Natural Evil Explained
On the question of the problem of evil the favorite "solution" is the free will defense with the specific objective to retain in its full glory god's omnibenevolence.
Assuming that the free will defense is taken as sufficient to explain human evil (murder, rape, theft, etc.), one particular type of "evil" viz. natural evil (disease, earthquakes, tsunamis) etc. is considered an unresolved problem as far as the free will defense is concerned.
In that regard I shall attempt in the following paragraphs to come up with a solution to the problem of natural evil.
Firstly, it is to be taken as true that an omnibenevolent god will not play favorites with his creation: maggots, bacteria, fish, beggars, the rich, birds, etc. are all equal in god's eyes. The widely held belief that equality is one of the pillars of the moral edifice should make that easily relatable.
It then follows, from the well-known fact of our bodies serving as hosts to many parasites and after death, decaying corpses nourishing micro-organisms, that what we think of as natural evil are actually opportunities for parasites to live and thrive and bacteria to feed on corpses. God, since he loves bacteria and parasites equally as he loves us, can't take sides and so won't intervene. Compare this with the notion of a good parent - loving all his/her children equally, without a hint of partiality; a good parent is expected to be completely impartial on sibling rivalry whatever form it assumes.
God permits natural evil not because he's not good but because he is good as evinced by his impartial attitude in what is after all nothing but a family feud. We share 99% of our DNA with chimps; work from that to the inevitable conclusion that we're all family and god, being a good parent will not intercede regarding the "arrangement" of humans required to play host to distant worm cousins and occasionaly dying in a disaster to feed yet another relative, bacteria.
Assuming that the free will defense is taken as sufficient to explain human evil (murder, rape, theft, etc.), one particular type of "evil" viz. natural evil (disease, earthquakes, tsunamis) etc. is considered an unresolved problem as far as the free will defense is concerned.
In that regard I shall attempt in the following paragraphs to come up with a solution to the problem of natural evil.
Firstly, it is to be taken as true that an omnibenevolent god will not play favorites with his creation: maggots, bacteria, fish, beggars, the rich, birds, etc. are all equal in god's eyes. The widely held belief that equality is one of the pillars of the moral edifice should make that easily relatable.
It then follows, from the well-known fact of our bodies serving as hosts to many parasites and after death, decaying corpses nourishing micro-organisms, that what we think of as natural evil are actually opportunities for parasites to live and thrive and bacteria to feed on corpses. God, since he loves bacteria and parasites equally as he loves us, can't take sides and so won't intervene. Compare this with the notion of a good parent - loving all his/her children equally, without a hint of partiality; a good parent is expected to be completely impartial on sibling rivalry whatever form it assumes.
God permits natural evil not because he's not good but because he is good as evinced by his impartial attitude in what is after all nothing but a family feud. We share 99% of our DNA with chimps; work from that to the inevitable conclusion that we're all family and god, being a good parent will not intercede regarding the "arrangement" of humans required to play host to distant worm cousins and occasionaly dying in a disaster to feed yet another relative, bacteria.
Comments (113)
What is wrong with that?
You took a man in a cloud with super powers all the way, and did not even think that God might be a different thing all together?
What if God only created the universe, and isn't superpowerful?
I can imagine a God form that had the know-how but no superpowers. This God form is not necessarily one thing can be of many things in a species.
I'm not saying you're wrong but the discussion may take odd turns with such neglect.
ok so i grew up jewish so... presumably still the abrahamic god, but the jewish god isn't this wonderful, all good, all loving father figure that christians portray him. i mean don't get me wrong, he's "essentially" good in the sense that it all works out for some purpose, but he does directly cause misfortune. i'm not a religious jew, but as far as i can tell from my knowledge of the bible is that the jewish god can occasionally be negotiated with and that he can do good things sometimes but good god do not get him angry.
God condones of suffering, blah blah, he, thinks it through (an example of odd turn; we've blamed it on one being).
The majority think that X action deserves Y punishment. Blame them in the same manner as you did God.
They put Z in a position where Z might suffer. What is the resolution?
It's not 'he's thought it through'. It's multiple minds thinking. Is there a difference? I think so but need to think it over. I'll reply later on.
God uses pronouns like I, which is a whole different boat to we.
And we're discussing we.
And if we assume if God is good then he would have created a better universe thus if God is all powerful then he/she is not all good and if he/she is all good the he/she is not all powerful.
:up:
Some people do say that is God has to choose between those and can't somehow make it both, then he's not all-powerful, but others reply that "all-powerful" doesn't require being able to do things that don't make any logical sense, which supposedly allowing free will but preventing all evils doesn't.
In no sense is a parent deemed "good" who is "impartial" to the point of allowing her "children" to prey upon, torture & cannibalize one another.
Quoting Pfhorrest
:clap:
An argument against 'divine providence', or for 'divine indifference' (and not necessarily - decisively - an argument for the nonexistence of 'the divine'):
(a) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
(b) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
(c) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
(d) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
'The Riddle of Epicurus' (~300 BCE)
In the beginning I thought that a population of predators/parasites would be necessary to check the herbivore population to prevent a population explosion that would eventually hurt the ecosystem but I realize that it's possible even with current technology, if we had the will, to take all predators/parasites out of the equation and still maintain a harmonious population of herbivores or rather non-predatory organisms, non-parasitic organisms on the planet. God could have done that but he didn't. Why? Note that I'm employing predators/parasites as the quintessence of evil since it involves committing the worst immoral act - killing. Why did god create predators/parasites or evil? They seem, quite literally, unnecessary.
The existence of predators/parasites only makes sense if the killing makes sense. What about freedom? Did god grant all life complete freedom, to do whatever they please, and that, quite unfortunately, led to the birth of predators/parasites. Which is more important, freedom or harmony considered here as the absence of predators/parasites? Take the free will defense against the problem of evil: from it we gather that freedom is more important than goodness for being good should be a choice rather than an imposition from outside. Therefore, organisms should have complete freedom whether they choose to be trouble-makers (parasites/predators) or peaceful (non-predatory, non-parasitic). Hence, because freedom is paramount, god allows predators/parasites to exist as part of the natural evil that surrounds us.
Quoting 180 Proof
Please read my reply to Pfhorrest above. The main point is that freedom is more important than goodness and all organisms (children) must be given complete freedom to do whatever they want and that may, unfortunately, involve organisms (brothers and sisters that we are) preying, torturing and cannibalizing our own kin.
Because God’s omniscience is only possible, not actual. The life forms need to develop an awareness of each other in order to live in perfect cooperative harmony - or at least some of them would need to...
In your post, you made the following claim:
Firstly, it is to be taken as true that an omnibenevolent god will not play favorites with his creation: maggots, bacteria, fish, beggars, the rich, birds, etc. are all equal in god's eyes. The widely held belief that equality is one of the pillars of the moral edifice should make that easily relatable…. God permits natural evil not because he's not good but because he is good as evinced by his impartial attitude in what is after all nothing but a family feud. We share 99% of our DNA with chimps; work from that to the inevitable conclusion that we're all family and god, being a good parent will not intercede regarding the "arrangement" of humans required to play host to distant worm cousins and occasionaly dying in a disaster to feed yet another relative, bacteria.
I think your argument has this form:
1) If God is good, then he is impartial in his treatment of his creation.
2) If he is impartial in his treatment of his creation, then any bad things that happen to living organisms are permitted by God on an impartial basis.
3. If any bad things that happen to living organisms are permitted by God on an impartial basis, then any bad things that happen to living organisms are not evil.
3) God is good.
4) Therefore, any bad things that happen to living organisms are not evil.
If this argument works, it would be significant, as the problem of natural evil presents a significant and persistent challenge to theism. I have the following objection to your argument: Premise three is faulty, because it assumes that each living organism in nature is of equal worth. To say that a human being dying is not bad if it provides food to bacteria seems extreme, as humans have a far higher emotional and cognitive capacity than bacteria (if bacteria have any cognitive and emotional abilities at all). If a human suffers and dies in a natural disaster, then it seems like the evil of that disaster cannot be mitigated by saying that bacteria, which do not think or feel, are able to feed off the dead human. Your mention of the genetic similarities between humans and chimps also presents a problem. If your claim that all living organisms are equal is based on sharing DNA, then the parameters of this equality are problematic. Bananas and human beings share 50% of their DNA, but few people, if anyone, would say that bananas and human beings are equal. Because your claim about the equality of living things is not well defined and could lead one to saying that human beings and plants are of equal value, your third premise is faulty, and your argument fails.
