Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

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 the same.

Back to the main question, then: on what basis can an Atheist assert there is a theodicy problem? Since he doesn't believe in objective evil, he's got no basis.

[Gary Childress]

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 the same.

Back to the main question, then: on what basis can an Atheist assert there is a theodicy problem? Since he doesn't believe in objective evil, he's got no basis.

I'm not an "atheist" and don't really care that much what "atheists" think as long as they aren't out killing other people. I care more about what professed "religious" people think when they accuse people of "petulance" for fearing death. It's disgusting!

[Immanuel Can]

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.

[Will Bouwman]

By secularism's lights, nothing is objectively evil.

Of course not; evil doesn't have a context outside of religion.

[Gary Childress]

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. We all know what "evil" is. If you were standing in front of an enraged person wielding a chainsaw, you'd figure out without any problem what "evil" is. Humans are humans, whether religious or not, whether atheist or not. Contrary to what some may seem to believe, religion wasn't invented by Martians from experiences that only Martians can understand.

[Immanuel Can]

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 "context." What Atheism doesn't have is an account of "evil" that has any objective basis.

We all know what "evil" is.

That's an odd fact, from an Atheist perspective, too: why should the purely-material world generate in us beliefs in a value that is actually merely illusory, and which has no basis in objective fact? That seems an odd thing for materials to do. And why would this intuition, that there are things that are "evil" be so universal, as well? That's very odd, surely.

However, mere intuition will not be sufficient here. If there's a real, objective "evil," we ought to be able to find out what feature of reality we're picking out by using the term. And if we can't, then the theodicy problem cannot be launched from any secular perspective: for we can't even say what it is we're questioning, then.

[Will Bouwman]

...evil doesn't have a context outside of religion.

Evil has as much "context" outside of religion as anything else does. We all know what "evil" is. If you were standing in front of an enraged person wielding a chainsaw, you'd figure out without any problem what "evil" is. Humans are humans, whether religious or not, whether atheist or not. Religion wasn't invented by Martians from experiences that only Martians can understand.

It's not for me to tell you how to use words, but were I to be confronted by a chainsaw wielding maniac, I wouldn't call them evil. 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.

[Gary Childress]

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 "context." What Atheism doesn't have is an account of "evil" that has any objective basis.

We all know what "evil" is.

That's an odd fact, from an Atheist perspective, too: why should the purely-material world generate in us beliefs in a value that is actually merely illusory, and which has no basis in objective fact? That seems an odd thing for materials to do. And why would this intuition, that there are things that are "evil" be so universal, as well? That's very odd, surely.

However, mere intuition will not be sufficient here. If there's a real, objective "evil," we ought to be able to find out what feature of reality we're picking out by using the term. And if we can't, then the theodicy problem cannot be launched from any secular perspective: for we can't even say what it is we're questioning, then.

Who cares about the "theodicy problem"? Some humans (including me) have an aversion to all the death and suffering going on in the world and if God is apparently the master architect of all this, then it's pretty understandable for people who have experienced horrible things to be incredulous toward God. He's not your God that you keep in your pocket anyway. If there's a God, then God belongs to all, even those who have been disaffected by the world s/he created. Just because you grew up in a Christian environment doesn't mean you're a step up from everyone else.

[Dubious]

Evil is one of the easiest things to understand in regard to origin but one of the most complex to come to terms with psychologically. Philosophy has never really explained any of it except in convoluted, religious or abstract terms which get regurgitated over and over again with zero result which no god, devil or other hypothetical entity was ever responsible for.

Here's a 30-second explanation of who its real agent is, was and remains...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kh6yTupViJ0

[Immanuel Can]

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 "evil" is, I invite you to share it.

[Gary Childress]

...evil doesn't have a context outside of religion.

Evil has as much "context" outside of religion as anything else does. We all know what "evil" is. If you were standing in front of an enraged person wielding a chainsaw, you'd figure out without any problem what "evil" is. Humans are humans, whether religious or not, whether atheist or not. Religion wasn't invented by Martians from experiences that only Martians can understand.

It's not for me to tell you how to use words, but were I to be confronted by a chainsaw wielding maniac, I wouldn't call them evil. 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.

Believe me, a chainsaw wielding maniac is as much "evil" to someone he's standing in front of as his name may be "Jeffrey" according to his mother and father. Just because you don't call it "evil", doesn't mean you don't or can't know why others do. And just because someone uses a harsh word like "evil" to describe someone like that under those circumstances, doesn't mean you wouldn't have similar sentiments toward their assailant to the ones they are having prior to being ground up.

[Immanuel Can]

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" are all neutral, then the problem returns. For in that instance, synonyms for "evil" don't change the nature of the problem, and theodicy arguments remain illogical.

[Gary Childress]

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 "evil" is, I invite you to share it.

Do you "like" evil? Why would anyone "like" what many of us call "evil"? We're all talking about the same thing.

[Will Bouwman]

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 there's a real, objective "evil," we ought to be able to find out what feature of reality we're picking out by using the term.

I think you are massively overreaching. How does one find out a feature of reality by using a term?

[Immanuel Can]

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?