Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

[Belinda]

An all-powerful god means that what happens necessarily happens.


An all-benevolent god means that what he does is always good.

There is natural evil.

Therefore an all-powerful god is not the same god as an all-benevolent god. As Hobbes's 13 year old mind worked out for himself.

Religious people try to get round the contradiction by the claim that God gave humans Free Will to countermand God's determinism. Okay, but Free Will although it explains moral evil doesn't explain naturally-occurring evils.

The more superstitious religionists try to get round this issue by claiming that earthquakes and plagues and so on are caused by humans' wrongdoing.

Other religionists claim that how the monogod reasons is a mystery. Some people worship mystery.

A more up to date idea of the monogod is that it is still in course of being created by humans and is indistinguishable from Humanism.

At least, Hobbes, that "bad school" did not indoctrinate you.

[attofishpi]

An all-powerful god means that what happens necessarily happens.

No it doesn't. Having all power, but choosing when and where to use it does not negate the attribute of omnipotence.

An all-benevolent god means that what he does is always good.

There are some, rather short-sighted theists that believe God is all benevolent.

There is natural evil.

Insofar as humans are natural beings, yes.

Therefore an all-powerful god is not the same god as an all-benevolent god. As Hobbes's 13 year old mind worked out for himself.

Really? It took him that long to work that out?

[Immanuel Can]

An all-powerful god means that what happens necessarily happens.

No it doesn't. Having all power, but choosing when and where to use it does not negate the attribute of omnipotence.

Right. One does not need actually to use one's abilities in every case in order to have the power to use one's abilities if one wishes.

An all-benevolent god means that what he does is always good.

There are some, rather short-sighted theists that believe God is all benevolent.

That would be me.

There is natural evil.

Insofar as humans are natural beings, yes.

Well, human beings don't "cause" at least some disasters in the natural world. Some people don't think that gives us any right to speak of them as "evils" at all, since they aren't morally motivated; but I think there's still an issue to be addressed there. I think it CAN be addressed, and addressed well; but I would be happy to concede it's a sensible question on her part.

More importantly, though, from where does the secular person get the concept "evil," even to apply it to people, let alone to earthquakes and hurricanes? For in a purely Naturalistic world, there is only things that are, things that happen, not things that are either good or evil. What is, simply is: and no moral categories refer to any actual feature of the world, according to secular thought. So Belinda can't even legitimately ask the question, unless she already concedes that "evil" is a category that objectively applies to earthquakes and hurricanes, and applies to her in such a way that she can ask the question, and applies in the same way to you, so that she can expect you to be obligated to treat her question as interpretable and respond. If she does't think all these things, then she is not asking any cogent question at all. She doesn't realize it, but she's "sold the farm" on that one, just by posing the question. She's conceded that "good" and "evil" are objective categories.

And ironically, the person who first pointed this out is (the adult) David Hume. There is no way to get from the "IS" of "an earthquake happened" to the "OUGHT" of "it ought not to have happened, because it was an evil."

Apparently his thinking cleared up a bit when he grew up.

[thedoc]

An all-powerful god means that what happens necessarily happens.

No it doesn't. Having all power, but choosing when and where to use it does not negate the attribute of omnipotence.

Right. One does not need actually to use one's abilities in every case in order to have the power to use one's abilities if one wishes.

There are some who seem to think that God is like a puppet on a string, that if you do certain activities God will react in a certain way, they do not allow that God (who gave man free will) does not have free will.

[uwot]

...from where does the secular person get the concept "evil,"...

If by secular you mean atheist, such a person doesn't have a concept of evil in the way you understand it, Mr Can. To you "evil" means 'contrary to the will of the god I believe in'. Since atheists don't recognise your god, it has no bearing on their understanding of 'evil'.

So Belinda can't even legitimately ask the question, unless she already concedes that "evil" is a category that objectively applies to earthquakes and hurricanes...

It is not for you to objectively define evil.

Apparently his thinking cleared up a bit when he grew up.

Perhaps the same will happen to you one day.

[Belinda]

Immanuel, 'evil' applies subjectively not objectively.

Very often by common consent especially during natural disasters, these will be felt by all the victims and onlookers to be natural evils.

I dare say you knew this.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, 'evil' applies subjectively not objectively.

If that's your answer, then evil means only "what Belinda doesn't happen to like." So your question about God allowing natural evils would then reduce to, "Why does God allow things Belinda doesn't happen to like"?

Being subjective, there's no longer any necessity for any other person to share your assessment. So that response becomes, "Too bad for you, I guess." Now, you won't like that, because even though you want to say evil's subjective, you also want your respondents to agree with your assessment, and you expect all reasonable people to agree with it too. But that's not reasonable of you to expect, if evil is merely a subjective state inside your own mind, and not any objective quality of, say, earthquakes and landslides. Some may agree with you, and some may not; but it doesn't matter either way, because their calling earthquakes "evil" is every bit as subjective as your own assessment, and like yours, would then refer to no objective property of what was happening when earthquakes do their damage.