Sincerely,
Joel
1. Equality is the main pillar of morality. Agreed?
2. If equality is the main pillar of morality then any attempt to establish differences that eventually breed inequality is immoral. Agreed?
Conclusion:
3. Any attempt to establish differences that eventually breed inequality is immoral
4. Your claim that humans are different from other beings is an attempt to estabish differences that [will] eventually breed inequality
Ergo,
5. Your claim that humans are different from other beings is immoral.
Also, I refer back to my argument in reference to Quoting TheMadFool.
Human beings are definitely equal to each other, but are they equal to plants? Your argument does not clearly define which living organisms are equal to each other. If you do think that plants and human beings are equal, I would suggest that this goes against most moral intuitions we have. We do not think it is as immoral to stomp on and kill grass as it is to murder a human being. If you do think this, it would seem that the burden of proof is with you to show that equality as you understand it extends between species of living organisms. Your system of morality is much more defensible, in my view, if the equality you speak of extends between sentient creatures as opposed to between any living organisms.
Really? I'm not a historian but much of human struggle, which fits snugly within the framework of humanity's experience with morality, has been about equality, no? If, as you say, equality isn't the main pillar of morality then, it should be possible for morality to exist without equality. Mind you, I'm only concerned about equality/inequality that has moral implications i.e. the value of my happiness/suffering should be equal to the value of your and anyone else's happiness/suffering. Is a world that makes a claim to being a moral one compatible with my pain being more important than yours or your happiness having more value than mine?
Quoting Joel Evans
Look at what you're saying. Your words remind me of George Orwell's book, 1984 where the pigs who're in the process of establishing an oppressive totalitarian regime declare "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others". FYI, the story didn't end well.
You're trying to eat the cake and have it too. You can't envision morality sans equality and that's why you say things like "human beings are definitely equal" and then you contradict yourself by saying "are they equal to plants?" suggesting, quite clearly, that you believe they're not. Please rethink your position.
This doesn't follow at all. Even if equality isn't the main pillar of morality that doesn't mean it should be possible for morality to exist without equality. I'm not sure what that means. Also, I could imagine a case where equality is immoral. If you would like I can share a case like this.
Quoting TheMadFool
Just fyi, the book you are referring to is "Animal Farm" not "1984." Regardless, I'm not sure how me saying that human beings have more worth than plants (I don't think I ever explicitly said this, but it's what I was implicitly saying) makes me equivalent to Orwellian pig dictators. I am definitely not saying some people are more equal than other people. I'm not saying human beings are equal to each other and not equal to each other (which would be contradictory). I am saying human beings have more worth than other types of living organisms (i.e. plants).
Quoting TheMadFool
This comment indicates that your begging the question. I am not contradicting myself by saying human beings are definitely equal (to each other) and then asking if they are equal to plants (which they are not). The only way this is contradictory is if one assumes that human beings and plants are already equal (in which case it would be contradictory to say that humans are equal to each other and not equal to plants). I do not assume this. As to your request for me to rethink my position, I'm pretty comfortable saying that human beings are more valuable than non-sentient living organisms, but I am willing to have my mind changed.
You need to learn what pillars are.
Quoting Joel Evans
You're saying "all life forms are equal but some life forms are more equal than others"
Quoting Joel Evans
Really? What's your logic?
Quoting Joel Evans
Indeed it begins there but it's not an assumption ergo, not a petitio principii for the simple reason that morality is an empty concept without equality. Morality doesn't have a leg to stand on in a world where one life forms wellbeing has more value than another life form's. You may want to explain why it's not the case for you.
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm willing to learn. What do you mean by pillars?
Quoting TheMadFool
No, I'm saying human beings (specifically) are equal to each other and of more value than other life forms (specifically plants. I make no argument about the comparative worth of humans and animals here). There is no some living organisms are more equal than others. There is simply some living organisms are equal to each other and ABOVE other living organisms.
The principle of equality is a crucial part of ethics, but to my knowledge it is commonly understood as equality between people and not between every living thing.
Quoting TheMadFool
1. Human beings are have complex emotions and thoughts and feel pain.
2. If a living organism has complex emotions and thoughts and feels pain,then it is more valuable than those living organisms which don't have complex emotions and thoughts and feel pain.
3. Therefore, Humans are more valuable than those living organisms which don't have complex emotions and thoughts and feel pain (i.e. plants).
To the extent that it matters in this discussion, pillars are what holds up morality - in essence enabling the very idea of what goodness is to exist. Without the pillar of equality, morality can't exist. I hope you get what I mean.
Quoting Joel Evans
I see. Here's a scenario for you to consider. It's plausible that an alien life form exists that's as different from humans as humans are from plants. By your logic these alien life forms should treat humans in the same way as humans treat plants.
Quoting Joel Evans
Kindly go through what I said above.
- God
No evil.
Therefore, no problem.
This scenario doesn't really affect the points I have been making. If the alien life you are hypothesizing about is sentient (capable of complex emotions and thoughts and feeling pain), then it is as valuable as human life according to my argument. If the alien life is not sentient, then it is not as valuable as human life. Your "as different from humans as humans are from plants" statement is poorly defined. What do you mean by different? It seems that the degrees of difference you are talking about don't matter if we are judging value by the standard I have put forth. I have established parameters for value and equal worth, while you have not.
That's one way to solve the problem.
You'll find this is how he operates. He asks questions, then ignores your answers except to pick snippets out of context and ask more (inane) questions. It never goes anywhere.
I think of it like shadow boxing. It's decent exercise, but it's no substitute for having a real opponent.
Are they? Human beings were made in the image of god according to Christian theology but no other animal, plant, or structure in the universe falls in this category. If this is to be divorced from Christian theology it's still a question of whether god wouldn't play favorites as the moral law such a being could arbitrarily possess could be anything from any change in nature is good (human being giving a present to their grandma is on the same grounds as a hurricane) to preferring a particular brand of conscious organisms (perhaps all conscious organisms period). I think you are sneaking in the assumption that to be moral is to treat all living objects as equal in terms of moral worth.
Quoting TheMadFool
IF your god has a moral standard defined basically to be as such, thusly rather alien to human standards, then yes such a being could permit such a situation logically. Though, most people who would mention the omni-benevolence of god usually emphasize the many ways it overlaps with human moral standards. Our moral standards are imperfect but we sometimes get things right (not killing period, treating others with respect via the golden rule, etc). It's just that moral teaching is easily, not for no good reason, putting humanity on a pedestal so letting unnecessary harm (he is omnipotent, however it's defined) come to human beings via a hurricane is seemingly as immoral as if he came down personally to kill every person that would be claimed by such a storm.
Quoting 180 Proof
I always hate it when people bring up the problem of evil as a reason to suspect god simplicter is non-existent. Rather only a particular god with particular properties is definitely ruled out and perhaps if a god exists they are not omni-benevolent because of the problem of evil, but there is good in the world so he wouldn't be omni-malevolent, so therefore he must be a mixture either (usually more good than evil, usually more evil than good, equally as good as he is evil, or perhaps entirely indifferent to what humans would call the moral).
Quoting Pro Hominem
How many of these types of users are on this forum then?
:rofl: Sorry but you could be charitable instead of disparaging. After all, according to you, I'm not playing with a full deck.
I'm not "sneaking" that in. I'm making it explicit. If you disagree be ready to end up as a meal on an alien's dinner plate; after all, an alien may be as different from us as we're different from cabbages or cattle.
Quoting substantivalism
Well, imagine you're parent and you have two beautiful children. You would love them both equally and would never interfere in their affairs for to do so would be to be partial. A hurricane come along and tips the balance in favor of one child. Can you interfere?
As I'd prefaced my quotation of "The Riddle of Epicurus", I'd used it to show how ancients / pre-scholastics call into question 'divine providence' and not to propose "a reason to suspect god simpliciter is nonexistent" as you suggest.
Perhaps because suffering is morally irrelevant from God's POV.
None of this is biblically supported, and it's not a view that any Jew or Christian would take. I've never heard any Muslim take it as well. I just stopped reading here because you're very, very far out in left field. I don't personally care if you hold this view or if this is your view of God but it's not a normal, accepted view.
I agree it's not the official position of the Church but it follows, without the need for anything additional, from God's omnibenevolence - you can't be omnibenevolent and have double standards and unless Christianity, Judaism, and Islam want to throw the all-good nature of god out the window, there's nothing else to do but accept the conclusion that god would avoid taking sides in wordly affairs.
