Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board


Thread: Religion II
View Single Post
Old 12-31-2018, 04:31 AM   #9093
dnlgfnk
Registered User
 
dnlgfnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor View Post
Why "Of course?" On what grounds does the theist reject A, B, D?
So what is the theist's answer to C? Have theists even come up with an answer?

Hitchens conceded quite a lot that I do not.

This is the point where the question becomes quite complex. You probably noticed that in my restating the Riddle of Epicurus I used the word "suffering" rather than "evil." I did this because the word "evil" is hard to define, "suffering" not so much.

"Morality" is likewise difficult to define.

Some years back in Yellowstone National Park a female bear with two cubs attacked and killed a park ranger. The attack was predatory, i.e., the bear saw the ranger as food. Park rangers hunted down and killed the bear and the cubs. (The rangers reasoned that the cubs had learned the lesson that humans were food.)

Was the bear evil? No. It was simply being a bear. Were the rangers evil? Again, no.

There is a documented case from about 200 years ago where sailors in a lifeboat ran out of food. They drew lots to decide which of the would be food for the others. The loser of this lottery was murdered and eaten. The rest survived. Were the survivors evil? You tell me. But evil or not, they survived.

What can be said about morality is that it encompasses a set of behaviors which benefit the group, the tribe, the nation, the entire species. These behaviors are the result of evolution. We have evolved to be a social animal. As hunter-gatherers we hunted and gathered in groups. This provided more food per individual than a single individual could obtain alone, plus it was (and is) a more varied diet, ergo, a healthier diet.


Good, evil and morality are all human constructs guided by the force of natural selection. They are not the dictates of a deity.

The answer to the Riddle of Epicurus is there simply is no deity. God is powerless to prevent suffering because he does not exist. God is not willing to prevent suffering because he does not exist. Since God does not exist then of course there is suffering.

Sapere aude
On what grounds does the theist reject A, B, D?


You're unable to grasp which claim in each of the premises would be false, based upon what the overwhelming majority of theists accept? If or when we have another exchange, I must force myself to assume nothing. For any theist I have encountered, God is willing and able to prevent suffering. Now look at the premises again.

The word "evil" is hard to define, "suffering" not so much...."Morality" is likewise difficult to define.

From your frequently cited source, under "noun"...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

...and for morality, (3) seems to fit a natural definition...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

...but I'll try to adjust my response to your a priori, "there-is-no deity", subjective distinction between suffering/evil.

Was the bear evil? No. It was simply being a bear. Were the rangers evil? Again, no.

Agreed. However, "It was simply being a bear" = experiencing its nature as a non-rational animal. In the case of the rangers, "the rangers reasoned". So did Himmler.

There is a documented case from about 200 years ago where sailors in a lifeboat ran out of food. They drew lots to decide which of the would be food for the others. The loser of this lottery was murdered and eaten. The rest survived. Were the survivors evil? You tell me. But evil or not, they survived.

Consequentialism.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...nsequentialism

Do I do evil (cause suffering) so that good (no suffering, if we're consistent) will come of it? You can change your modifiers all you want, and you still can't avoid a value system that incorporates good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral. That, or nihilism.

Look, I'm not addressing atheism, per se. Aristotle said that morality does not depend on God, but on the treatment of human beings according to their nature (e.g., bears are naturally predatory, humans upon humans are not). Any cognizant person can determine that. But he included the observation that natures have ends (teleology) that enable their flourishing. Modern atheists usually deny this, in favor of a mechanistic view.

Good, evil and morality are all human constructs guided by the force of natural selection. They are not the dictates of a deity.

I recently posted somewhere about morality and local maxima. In my understanding, evolution isn't selecting for moral standouts who "benefit the entire species" (blind, amoral, non-teleological, correct?). It's selecting against the unworkable regarding reproduction. It's barely climbing the altruism hill, working its way up just enough to look over the heads of it's immediate neighbors (local maxima) in terms of reproduction, and if altruism is able to hitchhike, so be it.
dnlgfnk is offline  
 
» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.