You subjectivists are trying to have your cake and eat it too; you want evil to be something you can apply or remove at a subjective whim, but also expect that others will have to agree with you when you do. However, nobody ever is obligated to agree over purely subjective matters.

So which way do you want it? Do you want to ask the question -- and become a moral objectivist, or to stay committed to moral subjectivism -- in which case, nobody has any reason to bother to answer the question, since you're only making a claim about your subjective feelings about earthquakes? You simply never have rational title to both.

[attofishpi]

An all-benevolent god means that what he does is always good.

There are some, rather short-sighted theists that believe God is all benevolent.

That would be me.

Why/how are you reasoning that God is all benevolent?

More importantly, though, from where does the secular person get the concept "evil," even to apply it to people, let alone to earthquakes and hurricanes?

So what is your concept of evil?

Also, how would you best define and describe your theistic view? For example, do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

[Immanuel Can]

Why/how are you reasoning that God is all benevolent?

That's a bit like asking, "how are you reasoning that your wife loves you?" You can do that sort of estimation by mere reason, I suppose, but it's relationality that breathes life into that belief.

Leibniz thought you could reason it out so far as to conclude that this is "the best of all possible worlds," therefore, God having given us "the best of all possible worlds," we could deduce He was Good. But I don't think we can do that, actually. It's like Kierkegaard said -- until we venture belief in God, we have only theoretical propositions about Him. It's when we risk ourselves authentically on the belief that God is true that we come to discover He is. There is simply no knowing Him without faith -- not belief in the face of or absence of evidence, but rather a vertiginous leap premised on what must be admitted is only indicative evidence.

But then, He told us it would be like that. We would have to believe in order to know. (I think Anselm said the same thing, actually).

More importantly, though, from where does the secular person get the concept "evil," even to apply it to people, let alone to earthquakes and hurricanes?

So what is your concept of evil?

Well, my personal concept is not important, unless it at least conforms in some ways to the objective truth about evil. What I merely regard as evil or good may not be either -- and there are plenty of examples of people making wrong assessments about that.

One's concept of aerodynamics is only good if it reflects actual aerodynamics. One's concept of morality is only good if it conforms to the Divine concept.

Also, how would you best define and describe your theistic view? For example, do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

I don't know why I'd bother to "define and describe" it, do you? I'd simply say that I try to believe what I find to be true, or what I have fair cause to believe. Why would anyone want to live any other way? I have no interest in pidgeon-holes...they're great for pidgeons, and nothing else.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:59 am
Immanuel, 'evil' applies subjectively not objectively.
(IC replied)If that's your answer, then evil means only "what Belinda doesn't happen to like." So your question about God allowing natural evils would then reduce to, "Why does God allow things Belinda doesn't happen to like"?

But I speak for most people. Most people dislike what causes suffering whether it's a tsunami or a man's murderous intention. Most people like what causes pleasure, prosperity, and peace."Most people" is composed of individuals who have feelings, mutual feelings.

Answering you, Immanuel, is a ritual. The rebuttal I have just given to you is by now ritualised . You will no doubt repeat the same old objections. You never progress. Unfortunately it's typical of religious to trot out the broken- winded old horse that carries Authority.

[Immanuel Can]

But I speak for most people. Most people dislike what causes suffering whether it's a tsunami or a man's murderous intention. Most people like what causes pleasure, prosperity, and peace."Most people" is composed of individuals who have feelings, mutual feelings.

That has no importance at all. "Most people" once believed the Earth was flat, and "most people" once believed the body was a composite of four "humours." Moreover, things that you and I will probably regard as totally evil -- slavery, wife-beating, genocide, rape -- have been called "good" by the majority at different times in history. If you define "good" and "evil" by the majority, you'd have to say that at least in the 17th Century, slavery was "good."Nothing about people's beliefs made it right.

If good and evil are subjective, no amount of belief will make them anything more than the contingent, present-moment preferences of the individual. You cannot even rationally ask the question "Why would God allow evil," unless you are already believing that "evil" is and objective reality to which you can make someone accountable. If you don't, your question would still amount to nothing more than the much more petulant and trivial, "Why won't God do what I like?"

[Belinda]

Immanuel, it is very important that any creature that can learn does avoid suffering. Even very humble organisms with primitive nervous systems avoid irritating ambiences. I am brainier than an amoeba, so why might one ask, do I read your posts?

Answer: I persevere because religion in one form or another is here to stay as long as 'religion' indicates the acting out of the predominant morality. Your brand of Christianity which depends upon old authorities instead of independent thought is unworthy of our species and is actually imprudent at this dangerous time in world affairs.

[attofishpi]

Why/how are you reasoning that God is all benevolent?

That's a bit like asking, "how are you reasoning that your wife loves you?" You can do that sort of estimation by mere reason, I suppose, but it's relationality that breathes life into that belief.