I'll just note that Jews and Muslims don't believe in omni-benevolence in God. I'd be interested to know how widespread the belief is among Christians. I'm not a Christian so I don't know the details. There are parts in the old testament where God sends earthquakes to swallow up people and he destroys entire cities.
In any case, omnibenevolence is the possession of unlimited goodness. It doesn't logically follow from that that every being from a blade of grass to a speck of dust or dirt or a maggot to a human being is valued infinitely, i.e. equally. You're basically destroying the notion of value when try to push that position because everything is apparently valued "infinitely." Value itself is predicated on the notions of "higher" and "lower." You're really just doing away with value here. To say that equality is the basis of morality is also certainly non-biblical.
EDIT: Taken a little further, your interpretation destroys holiness altogether, and places God himself as equal to a dirt.
That would suggest that God’s POV on morality is completely alien to ours, or conversely (since presumably God’s POV is right), that we have absolutely no idea what it really means for something to be moral. Which then raises the question of what we’re even saying when we say that God is omnibenevolent.
I was offering a personal observation in the hopes that it would help someone new to the forums. He seemed to be sincere in trying to get substantive back and forth going, and I was only letting him know that it probably wouldn't happen. I thought it was quite charitable.
As for your "full deck", I am not the one calling you a mad fool - you did that.
Some. I think many here are interested in having a conversation - of there being a flow of information in more than one direction. Some have more skill/experience with fostering it than others, but that doesn't mean the intent isn't there.
In the incident case, however, I have seen no evidence that the subject is interested in true discussion. Thus my assessment, offered to a third party with all sincerity.
This is good. If God is incapable of pain, then yes, his POV on morality will lack a component that is crucial to ours. The relativist theist does not have to say God's POV is the right one, though. It's right for God, but right not from our point of view. But you and I have more fundamental differences on that issue (from another thread) which have surfaced here when considering God. Regarding what a theist might say (according to a friend of mine) about what it means for God to be omnibenevolent, it could just mean that God is omnipotent. For an omnipotent being, whatever is, is good. Because if it wasn't good, it could not exist. For an omnipotent being to not will something is for that something not to exist. God's omnibenevolence just follows from God's omnipotence. As I think we may already agree (not sure) what is good just is what is willed.
Human morality is very much bound up with our limited power. The values of an omnipotent being is a very different kind of ballgame.
[quote=Wikipedia]The theological justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if he was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology[/quote]
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Well, if one is to maintain that some form of inequality must exist for value to have meaning then be ready to be discriminated against or, far worse, prepare yourself for this inevitable event: being killed, cut to pieces, cooked, and served to the being just that much higher in value than you as you are compared to animals and plants you consume on a daily basis.
Too, the very notion of value understood in your terms doesn't make sense. To think higher and lower values are essential for value to be meaningful sounds very much like saying slavery must exist and that misogyny and that racism must exist to give meaning to value. That doesn't sound right to me.
Either it must exist in materiality or among our mental concepts, inequality that is, because otherwise we wouldn't understand equity. Even if slavery remains a stain on our past it will forever guide our actions.
Quoting TheMadFool
To think concepts such as fair laws, equity, feminism, etc, are to be valued you would have to specify why and to do so you would have to contrast (either explicitly or implicitly) them with concepts we abhor.
God could be incapable of his own pain but understand what pain for others is and think it bad.
Quoting bert1
Theists tend not to be relativists, though. Especially not the kind who claim that God is omnibenevolent.
Quoting bert1
It’s true that whatever an omnipotent being wants is what will be real, but it’s still an open question whether what that being wants is good. Even if you were somehow a relativist theist, who holds that wanting something just is it being good (for you), all you end up saying is that God wants what he wants, but it’s an open question whether he wants we want, and so whether he is “good” in the sense that we mean.
Quoting bert1
I agree that to will something and to think it is good are the same thing, but thinking something is good is not the same thing as it being actually good.
Just because I believe inequality must exist for value to maintain its meaning doesn't mean I think inequality needs to be ubiquitous in every facet of society.
There's such a thing as good arguments and bad arguments, do you agree? Good art and bad art. Good reasons and bad reasons. There's inequality there.
Much of religion can be understood as drawing a distinction between the holy and unholy, the sacred and non-sacred. If everything is equal then there is no sacred. There's no relationship to slavery here.
Yes, this is (metaphorically) how our world operates.
List of fallacies
Please, spend some real time going over this. I would recommend you start by skipping to the bottom and reading all of the "red herring" fallacies. This is truly meant to be helpful.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think you're getting lost between two meanings of the word "value". You are thinking of something important to you, "I value X," and saying that it would be bad to say, for example, "I value slavery." What @BitconnectCarlos was describing was more of the placing of relative values on various things, "X is more valuable than Y", for example, "liberty is more valuable than slavery." The first is an assessment of an individual thing and is mostly a statement about oneself, the latter is an assessment of multiple things and is an attempt to make a statement about one's environment or worldview. If you say, "all things have equal value," that statement says nothing about anything because everything is the same. To put this mathematically, you can't have "2" without having "1" as well. The only numbers exempt from these kinds of formulations are the purely conceptual ones, zero and infinite. If you say all things have equal value, that value is either zero or infinite, and it doesn't really matter which one you choose. Can you see that?
:up:
Can you elaborate on this point. What exactly do you mean by inequality must exist for value?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I agree but you need to clarify the exact relationship between value and inequality.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
According to you there must be the non-sacred for the sacred to exist and that if everything were equal, then nothing would be sacred. My question is simple: do you want to be included among the sacred or the non-sacred? Unless you're lying, I'm 100% confident that you want to be part of the sacred and that's true for everyone else. What does that indicate but that people aren't satisfied, are unhappy, about the inequality and all, excepting few oddballs I presume, want to move to one side of the inequality. In other words, everyone wants sacredness or whatever is the preferred half of any given inequality.
As you already know, inequality, the way you've described it, offers two choices - one desirable and the other not. Clearly then people will favor one over the other, act accordingly, and ceteris paribus, the inequality will no longer exist but sacredness or the preferred state would still be intact, no?
Metaphorically? I think literally. God loves us all, equally.Quoting Pro Hominem
This is what bothers me a lot. What's the problem with all things having equal value? By way of a counterexample to the claim that everything being equal says nothing in as appropriate a way as possible to the topic of discussion itself I would like to draw your attention to the Blind Lady Of Justice : ALL are EQUAL in the EYES of the LAW. Replace LAW with God.
Ok, I will follow along. I want to be included among the sacred! But guess what? Under your metaphysic, everything is infinitely sacred because God is omni-benevolent - and remember that God is also omniscient too he's right about it.
Everything is infinitely sacred. This has some very ridiculous consequences in practical action. If a group of fire ants are attacking a child, are we allowed to swipe them away and hurt the infinitely sacred fire ants? Are you allowed to kill infinitely valuable bugs in your home? Your metaphysic implies that you ought to value your child or parent or brother the exact same as an ant because after all, God does, and God is also right about everything by the way. You couldn't even follow this psychologically speaking is you wanted to so its setting everyone up for cognitive dissonance.
Is a claim about an arbitrary definition of what moral principles a being called god (not defined) is supposed to possess.
Quoting TheMadFool
If everything was made of the same color and shade of said color then perceptually we wouldn't be able to actually make out distinctions in our waking experiences. The same is with assigning moral value universally as we desire to know what moral actions (personally morality doesn't make much sense to me independent of the humans who currently exclusively use it) are wrong or right and your playing a language game here saying that any action period is morally permissible.
Quoting TheMadFool
All people deserve to be JUDGED equally under the law. This is a terrible comparison as in law despite the fact that you'll have a jury of your peers whether you violated a restraining order or killed someone clearly there are what we call consequences for performing actions that violate our laws. What laws from this god of yours are we able to violate and thusly deserve judgement on his part (if this god of yours does indulge in performing such a duty)? If all are equally valued and no action is morally wrong clearly there can be no consequences. . . are you saying that the consequence (life in jail) is just as preferable (moral) as not going to jail?
In fact i'll reword it: ALL people are to be TREATED, INVESTIGATED, and JUDGED in-accordance with the LAW. They are equal only in the respect that inquiry into sentencing is to be done or performed is the same method wise for each person. . . in the end some come off innocent. . . but they also can come off as guilty.
So what does your god deem lawful and unlawful? Nothing is unlawful! Then choose a different analogy.
TheMadFool,
Your original argument may follow this form:
1.Every creature is equal in the sight of an omnibenevolent god.
