Sunday, 08 March 2009

• DChernik & "Arguments from Evil and All Good Options"

  
  

  Intro:

  In my comment to James Chastek (link) on the argument from evil (link), I linked to an old mega-post (link) outlining my full argument from evil against the likelihood of a good, all powerful deity existing.  Someone listening in to that conversation dropped me a note (link) saying that they had wrote up a response to my first argument on that post .  Here, I'm reposting my comment to his own post (link).  Basically my argument was that a good, all powerful, all-knowing God should not have created humanity with the ability to select from evil options given that their eternal security was on the line and that most of them would be damned for all eternity.  Free will only requires that there be options and so the vast spectrum of good choices could be available and it would still be intact.  His conclusion is that this is not logically possible since evil options really aren't clear and distinct in and of themselves (i.e. they don't all wear evil mustaches), since morality is so complicated, and we are errant, ignorant rational creatures it is logically impossible for God to create that kind of human.  Enjoy!
  

  ---

  Round 1 
  
  Hey Dmitry!

  First of all, thanks for the response! Second, I’d also like to express a certain satisfaction that you were not overwhelmed by my epic-ly long list and did not bother complaining about that aspect of it. You actually just focused in on one single point and went to town. So few people have been willing to do that (without prompting) and when someone does it’s like WOW! So simple, yet so hard to come by! Very relieved.

  Third, I’d like to say that it appears that we are on the same page in terms of what has been labeled “psychological egoism.” (your version: “All human action is aimed at improvement of the actor’s conditions.”) Apparently not all Christians agree with you and that’s fine. Their reasoning appears to be a defense of this: There needs to be a such thing to them as a 100% self-less act. Now, I think that conclusion is immature (since helping others is good, why is it a moral evil for yourself to be helped even a little by your own actions?) and I totally agree with your assessment there. I have no idea how divided (or concerned) much of intellectual Christendom is on this issue, but I thought I’d call some attention to it.

  Anyway, my basic rebuttal to this is already included in my original statement and also you’ve provided another counter example yourself.

  Your conclusion here is:

  “It cannot, in principle, be done.”

  I said there:

  “If you believe this is impossible for some reason, consider what heaven will be like. Isn’t that exactly going to be the case? And consider what we will do when we beget A.I. Will we not program them to be as human as possible…but yet exclude evil options? Will they not be better people than we are? Will we have robbed them of something worthwhile? I think not.”

  So I used both an example from the Christian worldview and from my own (since I’m a physicalist who thinks we can in principle program moral robots). And you added for me:

  “If it is asked: Why hasn’t God made creatures who are already fully formed?, the answer is, He did, and they are called angels. We come to exist differently, as per our animal nature, and that’s a brute fact. If we are to be human or rational animals, then “evil” cannot be avoided: we and the world at large are simply too complex to master without mistakes.”  [emphasis mine]

  Your mistake is that you didn’t defend the “if” as though it is logically necessary for a race of beings like humans to be created at all when in fact only angels could have been created instead. That alone takes the overall salvation score board up from “few” humans being saved to 2/3rds of the angels remaining on God’s team (our only two major sample ranges in the Christian worldview). Now, I still think that’s a little silly in and of itself, but in order to win the paradigm killing point here, all I had to show is that the Christian moral paradigm is self refuting. It really doesn’t matter how complicated morality is (and I agree with you, incidentally), since you *have* to agree (even if it’s *not* possible in reality) that the Christian worldview *requires* it to be possible for a future new heavens and a new earth to exist where humans don’t have to worry about sin anymore. God has to know how to do it. If goodness is to have any meaning, and if God is to be called good, God should not have made humans who can do evil since he would know the disastrous and eternal consequences of such an action. I’m sure every good god knows better. What’s up with YHWH?

  The fair warning here is that when you start being inconsistent with morality, it backfires in so many ways because so many things are related. For instance, if I were to become a Christian, I would be forced to accept that it is justifiable to knowingly do more harm than good in terms of moral decision making. We’re supposed to be perfect like our father in heaven is perfect, and yet these are the kind of decisions he gets away with? That’s all kinds of inconsistent. A Christian can even attack a non-theistic worldview as being devoid of good and evil and it wouldn’t matter. The Christian worldview would be unlivable if applied consistently and at the very least we’d have to find a different version of theism on the vast market of religion. So whatever you tell yourself, this is the kind of stumbling block (one of many, actually) that keeps me from taking Christianity seriously.