I've never studied philosophy, but I think, since it deals with logic and coming to conclusions, that it attempts to break down a matter considered 'subjective' and bring an objective conclusion.
It is irrational to believe that God is both all benevolent and omnipotent. For example, many parents lose their children to leukemia - is God being ALL benevolent here?

Leibniz thought you could reason it out so far as to conclude that this is "the best of all possible worlds," therefore, God having given us "the best of all possible worlds," we could deduce He was Good. But I don't think we can do that, actually. It's like Kierkegaard said -- until we venture belief in God, we have only theoretical propositions about Him. It's when we risk ourselves authentically on the belief that God is true that we come to discover He is. There is simply no knowing Him without faith -- not belief in the face of or absence of evidence, but rather a vertiginous leap premised on what must be admitted is only indicative evidence.

But then, He told us it would be like that. We would have to believe in order to know. (I think Anselm said the same thing, actually).

I have no argument with that.

More importantly, though, from where does the secular person get the concept "evil," even to apply it to people, let alone to earthquakes and hurricanes?

So what is your concept of evil?

Well, my personal concept is not important, unless it at least conforms in some ways to the objective truth about evil.
What I merely regard as evil or good may not be either -- and there are plenty of examples of people making wrong assessments about that.

What do YOU regard as evil, whether or not I or anyone else consider such things 'evil' is not relevant to my questioning.
Since you believe there is a God, do you believe there is a satan/devil?

Also, how would you best define and describe your theistic view? For example, do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

I don't know why I'd bother to "define and describe" it, do you? I'd simply say that I try to believe what I find to be true, or what I have fair cause to believe. Why would anyone want to live any other way? I have no interest in pidgeon-holes...they're great for pidgeons, and nothing else.

Do you believe all the statements within Genesis are true?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, it is very important that any creature that can learn does avoid suffering. Even very humble organisms with primitive nervous systems avoid irritating ambiences. I am brainier than an amoeba, so why might one ask, do I read your posts?

And yet, the athlete in training puts himself through horrible pains in order to prepare for races. The pregnant woman agrees to be ripped in half in order to give birth. The honourable soldier lays down his very life for the freedom of others. All suffer pain they could have avoided.

So what you say is just not true. Every day furnishes us with examples of warranted suffering. But even if what you suggest were right -- that creatures prefer to avoid pain -- that would not show that there was an moral rightness or wrongness in them doing so.

We don't call it "evil" when a lion kills a gazelle. So why do we call it "evil" when humans suffer or die? You will have to prove to me that "evil" there is more than a mere word, or there's no justification for you asking anyone why "evil" happens...the answer will be, "It's subjective: it only happens in your personal imagination."

Answer: I persevere because religion in one form or another is here to stay as long as 'religion' indicates the acting out of the predominant morality.

So had you lived in interbellum Germany, you'd have been a Nazi? Had you been a southern Democrat in the 18th Century, you'd have owned slaves? And in both cases, your supposition is that you'd have been "right" to do that? For certainly, in those days, that was indeed the "predominant morality."

But your problem is far worse than that. You have not even shown that such a thing as "morality" exists -- so your question doesn't even make sense. Again, it reduces to "Why does God do what Belinda doesn't like?" The easy answer to that is, "Because Belinda isn't God."

Then you have no rationally justifiable exception to such a response. You may not find it very satisfying to you, but again, that's just subjective. For only if "evil" means something objective, something much more solid, real and universal than "what Belinda doesn't like" can you even pose the question.

[Immanuel Can]

It is irrational to believe that God is both all benevolent and omnipotent. For example, many parents lose their children to leukemia - is God being ALL benevolent here?

You would have to presume Determinism there. You would have to say, "If cancer happens, there can only be one reason it does: God." You couldn't say it happened by chance, you couldn't say it happened by diet, you couldn't say it happened as a judgment, or that it happened because of environmental pollutants, or by some choice made by some other person, or even through a genetic flaw. If human beings are free, all of these are possible alternate answers; so your suggestion that there can only be two answers depends on you also believing in Determinism.

But I can see from your earlier answers that you're certainly not a Determinist. Given that, you've accidentally asked a question that makes no sense, given your own assumptions about the freedom of at least some kinds of human action. If you believe in free will, you'd have to concede at least some possibility of human input -- direct or indirect -- in such situations.

What do YOU regard as evil, whether or not I or anyone else consider such things 'evil' is not relevant to my questioning.

"Good" is that which is consonant with the character of God Himself. That which is incompatible with that character is what we objectively can call "evil."

Do you believe all the statements within Genesis are true?

Let me ask you this: do you believe it would be okay for God to speak in illustrations, metaphors or poetry as well as in statements of bald fact? Or do you suppose God can only communicate truth if He is exclusively literal, and uses absolutely no normal devices of human communication, such as parables or figures of speech?

Then I'll understand what you mean by "true." And then I'll know how to answer that question.