2.If god loves all his creations equally, he doesn't intervene natural evil.
3.God permits natural evil.
This argument is unsound because both premises are not true.
I assume that what you’re suggesting here is based on a pantheistic view that god is an idea of “an omnibenevolent being”, so we’re not going to draw Christianity God, Jewish God or Muslim God into discussion because they’ve all clearly demonstrated anthropocentrism, which premise 1will fail in any of these cases.
First of all, it’s theoretically possible that an omnibenevolent god treats its creations equally, from maggots to human, and all of the life forms. But is it actually the case that an omnibenevolent god treats all of its creations equally — I don’t think so, at least by far. If all of the creations are equally viewed by an omnibenevolent god, there are two possible outcomes that 1)all of the creations are equal in the sense that they all live a safe, suffering-free and resource-rich life, or 2) there are killings, threats and suffering but every creature has the same level of ability or advantage to cope with danger and has the same chance to survive, and this model sort of goes cycle after cycle to ensure that every creature obtains its equality. We could basically deny the first outcome because we know that all kinds of creatures need to consume other species to survive, then left the second outcome, which is also impossible based on the facts — there will never be such equality in our world( created by an omnibenevolent god) because some creatures are evidently more defenseless than the others, for example, an elephant could easily uproot a tree and, after all, human always have the biggest chance of survival among all other creatures. Though it’s undoubted that there’s an ecological circulation within the system, it’s still true that some species experience a lot more/less number of death or have longer/shorter life span than the others. So an omnibenevolent god doesn’t treat every life form equally because every life form is not equal and can never be equal. Therefore premise 1 fails.
As for premise 2, it seems to me that it’ll be more sensible if god loves all his creations equally so he does intervene natural evil. Also if you think of god as a parent, then being impartial probably isn’t the way of showing its goodness, because seeing sibling rivalry without stopping them seems more like being indifferent than loving though. There will never be a good, loving parent who sees her children fighting over each other and all get hurt but stays and watches just because she’s too impartial to intervene. Also an omnibenevolent god wouldn’t have created a family full of everyday family feud.
If the trail ends there, so be it. What, if anything, is wrong with it?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You're approaching the issue with a preconceived notion viz. that one of the two, the child or the army of ants attacking the child, is more worthy of life than the other. This is exactly what needs proving - ergo, begging the question.
Worrying about who's dearer and who's not is distinctly undivine, and by extrapolation, immoral.
Inequality in the moral sense would work like this: a certain individual or group has a greater claim to happiness than another individual or group and that's just another way of saying certain individuals or groups should suffer while others should not. However, morality is very clear on its position on the happiness/suffering dichotomy - it is, by its own admission, about happiness and definitely not about suffering. Ergo, inequality, since it divvies us up into one group that's suffering and another group that's not, can't be moral.
Yes, I agree, differences must exist to give distinct identities to things and no better contrast for a thing's distinctness can be provided than by its exact opposite. Basically, I accept that good and bad give each other their distinct identities. Are we on the same page because I get the feeling we're not?
Anyway, if you agree with me so far, let's revisit your monochromatic world thought experiment. Suppose there's a world that's completely red, having no other color at all. Yes, we wouldn't know what not-red is but, surely, we would know what red is, right? Similarly, in a world that's completely moral, we wouldn't know what immoral is but, again, surely, we would know what moral is, correct?
You're conflating two things: 1) Equality of life-forms and 2) Equality in the eyes of God. Definitely, we're all not equal - some are stronger, others are weaker; some are slow, other's fast; some are big, others small; some are gorgeous and others are ugly; so on and so forth. However, in the eyes of God, all differences are immaterial. The smallest and the biggest, the most beautiful and the ugliest, the saint and the sinner, all, and I mean all, are equal.
I get it - I was trying to work within your metaphysic. I was saying that the implication is that you can't defend the child from fire ants because they would involve valuing one being over another.
I'm not trying to disprove you here. I'm just running with your system here.
It's not personally something that I would really entertain.... in fact I don't think the vast majority of the planet would entertain it because it leads to actions/consequences which most of the population would consider not only completely absurd but also extremely contrary to human nature and our day to day lived experience.... but if you want to plant your flag on this worldview then more power to you. I just don't care enough to argue with you about it. If you want to consider the life of your child or mother the same as that of an ant or a mosquito then you be you. I take it swatting away or killing mosquitos is again immoral to you because they are infinitely valuable. Enjoy your life with this worldview, it'll be an interesting one.
It may look ridiculous - the thought that an ant/mosquito is of equal value as a mother or child - but, forgive my stubborness, it isn't. If a pecking order in morality is a sensible idea, you should be ready to be treated by a "superior" being in just the way you treat an "inferior being" and drawing from how humans have treated supposedly "inferior" life, it's defintely not going to be a pleasant experience for us. In fact, by treating mosquitoes and ants as equals to my mother and child, I'm actually ensuring their wellbeing in the hands of our "superiors". If I didn't then I would have nothing to go on to make the case that my mother and child shouldn't be harmed. I'd say such a view can be considered far-sighted.
Nobody is saying to treat "inferior" animals like dogs or horses or cats badly. Everybody should be against animal cruelty, but we don't let animals vote or treat them the exact same as humans. We should obviously protect animals and treat them well. Mosquitos are a different story.
Unfortunately, you have to make decisions. Tics attach themselves to your dog. Do you kill the tics or leave the dog to die? Same with leaches on a dog or person. What do you do. These decisions reflect our value system.
Ok.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
:chin:
The instant an hierarchy is developed, we'll have a place in it and I wouldn't count on us being in the upper echelons; somewhere around the lower rungs, maybe. That being the case, we must pray and pray hard that our planet isn't discovered by an alien life who are as different from us as we are from mosquitoes. What's frightening is that aliens that "superior" might be on the verge of discovering Earth and we haven't put our house in order yet. At best, it might be a big embarrassment, at worst, we might be farmed for our meat.
Congratulations! I don't know if anyone has specifically delineated the "appeal to aliens" in the list of fallacies. If you hurry, you can claim credit for it!
Can you just answer the question of what should be done if two "infinitely valuable" life forms are placed into a situation where one must die for the other to live - say, tics on a dog or mosquitos feasting on a human and spreading malaria. We can also go with a tapeworm nesting itself into a human.
It seems to be that the upshot of this is that there are no correct answers because everything is infinitely valuable - so in effect we get moral nihilism here. It doesn't matter if the value is infinity or zero - it's all the same.
No. He can't. He never does. He won't start now.
It doesn't make sense to people who think they're at the top of the food chain.
Of course not. Believing humans are at the top of the food chains is as absurd as believing in cannibalistic aliens.
I'll put my money on God's one approach that seems to be the cause of much consternation for the faithful and also a source of vindication for many atheistic comedians - the no intervention policy.
Aliens eating us would not qualify as cannibalism. I'm trying, in some sense, to make the case that all predation actually is - we're all equals.
It would if they were time-traveling humans who have come from the future to save their interstellar society from our primitive mistakes by eating us.
He must really feel terrible about all those poor, innocent, infinitely valuable malaria-spreading mosquitoes that have been killed lately. I wonder if he'd consider creating a sanctuary for them.
Keep in mind, the point he started this whole bizarre journey from was that a being whose primary stated purpose is to pass judgment actually sees all things as equal. The internal inconsistency is jumping up and down yelling "LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME!!!" but it's like two invisible wizard-ghost deities passing in the night.
Yes, but I'm talking about aliens, not time-travelers and also there's no guarantee that we could call each other the same species, in which case cannibalism would be true. Our ancient hominid ancestors aren't considered human.
Sure there is. When they kidnap us for sexual experiments, if they produce viable offspring who are themselves capable of reproduction, then we're the same species. I mean, this has already happened - look at the Ancient Egyptians. You think they built those pyramids without help?
Quoting TheMadFool
"Hominid" and "human" are directly derived from the root "homo", meaning man. You are entering on a slippery slope here. Homo Neanderthalensis were "human", but they were not "homo sapiens".
First time poster, so please be patient:
How are you able to argue that each living organism is of equal worth? Isn’t one of the pillars of humanity the distinction of what is right and wrong, regardless if an individual chooses to do the right thing or not? One of the major characteristics that separates humans from other biological organisms is morality. What I mean by this is biological organisms operate on instincts (e.g. killing, mating, using other bodies as hosts, etc.) It is something that is not taught to these organisms but rather an innate quality to ensure survival. On the other hand, humans act on complex emotions in which (for most individuals) they consider the impact of their decision (whether it is right or wrong). Yes organisms and humans are able to share similar qualities, but what separates these behaviors from other organisms is the reason why they choose to act a certain ways.
