for then one could equally say that although God exists we are in mo position to know that he exists.
The cases are asymmetrical.
In the case of gratuitous moral evils, one would be justified in calling such a thing a GME iff one had full knowledge of both what conditioned that particular event and all the effects and ramifications of that particular event.
With regard to the existence of the theistic God, one need only know a certain set of facts - some things change, for instance - in order to make the arguments. So there's a definite difference in the two cases.
There are fideists who do not believe someone can show the existence of God. They accept it purely by faith because they think the evidence and arguments do not lead them to a reasonable belief. That' the person I addressed my question to. I had a professor at Marquette University in my PhD program who was a fideist. I would love to see you argue with him or John Hick who basically was a fideist too. Huston Smith was one.
You see there are many people who are not atheists who agree with me that the evidence and arguments for the existence of God are unimpressive.
They remain fideists because of the no-see-um argument, while I am an atheist because I don't accept it.
So seriously this time, how can you use the no-see-um argument and at the same time deny fideism?
Your answer is to point to the arguments and evidence for God, fine. But both the fideist and I have considered that evidence and rejected those arguments as reasonable people should.
At that point what do you have left?
no-see-um arguments.
Glad to see you back on DI, John. We missed ya!!!
Been busy working on a new book project that you will love to hate! ;-)
I got word today that I'll should hear back "soon" from the publisher, and that's a good thing.
Don't ask. Just stay tuned.
Been busy working on a new book project that you will love to hate!
You have readers beyond the marginal?
I would love to see you argue with him or John Hick who basically was a fideist too. Huston Smith was one.
What would the argument be?
'I'm a fideist.'
"That's great. I believe in arguments, evidence, and reasons for God's existence."
'I don't!'
"Super."
Not much of a conversation to be had there. Of course he can always argue against the arguments and evidence, but at that point his fideism means nothing.
You see there are many people who are not atheists who agree with me that the evidence and arguments for the existence of God are unimpressive.
And I suppose if we can just pull 'many' out of a hat, I can say that there are many agnostics and atheists who think it's entirely reasonable to believe in God based on the arguments and evidence - they just aren't personally persuaded, and have a different view.
So?
Your answer is to point to the arguments and evidence for God, fine. But both the fideist and I have considered that evidence and rejected those arguments as reasonable people should.
Reasonable people should accept the arguments. Even throwing up their hands and agreeing to disagree is more reasonable.
What you're saying here is 'Well I reject all your arguments so all you have left is fideism!' But why should I care what you think if I find your arguments on this point non-compelling? And remember, John - quite a lot of atheists find your own arguments for atheism quite lacking.
Really, at this point you just seem hopelessly confused, like the theist's inability to persuade you personally is some major worry that should trouble them and they're somehow locked in a corner. But the reality is, your view just don't matter all that much - or at least, they matter no more than any other random person's. If you had compelling arguments, that would be great - but you don't, so we're back to square one.
Really, John - think this through. Repeatedly going all-in on what amounts to stream-of-consciousness ideas on your part is one of the things that keeps you as a pretty marginal atheist figure, something like a budget PZ Myers.
Crude, thanks for reminding me why I don't come here much.
Crude, thanks for reminding me why I don't come here much.
It can't be because I rolled my eyes at your 'I'm gonna write a book you'll love to hate, and not that you'll find unoriginal and bland like all the other times!' comment. Remember: you endorse and make use of ridicule yourself. It's suddenly unfair when others poke fun at you?
It can't be because your arguments in this thread were shown to be really bad and summarily sliced into confetti. That would mean that you get angry and run away from reasonable criticisms - not exactly an inspiring me from a would-be advocate of reason.
Unless, I suppose, you had thin skin, were quite hypocritical, and relied on a share of psychological coping mechanisms to maintain beliefs that were emotionally important to you. That's always a live possibility.
@John
Such an answer proves too much, for then one could equally say that although God exists we are in mo position to know that he exists.
No, what I said and what you say here are not analogous. If one is going to argue that gratuitous evil exists, how would you do so, except by declaring that one can't think of any good reasons for it? It's an argument from ignorance. Accepting THAT by no means makes one a fideist.
Nor would claiming that one is not in a position to know that God exists have anything to do with God's knowledge. So your comparison fails. It does not prove too much to say that a finite being should not claim to know as much as an omniscient being.
Post a Comment