Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:03 pm
None of us "like" evil.
Actually, a great many do. But it's irrelevant, either way.

I'll say again, Gary: this is not any kind of problem specific to Christianity. The theodicy problem is generated by Atheists and skeptics, not by Christians. All we're asking is that they should make their demand coherent and rational with their own worldview. Here, we're not expecting them to accept ours: only to explain the reasoning that justifies their own, on their own terms, if they can.
Why should they make their reasoning any more coherent than yours?
Because they claim to be the rational, thoughtful ones. And they want their objection, their theodicy problem, taken seriously. So they owe us a rational account of what it is they're asking.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:30 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:03 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 12:57 am
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 from our more reasoned, mature and grounded antipathy to evil. The former isn't the latter. But we need to be able to prove our antipathy to evil has something behind it, other than temper or selfishness.
I don't understand why you brought toddlers into the conversation, I don't get your point.
Because toddlers have strong emotions...but having "strong, subjective, emotions" (as you phrased it) doesn't signal anything about the rightness or wrongness, truth or falsehood, of what sends them into a tizzy.

The same is true of us: the fact that we have emotions about a thing doesn't tell us whether it's good or evil. It only tells us about what we personally do or do not like. But to establish something like the theodicy problem, we need to elicit agreement among rational others; and on what basis will we do so, given that we have no objective basis for our conception of evil?

One thing for sure: "emotion" isn't going to give us warrant for such a conception.
I don't want to be unreasonable, though, so when someone explains to me what this objective thing called evil is, I will give it my consideration.
I'm in the same position with regard to the theodicy problem: I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge it, so long as the speaker can justify his appeal to "evil" in presenting it. But it's not obvious that a secular person or Atheist can make his own argument cogent. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth when he asks, "How can God allow evil," then insists that neither God nor evil is objectively real.
I suppose I know I am owed justice because my country's legal system says so.
And when it stops saying it owes you "justice'?

There are some people that believe their society "owes" them free speech. Others say it owes them freedom from hearing other people's free speech. Others say, "free health care." Others say, "free purchase of the health care I need, when I want it." Some say, "gun ownership." Some say "open borders." Others say, "a living wage." Others say, "freedom of movement" or "freedom of commerce," or "abortion," or "welfare payments," or "a fair trial and a presumption of innocence," or "universal public education." There are lots of claims about what society "owes." But how many of them can we rationally justify by showing that society actually "owes" them to anybody?

So if only society tells us we have a right to "justice," then we have it only so long as we live in that society, or only so long as that society doesn't change...that is, if "justice" means only "what society promises."
The problem is that, unlike eating, our sense of justice or our feeling we have rights, or perhaps our intuition that there's something called "evil" cannot be met without our convincing others to agree with us. So we would need reasons why these things require not just subjective approval (which we could be denied, for any reason at all) but objective and universal recognition.

We can get food by ourselves, often: we cannot get rights, or justice or a definition of evil without providing reasons to others to agree with us that these are real and deserved things. But what would such reasons be?
I don't know what such reasons would be, do you?
Not from a secular perspective. But I'm willing to hear the secular argument, if somebody has one.
You keep bringing up this theodicy problem with me, but I don't have a position on it. I haven't commented on it, and it is not something I have an opinion on, or interest in.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:38 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 pm
Actually, a great many do. But it's irrelevant, either way.