To conclude: Organisms act out of instinct and not off of a basis of morality. Animals don’t invent ways in harming others or set up objects as an idol, humans do. In my opinion, roping together biological organisms with humans does not convince me that they are equal since a human actions are not entirely instinctual . Do you care to expand on your assumption?
You remember how in old stories (and later, movies) when people enter a supposedly haunted house everything's normal enough at first, save for perhaps a few odd occurrences or visions that are quickly shaken off with the skepticism of others. It's only when someone does or "unleashes" something the house seems to "turn" on them. Windows and doors close trapping everyone (and everything) inside. Anyone tries to break either there's an "unseen force" that stops them, often quickly and terribly. And if some do manage to get outside natural elements seem to make quick work of them.
Seems like pure, unadulterated horror right. The stuff of nightmares. Pure evil!
The idea that was suggested to me was it's not actually anything about the house that's evil, it's just been "enchanted" to seal a true evil that was locked away somewhere inside from ever getting out into the world if released. The people in the stories are simply random, unfortunate victims (or as is the usual case, responsible parties, be it by ignorance or not). They cannot be allowed to escape because whatever else is trapped inside with them can easily possess any one of them or even multiple.
Long story short, sometimes what seems to be scary or evil in the myopic eyes of a single individual who knows little more than what their own short life has taught them can sometimes be the sole thing standing in the way of a true, remarkable evil.
And parents pick favorites. Parents can prefer the child that is friendly and happy over the other child that is murderous, conniving, and mean. Inequity, inequality, and injustice could arise from the partiality of the creator.
Quoting freewhirl
There are differences between humans and animals, that's obvious but there are also similarities. One unifying motif that brings together almost all moral systems is hedonism (pleasure/pain, happiness/suffering).
Hedonism is universal in prevalence - all animals, even plants, exhibit pleasure seeking and pain avoidance in one form or another. This is not surprising given the fact that morality, as of necessity, must be based on what's common between us instead of what's unique to each one of us. After all, ethics is about how to live a life in a community. The bottom line is good/bad, right/wrong are concepts that can exist only in a community.
That being the case the lowest common denominator in a community will be the ideal ecological niche for morality - it must appeal to the majority if it's to do its job well. What's the lowest common denominator? We're still in the grips of morality with a hedonistic theme - as of now, only life capable of experiencing pain/joy matter for existing moral systems.
Nonetheless, there's a trend that needs mentioning. Ecological sciences are, in my humble opinion, tentacular extensions of existing moral systems that are just that tiny bit not self-serving to merit the pronouncement that morality has begun to look beyond mere hedonism and now is in the preliminary stages of reaching the lowest of the lowest common denomniators - life itself. A time will come, far in the future, when all life - microscopic viruses to gigantic blue whales and everything in between - will be equal in terms of moral worth but this only applies to us. In god's eyes we're all already of equal moral value.
:up:
Good point although I would add that while it's completely plausible that small evils, like small fires that prevent major conflagrations, prevent severe moral failings, it's also possible that they serve as convenient doorways to hell.
That said, your comment makes me wonder if we shouldn't rejoice in our good fortune that the evil we see around us is of the tolerable type - much like the mild symptoms we experience when we get vaccinated for some deadly disease. Possibly, the evil prevalent in the world today are part of god's vaccination plan for humanity - we suffer mildly but it'll stand us in good stead when real and pure evil descends upon the world.
Quoting dimension72
Indeed, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that inanimate matter could, one day, be considered as having moral value. Of course, the million dollar question is, is there anything that isn't alive?
New to the forum, but hoping to add some value here.
From my understanding of your post, this is the general layout of your argument.
If God is omnibenevolent, then he does not play favorites with his creation
If he doesn’t play favorites with his creation, then he will not intervene in situations of natural evil.
God is omnibenevolent.
Therefore God does not play favorites with his creation (MP 1,3)
Therefore God does not intervene in situations of natural evil (MP 2,4)
After reading some of the initial comments, I am under the assumption that the God you are referring to is the Christian God. If my assumption is correct, then your first premise (as I have laid out) seems to be the easiest to refute, and thus the rest of the argument breaks down.
Christians do believe that God is omnibenevolent, yet God definitely seems to play favorites with his creation. This can be clearly seen in the creation account, where God says, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Gen. 1:26). God is essentially saying, “Okay, I’m gonna create humans in my own image AND y’all are gonna rule over everything else I’ve created”. Favoritism? I think so.
For argument sake, let's assume that god does not play favorites. Assuming one accepts all of your claims, it still seems like the strongest conclusion you can draw is that “God does not intervene in situations of natural evil”. It still doesn’t explain the issue of why natural evil exists in the first place. From your argument, if god is the creator, then he would have created everything with natural evil as the foundational force, where one creature's benefit is almost always at the cost of another. And a god that initiated this sort of natural evil definitely doesn’t seem to be an omnibenevolent god. Final note, if you hold firmly to your argument, the Jainist deities seem to fit much better with the god you described.
Between what is entailed by the above and god's omnibenevolence, Christians have a clear choice:
1. either believe that god wants us to "rule of the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground" and conclude that god isn't omnibenevolent
OR
2. god is omnibenevolent and the above statement is false
For my money, people, Christians too, would rather give up 1 than 2.
Hi TheMadFool,
I am also new to the forum so please be patient! :)
I don’t think I understand the necessity for Christians to choose between the belief that God wants for us the “rule of the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground” and the belief that God is omnibenevolent. It seems to me as though it is possible for both beliefs to be compatible. I believe it is possible for mankind to rule over all animals kindly, and I believe that is what God’s intention is when He speaks about the role of mankind in the world. Obviously, we ran the show differently than it was intended. My point however is that our ruling of the animals on earth does not take away the possibility that that role God intends for us is God’s way of being benevolent to the animals as well. I believe there is a possibility mankind can at its best think for the greater good, which would also benefit animals who can only think in a survival mindset.
I believe some indication this compatibility is actually possible is that we live by morals and are able to think rationally, and are self-aware, etc. The fact that we are able to see the bigger picture and wonder what is actually best for animals (whether it’s us ruling them with kindness or letting them be, etc.) shows that we are at least able to care for them. Obviously, we took the separate route of mostly eating them, but regardless, we are still able to care for them. On the other hand, animals are unable to think about the greater good and live instinctively. So, even though mankind has evidently not done a good job benevolently ruling animals on earth, that does not mean God’s omnibenevolence towards animals could not include our role in ruling over them as He intended for us.
I am unsure whether I understood your point correctly. If I did not, please let me know! Otherwise, let me know what you think :) Pleasure discussing with you.
No predation = overpopulation = suffering. No parasitism = suggestion that some lifeforms are less deserving of life than others due to the nature by which they survive = inequality. Every organism parasitises resources or the prosperity of other organisms to some degree. Parasitism is a relatively arbitrary concept when you consider that in a broad sense most organisms have some sort of parasitic relationship to one another; for example we parasitise chickens for their unborn embryos for food: something obviously detrimental to the reproductive potential of the species but this is offset by the fact that we also rear chicken populations greatly beyond the natural population that would occur normally if we left them be in the wild.
You can’t have a state of endless creation and no destruction. You can’t have positives without negatives to balance them otherwise the positives quickly themselves become negatives. I believe if such a god exists the “good” we refer to isn’t an egocentrically founded “human good” based around how we believe the world should work but rather “good” in the sense of stability and equilibrium and the capacity for change to be graduated and controlled rather than completely chaotic and reckless.
Hey TheMadFool, hope you are well. I appreciate the post about the problem of natural evil, as I find it fairly difficult to reconcile with the omnibenevolence of God in a traditional sense.
You posit that:
P1) An omnibenevolent God does not “play favorites” with creation
P2) What we believe to be “Natural Evil” to humans may be a “Natural good” for other organisms (like bacteria and parasites)
P3) God permits these “Natural Evils” because they are not evil for all and he chooses to not intervene
C) The problem of natural evil is no problem at all
I agree with you that the Free Will defense doesn’t help us here, but I see some problems with the argument above.
I guess I’d start by questioning P1, the idea of equality amongst all creation might seem like a good thing to ascribe to God, but I feel as though it might not be true in reality. If God views each creature with rigid equality, then does God “value” any of them at all? Does value not implicitly convey some sense of “greater” or “lesser” ergo comparison amongst created things. In most religions I know of there are serious assertions that humans are not equal in value to other animals, and that certain animals are not equal in value to inanimate objects. (Think about realms of reincarnation in some of the Asian religions or the Abrahamic religions’ emphasis on the Imago Dei.) I think that this comparative value is a great thing and that by being “higher” up on this value list we actually have a responsibility to look after the life “lower” in value to us. If we afford the same rights and privileges to plants, mosquitoes, flesh-eating bacteria, and these things come into conflict with one another, are we really to do nothing and allow the eradication of a species because it benefits another? Are our hands really tied, Or is there a middle ground, found through parsing out the reason and logic for certain decisions, that helps both survive? I also think that this “inequality in value” has its limits.
You have made several points elsewhere on this post to say that certain morally bad things, like racism and slavery, “must exist to give meaning to value” if we are claim that not all of God’s creatures are equal. Which, I think is actually kind of spot on, but maybe not for the reason that you mean. We can recognize that racism is a belief about value itself, that some races are more valuable than the other, and then make a value assessment of said belief to determine that it is worse than non-racism. Racism exists and we can say it’s bad, yay!
Thanks for the concern but, no, I'm not well :sad: but for the record, that's not important, it never was, never is, never will be,
Quoting DPKING
When I say that all creatures, big and small, are equal in god's eyes - we're all faers children - I mean that god won't intervene in our squabbles, disagreements, conflicts, wars, etc. We, on the other hand, are free to resolve differences in the way we see fit - most, some might even say all, of the time this will involve some form of force rather than reason but god will not take sides no matter what it is that we do to each other. This is the gist of what I'm trying to get across.
As for, your question regarding whether we are to "...really do nothing and allow the eradication of a species because it benefits another?" I'd say it all depends on how farsighted we are. If we're looking in the short term then sure, kill and eat other animals, spray pesticides and annihilate all pests and vermin, in short, do anything to anything that you consider not human enough. However, in the long term this strategy of do-as-we-wish will come back to bite us for it sanctions a superior life-form to treat us exactly in the same way as we treat those we consider less-than-human.
Quoting DPKING
I don't recall saying that.
Quoting TheMadFool
My entire quote was,
"You have made several points elsewhere on this post to say that certain morally bad things, like racism and slavery, “must exist to give meaning to value” if we are claim to that not all of God’s creatures are equal." or as you said, to think higher and lower values are essential to the meaning of value
The kindest act would be to not "...rule over all animals..." Freedom is a necessary condition for genuine wellbeing.
Quoting Joaquin
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?!
I fully agree that on this planet, the only species capable of taking up the mantle of guardian of all life is us, homo sapiens. However, the qualities that make us suitable for this task/ role - rationality and empathy being crucial - doesn't, shouldn't, license us to create a pecking order among the living with humans at the top and other animals arranged in a caste-like manner below. To do this, establish a value hierarchy in the living world, is to immediately disqualify ourselves from the position as life's guardian.
1. If God exists and he is omnibenevolent, then God will favor his creation equally.
2. If God favors his creation equally, then God will permit natural evils, since they are actually opportunities for some creations’ survival.
3. Therefore, if God exists and he is omnibenevolent, then God will permit natural evils, since they are actually opportunities for some creations’ survival. (1,2 HS)
Firstly, you have clarified that natural evil refers to things such as disease, earthquakes and tsunamis. You have mentioned that an omnibenevolent god will not favor one creation over another and will treat all creation equally, such as bacteria, fish, the rich and the poor. You have also included the example that human bodies are actually hosts to many parasites and lots of microorganisms live on corpses, and you said that “since god loves bacteria and parasites equally as he loves us, can’t take sides and so won’t intervene.” Following this example, you have inferred that “God permits natural evil not because he’s not good but because he is good as evinced by his impartial attitude in what is after all nothing but a family feud…[god] being a good parent will not intercede regarding the ‘arrangement’ of humans required to play host to distant worm cousins and occasionally dying in a disaster to feed yet another relative bacteria”. Regarding the first assumption, I think it is problematic and self-contradictory. If god doesn’t play favorites with his creation and can’t take sides to intervene, then all creation are left in a free game, which the only determinant will be the nature of each creation, while each creation has very distinct nature. Human has very strong nature such as high intelligence and ability which surpasses almost any other creation, whereas creation such as bacteria has very simple composition. Given the great disparity in nature, it is not the case that god can favor each creation equally. Even if it is true that some of the natural evils such as diseases serve as opportunities for certain creation to live, it is still not equal, since most of the time human manages to defeat natural evils such as diseases and bacteria are killed; in such cases, it seems that god doesn’t favor each creation equally. Besides, regarding your second premise, I don’t think it is sufficient enough to explain all the cases of natural evils. As you have clarified, natural evils include not only diseases, but also earthquakes, floods and ect. Despite you can say that some diseases are reasonable because they are actually opportunities for some bacteria to live, it is not true with cases such as floods and earthquakes. I don’t think floods and earthquakes can be opportunities for certain creation’s survival, for they are so destructive. Even if they are beneficial to one creation’s survival, I think most of the creation including animals and plants will be harmed and so the cost is too massive, and it seems not possible for an omnibenevolent god to take such actions.
Come to think of it, not only as passive opportunities but actual instances of frank predation. Who's to say disasters don't have agencies behind them, agencies that feed on the bodies and even souls of the hapless victims? Mind you, my imagination is going wild but that's my problem. Feel free to poke holes, holes as large as your own reason and/or imagination permits. :smile:
Quoting Isabel Hu
This is an unfounded assumption. The battle, if I may call it that, between the organisms on this beautiful planet of ours is a no-holds-barred death match with god totally unwilling to assume the role of a referee, firstly because the "arrangement" has no rules - no rules, no referee required and, secondly, god loves us all equally - from worms that zombify their prey to cute, fluffy, bunny rabbits, saints and sinners, all, are equal in god's eyes. God doesn't favor any organism over the other. If fae did, a single organism, faer favorite, should be emerging "victorious" all the time. This is clearly untrue.
If you must believe that god's love isn't impartial then you can do so only if faer "favorite team" in death matches is nothing more than a choice based on his whims and fancies. Even this view eventually reduces to equal love for all creatures, big and small.
Disclaimer: the arguments presented here are my own and is meant to be purely exploratory and don't reflect my actual views. No offense intended. Thank you.
*The arguments presented here are also purely exploratory and are not my personal views. No offense intended neither. Thank you and it is good to have this discussion here.
You need to give me more than that to go on. What means this "victorious a bit"? Is this some kind of a game concept, like winning 3 out of a best of 5 matches in a competition? Perhaps we need to look into what being god's favorite entails.
Let's see how the notion of having a favorite in a competition pans out in the human world. I experience vivid images of young boys and girls, men and women, at a soccer stadium cheering for their "favorite" side. What's obvious, from the faces of people, once a winner and loser becomes clear, is, depending on who one's favorite was/is, either long faces or smiles from ear to ear. If one could, at that moment, interview the fans of clubs and teams, and ask them "do you want your team/club to win all the time?", what would they say, I wonder? The essence of fan's love/preference toward his favorite team is that they hope the team they like should always win.
Take a moment now to imagine god, an omniscient, omnipotent [let's leave out the omnibenevolent (notice anything?)] being having a favorite? God would have the power to ensure eternal victory, assuming that life is a struggle among, between living things, for his favorite, whatever life-form it is. This is clearly not something we see in our world - everything going on, as of this moment, and also in the past, and probably in the future, bears the mark of a world that hasn't been subject to any divine intervention at all.
Quoting Isabel Hu
All I can do by way of an explanation/proof is offer, for your consideration, the sentence, "nature is red in tooth and claw". Might as well throw in, "the law of the jungle". It appears that the justification for my claim comes from actually having observed the dynamics of life - there's nothing in the way animals and humans behave that suggests, if not that there are no rules/laws, that any of them, us included, is inclined to follow rules of any kind.
Quoting Isabel Hu
Free will. Good can't be mandatory, otherwise it isn't for the notion of moral responsibility is foundational to it. Ergo, we must be free to do evil and everything between. Thus, we see "...different natures and characteristics..."
Quoting Isabel Hu
I'm not sure how consistent what I'm about say is with what I've already said but I feel morality needs to be looked at differently. I prefer to read morality as more of a menu of possibilities rather than a list of rules. I mean God, for reasons unknown to me, endowed us with a sense of right and wrong i.e. he provided us with a menu of possible thoughts/actions but God, because free will is so important to owning your actions as yours, wouldn't have wanted to mandate/prohibit actions i.e. God would've preferred not to create a dos and don'ts list - that, I'm afraid, from the poor quality of the work, has "human" written all over it.
Also, you have suggested that the mechanism of free will can explain why God attributes different natures and characteristics to different creation, as free will is crucial for beings to make their own distinct choices and actions. However, I don’t think free will being an important mechanism of human explains why God attributes different natures and characteristics to different creation, including lots of creatures other than human. I understand that it is reasonable to say that because of free will, people have different moral choices; however, free will, being part of human’s attributed nature by God, cannot explain why God gives the mechanism of free will to us but not other creation. Besides, regarding the topic of morality, I agree with you that since human has free will, we have various moral choices which will bring “a menu of possibilities rather than a list of rules” as you said. However, there are still lots of common moralities that almost all human beings agree on, no matter what cultural backgrounds we have. Some examples will be love your children and parents, and do not intentionally harm others. Therefore, as what I have said in my previous post, I think morality especially those common moralities serves as a referee in a metaphysical sense, since it at least gives human a moral direction if not a set of moral rules.
Well, I suppose you're right but, give it some thought, would creating enemies be winning? :chin:
Quoting Isabel Hu
:ok: My question is simple: what would convince you or what, to you, is "...sufficient enough to assert that God has no preference or God loves all creation equally"?
I ask because the very idea of having preferences for a God entails that there should be clear signs that one particular living thing (I suspect you prefer that to be humans) is being favored thus. There seems to be no evidence of this to my reckoning. You disagree. Why? What has convinced you that there's favoritism going on?
Quoting Isabel Hu
Why do you think "other creations" lack free will?
Quoting Isabel Hu
These are choices that appeal to humans. Too, I think the whole idea of divvying people up into cultures, races, whatnot, and after having done that being surprised to discover similarities among these various divisions is a mistake. It's like looking at a bunch of dogs in an animal shelter and being amazed at how all of them bark and wag their tails. They're all dogs just as we're all humans, similarities should be expected, it's the differences that should cause concern.
If God loves all of His creation equally, then natural evil is just the result of impartiality.
God loves all of His creation equally.
So, natural evil is just the result of impartiality.
I agree that if there were a god that loved all of his creation equally, then natural evil is just the result of impartiality. But if we are talking about the Christian God (which I believe we are), then I do not think this argument can stand. I think it is prevalent that the Christian God favors humankind over the rest of his creation, therefore the Christian God does not love all of His creation equally (denial of premise 2). First, God created man in His own image. To make something in one’s own image seems to reveal a great deal of pride or honor for whatever is created. In other words, if God likes the birds just as much as He likes us, why did He not make the birds in His image? Second, in Genesis, God explicitly says that man has dominion over animals. This can be debated and interpreted in many ways, but it certainly does not say that man is equal among animals. Third, if God cared equally about each of His creations, He would have made a more level playing field. Even among just the fish in the sea, there are creatures that have a greater ability to survive than others. So, if God loves us all equally, why would He make mankind so much more advanced and powerful that all other creatures?
It's an integral part of the OP insofar as moral evil is concerned.
Quoting Emma
I can see where you're coming from on this issue. I myself stated in a thread not too long ago about how humans, endowed with this magnificent organ - the brain - can, has, and probably will beat the competition any time. With our technology we've dominated the world in a never-seen-before kind of way. In short, humans, with their brains, seem to be emerging on top in the evolutionary struggle for survival - we are, in more respects than I care to mention, the fittest in a world with one rule: survival of the fittest.
However, take a moment to take in the current knowledge we have on ecology and the environment. What's the general consensus in your opinion? What have we learned from the past 100 years or so of careful observation and analysis of our ecology and the environment? To my reckoning, from all our studies in these fields, the takeaway is this: our environment is a finely balanced system - each living organism, be it plant, animal, microbe, whatever, has an important role in maintaining the health of an ecosystem. Remove one or more players in this game and there are consequences, consequences that take the form of disequilibrium and disharmony in ecosystems that can, eventually, lead to catastrophic collapse of entire biospheres. Does this, in any way, give you the impression that one particular organism is being favored over another? In fact a case can be made that humans, capable of destroying the environment at unprecedented scales and speeds, are, in this sense, an illness, a disease, that's plaguing all life on earth but that's another story.
Sorry for the late response.
From this statement, it seems like you are asserting that the concept of human dominion over creation is somehow incompatible with an omnibenevolent God. And in general, as indicated in your original post, "an omnibenevolent god will not play favorites with his creation". I think your assumed premise can be succinctly summarized as the following
1. If God plays favorites, then God is doing something not good.
2. God plays favorites (God gives human dominion over creation)
c. Therefore God is doing something not good, thus cannot be all good (omnibenevolent)
Hopefully this is a faithful reconstruction of the main premise of your argument.
Premise 1 hinges on the assumption that favoritism is a bad thing, and this is where I disagree. Although I believe that it can be a bad thing, I don't think that it is always a bad thing, and in fact is sometimes a very good thing. You provide the analogy of a parent/children relationship, where a good parent will love all of their children equally, and failure to do so would be bad. We are on the same page in this regard. However, lets say we throw Scout (the family dog) into the mix. If the parent in this situation were to somehow treat Scout and the other children equally, we would definitely have to conclude that this is a bad thing. The badness seems to arise because we place an inherently lower level of worth on Scout (because its a dog), and we place a higher level of worth on the children.
In the same regard, within Christianity and other mainline religions (aside from Eastern religions that emphasize reincarnation - Jainism especially), humanity is the favored creation because God places the highest worth in us. Thus, favoritism towards humanity should be seen as a necessary attribute to an omnibenevolent God rather than incompatible.
I realize this isn't a direct comment to your argument, but I stand by my previous comment and think this is the primary area where your argument breaks down.
More or less, yes. I'm fairly certain, by and large convinced, that inequality in any way, shape, or form is immoral. In saying this I haven't strayed off course from our intuition on the matter, the intuition best exemplified by the words "all men are created equal" enshrined in the American Constitution. My view on equality is but an extrapolation of the spirit of this statement and becomes "all creatures are created equal". Last I checked, "all men are created equal" remains unjustified and is to be treated as a self-evident which to me is a big disappointment because something as morally important as equality has been stated sans proof.
At this juncture a point of clarification is needed. The sentence, "all men are equal" or the sentence "all creatures are equal" doesn't mean that there are no differences among men and among creatures; surely there are differences - among humans skin color, facial features, height, etc. vary and a similar point can be made if one includes other creatures. What these sentences mean is that we should/ought to treat/consider all men as equals and all creatures as equals i.e. in a sense, the equality, is, quite literally, pulled out of thin air but for a morally worthy purpose.
In my own small way I'll attempt to justify, give a proof of, why we should/ought to treat both that all men are equals and that all creatures are equals here. The reason why we should/ought to treat/consider all men as equals and all creatures as equals is that if this were not done then that's just another way of saying that there's nothing wrong with inequality. If that's the case and given that inequality is relative in the sense a particular creature can be both inferior and superior, the status hanging on the who/what that creature is being compared to, it's not out of the realm of possibility that we might find ourselves on the wrong side of an inequality [we could be inferior to another creature, an alien perhaps] and if, god forbid, this happens, we would have no convincing argument to demand our freedom or to make a plea for better treatment.
Quoting Daniel Ramli
To understand my point, I suggest you imagine a being superior to us and we are its pets just as Scout (the family dog) is ours. If you accept inequality prepare to be treated unequally.
Quoting Daniel Ramli
Let's take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. God, for certain, is superior, in every respect conceivable, to us. Surely then, by your logic, we're lesser beings and God can treat us in any way fae likes - treat us like dirt for instance, very similar to how we're treating other creatures on the planet. After all you claim that there's nothing wrong with favoring one being over another which basically boils down to this: inequality is acceptable. God surely favors himself above all else; he must for he is, by definition, greater/better/superior in all respects than/to humans. Perhaps, all this evil we see around us is just god favoring himself over humans then. Problem solved!
Quoting god must be atheist
I think you've misunderstood the analogy. When I refer to God as a parent, I mean only in the sense of faer love - all encompassing - for faer children - all the creatures in the universe. From that all-loving, omnibenevolence, follows god's unwillingness to intervene in the affairs of the world and hence the evil - moral and natural - we see in it. Au contraire, God has fulfilled his role as a parent quite well, not just quite well but actually to perfection. Equality is an essential part of morality and God's upholding that in spirit and in letter.