  Thanks again for your input!

  Ben

  ---

  ROUND 2
  

  Dmitry responded:
  

  The difference between this world and heaven is that in heaven you are confirmed in goodness. The advantage of this is that you experience no pain or sorrow. You simply enjoy whatever goods are available in heaven, such as contemplation of God. But the potential problem is that the spiritual battle that so well characterized Earth is over, and you can no longer improve. There is no more action. That does not mean that nothing’s going on, for you might grow in intellectual virtues but not in charity or the moral virtues. And the amount of charity you have determines your heavenly reward (such as: how well you see God). So, in heaven, you are, in a manner of speaking, what you are; true, no longer mutable toward moral evil but not mutable toward further moral good either. Progress and change belong to this life only.

  > Your mistake is that you didn’t defend the “if” as though it is logically necessary for a race of beings like humans to be created at all when in fact only angels could have been created instead.

  It’s logically necessary only for the metaphysical perfection of the universe but not for any other purpose. But are you saying then that you’d rather not exist? Of course, you can’t say: “I’d rather be an angel,” because angels are a different species, and you can’t want to lose your human nature — that’d be suicide. It’s like wanting to be turned into a pillar of salt. Besides, angels were not created already beatified and in glory; they were created in grace and had to choose either God or no-God by one act, whereas we humans choose by numerous acts during our lives of grace.

  ---

  My response:
  
  You've elaborated on what you think heaven entails, but the same question still applies.  Why are we presupposing this particular universe needs to be metaphysically perfected?  Why did this kind of universe need to exist at all if a good god could easily do better? 
  
  What is missing from the "confirmed in goodness" point of view is that there doesn't appear to be a reason why individuals could not be born already confirmed in goodness.  Obviously if virtue is malleable enough to change and cultivate here on earth through mental activity, there's no reason why an all powerful deity could not simply provide that same psychological profile from the start.  Why is even a single act of the angels a necessary requirement?  Why even that one option?  Basically the 50 years you spent on earth is just a drop in the bucket of eternity and so one must wonder what purpose does it serve for an eternity that won't be anything about that choice? It's like learning a special skill like hacking through the jungle, only to spend about 3 feet hacking through a jungle.  The rest of the way is clear and that skill is now useless (but apparently given tantamount importance).  It is a little staggering to think that how we do this earthly test costs humans so much forever.  That's like the most unfair pop-quiz ever. 
  
  I know the Eastern Orthodox, for instance, actually think eternity isn't static (in terms of moral growth) and that you are ascending "from glory to glory" forever getting closer to God (or farther away).  And I have to say that's a better position than you appear to hold regardless of how unbiblical it may be (since it's more like reincarnation).   
  
  Apparently you think suicide aversion is more important than happiness and I have to disagree.  What's the point of existing if you can't enjoy it?  I did an opinion poll (link) on that very topic and most people I asked agreed with my point of view.  If I knew there was a much greater chance that I would end up forever suffering in hell, I would not want to risk it.  That's like a salvation Russian Roulette.  I might even not want to exist if I knew I was going to be one of the lucky few just because I wouldn't want to think my choice cost every one else their eternal damnation.  Wouldn't that be incredibly selfish?  This isn't even suicide, since I would have to exist to decide I didn't want to exist in the first place.  A good God would never create a me to begin with since by definition of being me, it would be disrespecting my wishes to actualize me. 
  
  On a side note, if an angel heard you say that wanting to be like them is about on par with wanting to be like a pillar of salt, they'd probably be quite offended.  At least an angel is a powerful sentient being and we have a great deal more in common than we do with inanimate objects.  In fact, I think in a college speech class (when I was taking Christianity seriously), when they asked me what else I would be other than human, I picked angel for that very reason.  Cats think cat thoughts and rocks don't think at all.  Those are definite downgrades.
  
  

  ---

  ROUND 3
  
  Dmitry adds:
  
  If we do create artificial intelligence that will be like humans (not going to happen), you should be prepared for the possibility that the robots will want to do something of which you disapprove.