I'll say again, Gary: this is not any kind of problem specific to Christianity. The theodicy problem is generated by Atheists and skeptics, not by Christians. All we're asking is that they should make their demand coherent and rational with their own worldview. Here, we're not expecting them to accept ours: only to explain the reasoning that justifies their own, on their own terms, if they can.
Why should they make their reasoning any more coherent than yours?
Because they claim to be the rational, thoughtful ones. And they want their objection, their theodicy problem, taken seriously. So they owe us a rational account of what it is they're asking.
If they owe us a "rational" account then has it ever occurred to you that Christians might also "owe" us a "rational" account? Are you like 3 years old or something? Who is being a "toddler", IC?????
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:39 pmYou keep bringing up this theodicy problem with me, but I don't have a position on it. I haven't commented on it, and it is not something I have an opinion on, or interest in.
It was the subject we were dealing with when you joined. If you're not interested, there's no reason to participate, I guess.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:40 pm If they owe us a "rational" account then has it ever occurred to you that Christians might also "owe" us a "rational" account?
The theodicy problem is launched from the skeptical perspective, for the sake of justifying skepticism. As such, the skeptic bears the responsibility for saying what he means.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:43 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:39 pmYou keep bringing up this theodicy problem with me, but I don't have a position on it. I haven't commented on it, and it is not something I have an opinion on, or interest in.
It was the subject we were dealing with when you joined. If you're not interested, there's no reason to participate, I guess.
So don't participate! I for one would welcome the respite from your stupidity!!!!
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:44 pm As such, the skeptic bears the responsibility for saying what he means.
Oh, making new rules now, are we?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:43 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:39 pmYou keep bringing up this theodicy problem with me, but I don't have a position on it. I haven't commented on it, and it is not something I have an opinion on, or interest in.
It was the subject we were dealing with when you joined. If you're not interested, there's no reason to participate, I guess.
I thought we were talking about evil. :?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:46 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:44 pm As such, the skeptic bears the responsibility for saying what he means.
Oh, making new rules now, are we?
No new rule, Gary. Only common sense and basic rationality. Any person who says something should know what he means; and a person who demands that God answer for evil can't rationally do so if he doesn't believe in objective evil.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:43 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:39 pmYou keep bringing up this theodicy problem with me, but I don't have a position on it. I haven't commented on it, and it is not something I have an opinion on, or interest in.
It was the subject we were dealing with when you joined. If you're not interested, there's no reason to participate, I guess.
I thought we were talking about evil. :?
We are. But in the context of the theodicy argument.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:49 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:46 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:44 pm As such, the skeptic bears the responsibility for saying what he means.
Oh, making new rules now, are we?
No new rule, Gary. Only common sense and basic rationality. Any person who says something should know what he means; and a person who demands that God answer for evil can't rationally do so if he doesn't believe in objective evil.
It must be difficult living in a world where you're the only one with "common sense" IC. How do you stand being around the rest of us dolts?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:50 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:49 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:46 pm Oh, making new rules now, are we?
No new rule, Gary. Only common sense and basic rationality. Any person who says something should know what he means; and a person who demands that God answer for evil can't rationally do so if he doesn't believe in objective evil.
It must be difficult living in a world where you're the only one with "common sense" IC.
It's actually "common." Most people can see basic reasoning. (No insult to present company implied.)
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:50 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:43 pm
It was the subject we were dealing with when you joined. If you're not interested, there's no reason to participate, I guess.
I thought we were talking about evil. :?
We are. But in the context of the theodicy argument.
Oh dear! The rest of us have been arguing incorrectly all along! We've got it all wrong. If only we could see how wrong we are and how right IC is. We're just so pathetic! :roll:
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:53 pm (No insult to present company implied.)
You're such a fucking hypocrite, IC. :lol:
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

"I should note that I was once a devout Christian myself as a young man."

weren't we all, Biggs. weren't we all. but i was a fake, in fact. i remember doing my first stint in jail (eleven days) at 20 years old and while in there i read damn near three quarters of the bible and wuz totally blown away by the grandeur of the story. it wuz magnificent reading (as N described the old testament once). spellbinding.

so anyway this is months before i encountered Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy so I hadn't any heavyweight atheistic thoughts in my head beyond the question of whether or not god could create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it... which wuz my first encounter with a bonafide philosophical problem. Yeah it wuz pretty bad man.

I'd sooner talk about crystal energy and the power of YES (the band) than i would Hume's problem of induction and Popper's falsifiability principle. so i had nothing in my head to save me from this bible's seductive force.

when my homeboy and girlfriend picked me up when i got out, i immediately started preachin and tellin em how it all makes sense and I'm paging through my bible reading quotes i highlighted with a pen to em and everything. i musta sounded like a total dingbat. bro i can't even remember what i wuz thinking... how i could think that stuff wuz true.

u know what wuz happenin'? i wuz in a foxhole and wuz subconsciously tryna manipulate god into helpin me out becuz jail sucked so bad. but i felt like one of those baptists charged by the holy spirit. an evangelist or sumthin. i had to spread the werd and the glory etc. couple weeks later all that wuz gone. it wuz a total hoax and I wuz a poser.
Post Reply