It is interesting how little credit you give me in understanding your concept of parallel between god and a parent.
My point was you can't STOP suddenly in this analogy. "Parent loves her children equally, gives them equal shares of her love" is NOT equivalent, yet you make it equivalent, to "Parent gives resources to her much beloved children, then lets them fight among themselves who gets what; parent at this point does not interfere." Well, a parent DOES interfere, and god, apparently, if he existed, does NOT interfere.
All I am saying is that the parent analogy does not work. You borrow some parts of the parent analogy, and you reject another part. That's NOT how you employ analogy. It's reminiscent of the cherry-picking nature of bible studies.
Consequently, what you seem to not understand, is that an omnibenevolent god would not let suffering happen in a world he created. If precious resources are fought for, to the loss even of life and to the loss of great suffering of some participants,then it is obviously the creator's fault, not the participants' fault, that they need to fight for resources.
If god loves the ebola virus as much as humans, and you are not mistaken, then god would have created a world in which ebola viruses thrive happily and the humans thrive happily. "The lion lies down with the kid." Obviously on some level this world arrangement exists. Only an evil-minded creator would have created some world in which things don't work that way. And our world does not work that way. Therefore:
either god is not omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, or the creator.
I really, really, don't understand how you can't see this. EVIL SUFFERING EXISTS ONLY BEAUSE IF CREATION TRULY HAPPENED IN THE HANDS OF A GOD, THE GOD WAS NOT OMNIBENEVOLENT OR ELSE HE WAS INCAPABLE TO FULFIL HIS OMNIBENEVOLENT INTENTIONS. EITHER HE COULD BUT DECIDED NOT TO CREATE A GOOD WORLD, OR ELSE HE WANTED TO, BUT WAS INCAPABLE TO CREATE A GOOD WORLD. OTHER POSSIBILITIES DON'T EXIST.
I don't understand the logical link you employ, and I think it is not true, when you say (paraphrased) that "omnibelenevolence necessitates non-interference." No, it does not necessitate that. Why would that be necessary?
If god is omnipotent, he could design ways to keep everyone happy and nobody harmed. Like I said, even a five-year-old child can create a mental image of such a world... why can't then god? I don't think this is a contradction at all, it is a quality of omnipotence to create worlds and the attributes of the worlds at his will and motivation, and one of the motivations in omnibenevolence. Yet the world does not reflect to be a system with benefits to all. Not only are we NOT equal, and not only do we, creatures, not consider each other equal, but because of that, we make each other suffer. Where has the omnibenevolence gone in this system? Nowhere. It has never been part of the system. Therefore god is either not omnibenevolent, or the world is not created by god.
Hi TheMadFool, I do not think that your argument really works. I think that you are arguing something to the following effect:
1. All creatures are equal to God.
2. If all creatures are equal to God, then God would give all creatures the opportunity to thrive.
3. If God would give all creatures the opportunity to thrive, then natural evils that cause death would give certain creatures, i.e. bacteria and parasites, the opportunity to thrive.
4. If natural evils that cause death would give certain creatures, i.e. bacteria and parasites, the opportunity to thrive, then God, in spite of the natural evils, is still good.
5. Therefore, God, in spite of natural evils, is still good.
If this is an accurate representation of your argument, I find fault with premise four. I agree with the antecedent of four, yet I think that the consequent is not likely to be true since God still does not look to be good. For instance, imagine that a tsunami hit a coastal town in Indonesia and killed ten thousand people. Sure, the bodies will turn into food for the bacteria in the water and other creatures. It is a fortunate outcome for them, yet this is not so for the ten thousand people who perished. I think you would agree at some level that a human person is worth more than bacteria. If so, then much evil was done by the tsunami and God does not appear to be good since God let precious lives be lost to, from an anthropocentric point of view, replaceable creatures. Even if you do not agree with the assumption that humans are worth more than other creatures on this planet, this still does not acquit God. In the tsunami scenario, many creatures underwent suffering and death. There is some party that had some, arguably, very evil thing done to them that does not seem warranted in any sense. Thus, it is questionable if God is indeed good.
The basic idea behind the "...a human person is worth more than bacteria" is that humans possess something that bacteria (representing all non-human life forms) don't. Whatever this something is, it becomes the reason for claiming "...a human person is worth more than bacteria". If I were to hazard a guess, 1) consciousness/sentience and 2) the ability to suffer are at the top of my list of differences between humans and bacteria. I know that both these abilities (sentience and capacity to suffer) exist on a continuum with no clear and distinct cut-off point between sentience, suffering and non-sentience, non-suffering but assume there is one and that on one side of it is humans (sentient and able to suffer) and on the other side, all other organisms (non-sentient and unable to suffer). Note, I haven't said anything that, even if we have doubts on the matter, we don't see in everyday practice - the rule of thumb, the unspoken rule, is no animal is worth a human.
So far so good.
Firstly, recognize that the two criteria I mentioned above viz. 1) sentience and 2) the ability to suffer are missing in other life forms is an unfounded assumption. How do we know that? Is there any proof that bacteria are not sentient or that they don't feel pain? Granted that current scientific knowledge doesn't support the claim that bacteria (representing all non-human life) are sentient or that they can feel pain for the simple reason that they lack a nervous system but that's speaking from a standpoint of what we know and overlooking the much bigger what we don't know. Our ignorance is greater than our knowledge by many orders of magnitude. In short, if we factor in our ignorance, any claims that bacteria are not sentient or that they don't feel pain is symptomatic of an illness we all have encountered in our lives: know-it-all-ness (to think that one knows everything when actually one doesn't). I'll mention but not discuss the problem of humans mistreating some non-human life that do possess a nervous system (possibly sentient and capable of feeling pain) which is clearly immoral by the very standards that we ourselves have set. If all this says anything it's that humans haven't quite figured it out yet i.e. our ignorance seems to play a bigger role in our behavior than our knowledge or, worse, we simply don't give a damn about what we know or what we don't know or about what's good or bad and all this highfalutin talk of morality, sentience, the ability to suffer is nothing more than a sham designed to make ourselves feel better about our mistreatment of non-human life. Basically, there's no solid reason for the claim "...a human person is worth more than bacteria"
Secondly, The belief that "...a human person is worth more than bacteria" entails/requires that we must, if faced with beings worthier than us just as we're worthier than non-human animals, be ready to accept anything and everything such beings do to us. After all, these beings, yet hypothetical but not impossible, are, will be, by our standards, worthier than us. Supposing such beings are called Val, the sentence "...a human person is worth more than bacteria" will change into "...a Val is worth more than humans" and that'll open the doors, presumably to hell, for humans - it'll spell our doom.
Thirdly, essentially continuing along the same trajectory as the first and second points and summarizing them, take the allegedly ubiquitous moral rule, the so-called Golden Rule - treat others as you would like to be treated. I don't know how far this is true but it's a moral code that's found in all cultures and civilizations. Its premise is, and this is key to my argument, to put yourself in the other person's shoes i.e. to assume you are the other and think on how you would like to be treated. In the context of this post, you are, if you follow the Golden Rule, to assume that other non-human life forms possess sentience and are capable of feeling pain and then to tailor your behavior according to that assumption. In the context of worth as expressed in your statement "...a human person is worth more than bacteria", you are to assume that bacteria are as worthy as a human person - that is the Golden Rule. It appears that, Golden-Rule-wise, it's necessarily immoral to think/claim/assume that "...a human person is worth more than bacteria". God is, hopefully, still good!
You can hurt both, for instance, by "creating a household" (i.e. existence) that not only puts, but also keeps, them in opposition. :shade:
Again:
Quoting 180 Proof
:point:
I think your point is clever. That said, you are giving us a philosopher's god. This is a late concept, which has drifted from traditional human-centric conceptions. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but my objection is that defenses of God tend to be (cryptically sometimes) a defense of particular gods from particular religions whose gods favor humans who live in particular ways. You may know all this and just be having fun with concepts.
:up:
Do you think there's a complete escape from this structure? Or just intensities of sublimation?
Same here, and yeah that would be a good band name.
I'm not one to step on non-threatening spiders, but what's the practical gist of such equality? Is wiping the place where my dog had diarrhea with bleach the mass murder of E. Coli ? Should a Wal-mart cashier tolerate roaches in their kitchen in solidarity with other creatures who just want to get by? Should cops spend more time arresting cats who kill birds?