  You also have not responded to my query about the “all or nothing multiverse,” which I argued was a far more ambitious claim than merely “God exists.” Theists claim that God knows all possible worlds, most of which are in His mind. This theory seems to claim that these possible worlds are actual. Isn’t that crazy? Besides, God is one the things that God can imagine. Does God therefore exist?
  

  ---

  My response:
  

  I’m already well aware of the possible consequences of building A. I. and have discussed the differences between our perspectives in the past (link). And no matter how far along we are in making progress in computer science and how far behind supernaturalism is in vindicating any of its magical claims, you’re still certain we can’t make human like robots? Amazing. Please see the second half of my response to Elliot B (link) for how I defend Max Tegmark’s multiverse.

  To answer the one point you’ve brought up here not yet addressed there: No, your god is not a possible option since it entails a logical contradiction. There could be a universe just like ours under divine control and another just like ours not under divine control. Therefore, if your god is defined as all powerful, there cannot be a god that is both in control of everything and not in control of everything. There would always be an infinite number of things not under this “all powerful” god’s dominion. That’s just one aspect to consider. There could possibly be a very powerful god out there somewhere similar to how YHWH is described in the Bible and likely there is if Tegmark is correct, but that doesn’t mean there is one that can interact with us here. Examples from science fiction would be the Ori from Stargate or the Q continuum on Star Trek. In that regard, I’m an apatheist (as I originally mentioned on James Chastek’s blog), meaning I don’t care about such gods until they show up an introduce themselves.

  Ben

  ---

  ROUND 4
  

  Dmitry responds:
  

  Ben, by “universe” I mean everything created and everything else that could be created. As I write here, this universe is perfect in two senses: (1) that no grade of being is missing in it; (2) because of its suitability for soulmaking. You ask: “Why did this kind of universe need to exist at all if a good god could easily do better?” But that’s the whole point: God cannot do better.

  You ask “why individuals could not be born already confirmed in goodness.” Well, the problem with that is that God would not then ask His creatures what they want to be. I am what I am, because I want to be what I am; I have chosen my own personality, my own identity; I have built myself the way I want to be. Angels, too, decided their own destiny on their own, autonomously. Furthermore, the state of being confirmed in goodness is called “glory.” But glory is earned for holy and heroic deeds. God would have to create us with false memories of our victories in life, a monstrous thing, I’m sure you’ll agree.

  You go on: This life compared to the eternity with God is “like learning a special skill like hacking through the jungle, only to spend about 3 feet hacking through a jungle.” I am going to have to revise my conception of heaven in light of this wonderful objection. It is not true that there is no action in heaven. Even in contemplation of God one may need to choose to contemplate this aspect of Him as opposed to that aspect. What makes heaven different is that the blessed there have no 2nd-order desires. I’m sure you are familiar with what those are: 1st-order desires are desires for goods, while second-order desires are desires to change existing desires. So, suppose I’m addicted to sex. My 1st-order desire is to have sex. But I also realize that acting on it is wrong, sinful, shameful, etc., and I want to be the kind of person who is chaste. That is my 2nd-order desire. The distinction constitutes the difference between virtue and happiness; in Kant’s terms, in this life we make ourselves “worthy of happiness,” by purifying our 1st-order desires, and in heaven our virtue is crowned with actual happiness. I suspect that heaven is far more complex than we think, and plenty of varying goods are available there to be enjoyed. So, in heaven each saint is perfectly content with what he is, even if he gets to choose what to enjoy.

  It follows that your identity will be preserved in heaven. That includes all the moral virtues and all the skills you have acquired, such as computer programming or philosophy. See also: Aquinas, “The duration of virtues after this life.”

  Notice also how this is no longer an argument for the non-existence of God from “evil.” It is rather something opposite to it: you argue that compared to heaven, this life is trivial, and so are the evils we encounter in it. Therefore (you ask), why bother with this life? That may be a good question (or not), but by now we’ve wondered far away from the problem of evil.

  By comparing turning into an angel with turning into a pillar of salt I mean this: that both fail to preserve identity through change. “You” are the same person you were last year, but becoming an angel or a pillar of salt is not a transformation which preserve your sense of self: both involve a wholesale destruction of you and creation ex nihilo of an angel or a pillar of salt. It is absurd to ask the pillar: “Are you still Ben?” And the same goes for the angel. As far as hell is concerned, I am a universalist, in that I think that no one goes to hell. So then, “lay down that gun, don’t try, my friend, to reach the great beyond — you’ll have more fun by reaching for a redhead or a blonde.”

  Finally, “your god is not a possible option since it entails a logical contradiction.” Well, that’s a problem for your theory not for my god, isn’t it? I say God is eminently possible, and you have to work on your modal logic a bit.

  ---

  My response:
  
  So basically you mean everything that is not God even if their are other creations of his out there we don't know of?  Okeydokie.
  
  (1) that no grade of being is missing in it;
  
  This is where I see the issue.  You are basically saying your god has poor standards for what he creates and yet you still want to call him good as opposed to amoral.  Why wouldn't a good god create only "grades" of creation that were "in the green" so to speak?  Why not all grade A creations as opposed to meandering down to grades D and F?  How does one reconcile any ideas of "perfection" or "goodness" with this low standard god if his only standard is that at least some soul cultivating comes out of the equation no matter how meager? 
  
  But that’s the whole point: God cannot do better.
  
  That's what's in dispute.  Apparently, if God cannot do better and all grades exist, assuming you think there are more grades (which seems a reasonable inference), that means that every other creation is even worse than this.  Have I got that right?
  
  You ask “why individuals could not be born already confirmed in goodness.” Well, the problem with that is that God would not then ask His creatures what they want to be. I am what I am, because I want to be what I am; I have chosen my own personality, my own identity; I have built myself the way I want to be.
  
  Since you concede it is possible for humans to exist with only 1st order desires, why can't we just be created with only good first order desires?  Even with 1st and secondary order desires, we don't really choose to have any desires at all or which first and secondary ones to have.  We just have them.  Yes we can have a little gladiatorial death match and perhaps that's great reality TV in heaven to see people duking their holiness out (inner desire vs inner desire), but I really don't see the point of it, especially in light of the EXTREME long run.
  
  God would have to create us with false memories of our victories in life, a monstrous thing, I’m sure you’ll agree.
  
  Nope.  I don't see why 1st order desires have to be predicated on memories of having done good things.  With just a little imagination and a mind for how we might go about programming moral A. I., even if some substance was necessary, generic archetypal stand in memories could suffice to flesh things out.  They could even understand this was the case.  It's not like they'd have to be deceived.  It would just be a matter of they know how their virtue can play out in generic virtuous scenarios.  In fact, that's basically what we do already when we read stories.  We empathize with our heroes with literally the same mirror neurons that we use to understand our own predicaments.  Is that monstrous?  I sure hope not!  I don't see how they could complain, especially since they'd be by definition cheerful and if we give them the 1st order desire to be exactly what they are, they certainly won't complain, so the loop is pretty easy to close.  I'll be sure and not put you in charge of programming our robots.  ;)  No offense.  I see no conceptual reason to think we won't be able to do this kind of stuff any more than I see a conceptual reason to think God couldn't already have done this with humans especially given that Christian doctrine pretty much already requires it to be possible for the sake of eternity.
  
  You go on: This life compared to the eternity with God is “like learning a special skill like hacking through the jungle, only to spend about 3 feet hacking through a jungle.” I am going to have to revise my conception of heaven in light of this wonderful objection.
  
  Cool!
  
  What makes heaven different is that the blessed there have no 2nd-order desires. I’m sure you are familiar with what those are: 1st-order desires are desires for goods, while second-order desires are desires to change existing desires. So, suppose I’m addicted to sex. My 1st-order desire is to have sex. But I also realize that acting on it is wrong, sinful, shameful, etc., and I want to be the kind of person who is chaste. That is my 2nd-order desire. The distinction constitutes the difference between virtue and happiness; in Kant’s terms, in this life we make ourselves “worthy of happiness,” by purifying our 1st-order desires, and in heaven our virtue is crowned with actual happiness.
  
  Well my version of this is a little more elaborate (since it is typical to have more than 2 desires on any given issue and the range, influence, potency, etc. of each can be rather complicated), but for this terminology definitely works for this conversation. 
  
