The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 17 of 32
Quote:No I don’t see evil in nature, but I wonder if you can see the implication of your own words. Human beings, as opposed to animals, have the sentient ability to distinguish activity that is detrimental and create a society that seeks to be free of those hardships, if they choose to.
Originally posted by Khyron:
If you or some other civilised human did any of that then sure it's evil. But applied to animals in a natural environmental setting there's a reason for that sort of behaviour.
You're making a mistake by looking at nature and seeing evil, even if you only do it for the sake of argument. There is no evil in nature, the concept of evil only arose once humans became civilised enough to identify behaviour that is detrimental to the overall well-being of a society, and should only be applied in that context. Outside of civilised society there is no evil, and any claims of seeing evil in nature is a case of a paerson looking at it with 'civilised bias'.
Quote:I got the point, but god didn’t give man a gun, he gave man sentient ability and free thought. How man chooses to use that is not god’s fault.
Originally posted by Khyron:
I think you either completely missed the point of the analogy or you're saying that humans created free will (which, assuming the existence of God, would have been created by him).
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I'm saying there are consequences to the actions you take, regardless of whether you blame them on god or not.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Right, it's not possible. You are saying that rules that cannot be broken are equivalent to rules that can.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So then you admit that we are a slave to the physical laws of the universe.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm not talking about physical laws. (Those aren't moral, either, btw. They're also indifferent.) I'm talking about human interaction, society, our attitude towards ourselves.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:So then you admit that we are a slave to the physical laws of the universe.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm not talking about physical laws. (Those aren't moral, either, btw. They're also indifferent.) I'm talking about human interaction, society, our attitude towards ourselves.
I never said I wasn't. I'm confused as to what this has to do with my point?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’re initial criticism was that people are necessarily a slave to god regardless of their free will. I simply pointed out that we are every bit as much a slave to the universe regardless of our free will.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I never said I wasn't. I'm confused as to what this has to do with my point?
Quote:If you can stand the consequences of you bad choices, you can make them. This applies as much to religion as to the universe. Accept that in religion, you can choose not to believe in that particular religion. Good luck choosing not to believe gravity.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Order of the universe, as already in the word, is a set of rules (as in direct consequences to certain actions). It doesn't pretend a benevolence to its basic structure.
If we can stand the consequences of our bad choices, we can make them. We don't go to the hot place even though we have no regrets. That's free will to me.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Erm... yes? I'm sorry, actually I don't understand the question (or statement). If you're arguing that the thing that makes people civilised is the thing that makes them evil, then I disagree. But I'm not sure if that's what you're saying, so I'll leave it at that.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No I don’t see evil in nature, but I wonder if you can see the implication of your own words. Human beings, as opposed to animals, have the sentient ability to distinguish activity that is detrimental and create a society that seeks to be free of those hardships, if they choose to.
Quote:Well, that was the point of the analogy in the first place. I'm saying he shares responsibility, and that he is at fault.
I got the point, but god didn’t give man a gun, he gave man sentient ability and free thought. How man chooses to use that is not god’s fault.
God -> free will -> evil.
Irresponsible parent -> gun to child -> oops.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We're talking ethical and moral choices. The kind that actually involve the concept of free will.
Bringing physical laws into this is just lazy!
Not to mention: to the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God it matters a lot whether you believe in them or not. So counting the possibility of their existence, it's not really a choice unless you want to suffer in hell for all eternity.
If we're arguing the merits or downsides to God's masterplan, it's kind of silly to say "Well, but you have the choice not to believe!", since the basis of arguing about that masterplan is its validity in terms of God actually existing. Or people actually believing it. And within that context, not believing is not a neutral choice, as you imply.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Well, that was the point of the analogy in the first place. I'm saying he shares responsibility, and that he is at fault.
God -> free will -> evil.
I'm not sure you're going to be able to use a hypothetical syllogism argument here. If we have libertarian freedom (if, that is, we and we alone are responsible for our own decisions), then your argument by hypothetical syllogism won't work. If a human and a human allow is responsible for the way he uses his freedom, God can't be held accountable for the way the human chooses to use that freedom. And if that's the case, then God neither shares responsibility nor is responsible for evil. At most, he is at fault (maybe) for having created free will. And then we're back to the question of whether human freedom is worth the evil that comes along with it (or, for Plantinga, whether it would even be possible to have human freedom without also having evil).
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t profess to know what makes people evil, what I do know is that free will allows us to choose, whether that choice is to be civilized or to be evil.
Originally posted by Khyron:
Erm... yes? I'm sorry, actually I don't understand the question (or statement). If you're arguing that the thing that makes people civilised is the thing that makes them evil, then I disagree. But I'm not sure if that's what you're saying, so I'll leave it at that.
Edited to clarify:
My point is that the ability to see what choices lead to evil, allows us to avoid those choices and instead construct a society freer from those hardship then we would otherwise be.
Quote:Is the school that teaches a child science at fault if that child learns how to constructs a nuclear device, does so (setting aside for the moment how he acquired the materials) and detonates it Time Square?
Originally posted by Khyron:
]Well, that was the point of the analogy in the first place. I'm saying he shares responsibility, and that he is at fault.
God -> free will -> evil.
Irresponsible parent -> gun to child -> oops.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then I would say that before your point can be made, you’ll first have to define God’s masterplan, because we can’t discuss the merits or downsides to it, if we don’t know what it is.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If we're arguing the merits or downsides to God's masterplan, it's kind of silly to say "Well, but you have the choice not to believe!", since the basis of arguing about that masterplan is its validity in terms of God actually existing. Or people actually believing it. And within that context, not believing is not a neutral choice, as you imply.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME