Philosophy Now Forum

What Atheism doesn't have is an account of "evil" that has any objective basis. No, because only religion has an account of evil. If that's the case, then no non-religious person can coherently advance the theodicy problem. For the non-religious, it must simply remain irrational even to s...

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:44 pm Do you "like" evil?

An odd question. I have no idea what relevance it would have to anything. It must be clear to you that this isn't a question about "liking," no?

Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but on this side of the pond, very few of us think in terms of evil - crazy, dangerous, lunatic and a whole bunch of other things would come to mind before evil. That might be. But unless you mean that "crazy, dangerous, lunatic and whole bunch of other things&qu...

Who cares about the "theodicy problem"? Lots of people. Atheists, skeptics, secularists...and anybody who doesn't like "evil." You care about it yourself...that's evident. You raise it all the time...not least in your ensuing remarks. And if you have a cogent account of what &qu...

By secularism's lights, nothing is objectively evil. Of course not; evil doesn't have a context outside of religion. Evil has as much "context" outside of religion as anything else does. Gary's off base, it's true: "context" isn't even the problem in hand. Everything's got a &qu...

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:58 pm I'm not an "atheist"

Then this doesn't concern you, Gary. What I'm saying only pertains to those who have no grounded, objective conception of "evil," and yet who wish to float the theodicy problem. And it's a problem inherent to their own view, regardless of yours or mine.

What the hell is "secularism"? Define "secularism"? Who is a "secularist"? I'm simply speaking of all worldviews that deny the existence of God, regardless of the various names under which they pass. But so you're clear, let us speak of Atheism, then. The outcome is th...

He's sayin u have no right, as a relativist, to say god is mean unless u have some objective criteria for what can be good or evil... but if u do, that criteria must be established by god, in which case God would exist and your relativism would be erroneous. I haven't said so much. All I've pointed...

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:05 pm Evil isn't real? Is that what you're saying?

No, that's what the secularist has to be saying.

He cannot be saying anything else, unless he has some way of grounding his conception of "evil" as objective.

I don't say it. Secularism does.

"For in the secularist world, "contradiction" isn't an "evil" either. There are no brownie-points for consistency" he's right, A to the J, but here's how u counter that. indeed we might not be able to call god benevolent or malevolent, good or evil, but if his actions ...

There is no "evil." There is nothing objectively "good," either. There are things people value, maybe, but there are no values-in-themselves, no values that are objectively worthy of being valued. And if people value nothing, or drop things they used to value and value new thing...

The point right now is the question, "From a secular perspective, how do we know there are ANY objective values at all?" From the so-called secular perspective there are certainly no "objective values" but only relative values defined circumstantially. This is, in fact, the cent...

Equality and freedom are values that oppose each other. Yes, that's true, B. But "equality," except in regard to personal worth, isn't even a possibility, so it's really a silly "value." We ought not even to have it. There are no two "equal" people in the entire world,...

But we can still have a strong, subjective, emotional response to events and situations. Yes. But so can a toddler, when it doesn't get its way. Anybody who's had a two-year-old knows that, of course. So we need something that separates the irrational, demanding, solipsistic squalling of an infant ...

I would only use the word "evil" as an adjective, and completely interchangeable with the word "malicious". So, whatever the word "malicious" entails, the word "evil" would entail exactly the same. But that still leaves both word without objective content. Bo...