  Notice also how this is no longer an argument for the non-existence of God from “evil.” It is rather something opposite to it: you argue that compared to heaven, this life is trivial, and so are the evils we encounter in it. Therefore (you ask), why bother with this life? That may be a good question (or not), but by now we’ve wondered far away from the problem of evil.
  
  Technically, my argument is directly about the implausibility of the Christian salvation scheme and I only make use of the "argument from evil" terminology because that is popular and well known.  My mega-argument from evil post was originally titled, "The Problem of Botched Saint Cultivation" and it still says:  I focus virtually every argument on the incompetence of what the biblical God says is his reason for allowing evil in the first place…I argue about human suffering the context of saint cultivation (1 Timothy 2:4).  I make the very same hacking through the jungle point in argument 3 of that post.  It appears we've only wandered to where I've always been standing. 
  
  By comparing turning into an angel with turning into a pillar of salt I mean this: that both fail to preserve identity through change. “You” are the same person you were last year, but becoming an angel or a pillar of salt is not a transformation which preserve your sense of self: both involve a wholesale destruction of you and creation ex nihilo of an angel or a pillar of salt. It is absurd to ask the pillar: “Are you still Ben?” And the same goes for the angel.
  
  I understood what you meant, I just disagreed.  Since I have more in common with the nature of angels than I do with rocks, it is still plausible that I could basically still be in the ballpark of Ben.  Granted we can't know for sure, but we certainly can't know it is wholesale destruction either, right?  I mean, if you ONLY had the option of being an angel or a relief sculpture of yourself, you're honestly telling me you wouldn't go for the angel option in the hopes of some self preservation?  I find that hard to believe.      
  
  As far as hell is concerned, I am a universalist, in that I think that no one goes to hell. So then, “lay down that gun, don’t try, my friend, to reach the great beyond — you’ll have more fun by reaching for a redhead or a blonde.”
  
  Yay!  That's a much brighter future to look forward to.  Perhaps you could elaborate a little on how your conception of universalism connects to this discussion.  For my information (if you care to divulge), what is your view on the authority of scripture?  I'm certainly not looking to punish anyone for departing from it, but do you think the Bible actually teaches universalism?  If so, I don't know what to do with all that "the doors will be closed and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" rhetoric (link).  And three, if everyone is going to be saved in the end, the question comes back to the implausibility of the interlude?  And the objection in moral terms that I've seen from various atheists is that raping and molesting your child isn't okay just because you take them to Disney Land in the end.  Abuse is abuse and most of it is pointless.  It's still an argument to the better explanation that the relative chaos of life is more consistent with metaphysical naturalism than your conception of the Christian salvation scheme. 
  
  Finally, “your god is not a possible option since it entails a logical contradiction.” Well, that’s a problem for your theory not for my god, isn’t it? I say God is eminently possible, and you have to work on your modal logic a bit.
  
  Forgive me for throwing the ball back in your court, but I see no reason to prefer one random absolute over another to characterize the brute fact of all that exists.  It completely misses the point.  Why not the most perfect cosmic chicken to rule all universes with its unseen pecking that displays itself in the transient result of people bumping their heads?  We could define this arbitrary cosmic chicken to be eminently possible, but the problem of particularity clearly has been trashed as a result.  Any macro-god answer is as arbitrary an answer and if we are going to have a reasonable competition for what wouldn't be an arbitrary ontological coherency, I don't see what could possibly be more generic and anti-arbitrary than saying "all possible pattern" with no other overlying defining characteristic.  It should be infinitely imparticular in an overall sense.  You shouldn't be able to explicitly characterize it or you've probably got the wrong answer.  If you can't see that this is an honest attempt to actually solve a legitimate philosophical problem and that any conception of a macro-deity has been bumped off the ontological roster as a result, I don't know what to tell you.  Further, the argument from the implausibility of the Christian salvation scheme tips the scales away from your assertion, since apparently a good god is does not have dominion over this universe.  Independently established, mutually converging arguments to the better explanation.  That's my perspective anyway.  Thanks for reading!
  
  See the comments for ROUND 5
  
  

  ---

  Outro:
  
  I will be sure to keep updating with our back and forth!  Yay!
  
  Ben
  
  

  • 3:07 AM
  • 100 Views
  • 4 eProps
  • 7 Comments