The Problem of evil, on Newstalk

fisgon

Discussion on the Problem of evil on Newstalk now. Fairly interesting so far...

Mena

Would you like to know more...?

:-/

fisgon

Mena wrote: »

Would you like to know more...?

:-/

What?!

fisgon

This started off interesting enough, but actually descended into a "love is all we need" stream of platitudes. The believers on the panel squirmed out of the problem of evil by claiming that they no longer believed in the omniscient, omnipotent, beneficent god, but failed to say what they actually did believe in, and utterly failed to offer any solutions for the problem of evil.

It just went to show that religious belief survives by not being examined, or else if it is examined, people simply make stuff up to rationalize the inconsistencies, and go on believing, regardless of the massive holes in their belief system.

Hotblack Desiato

Who was on it? Got a link?

fisgon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who was on it? Got a link?

http://www.newstalk.com/Panel-discussion:-The-problem-of-evil-

Tony Flannery, Gina Menzies, Oliver Sears.

The problem was that none of them were really committed religious believers, more "questioning". They really needed someone on who actually a true believer to flush out the contradictions of their position. Some interesting stuff, some waffle.

Hotblack Desiato

Who the hell are they? Ah yes Tony Flannery is one of the silenced* priests. Hardly a 'questioning believer' though really as he hasn't left the priesthood, even though the Vatican would probably rather he did...

Gina Menzies is a 'frequent guest on RTE' according to Wikipedia :rolleyes: and is a theologian :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oliver Sears runs an art gallery

Why weren't there any non-believers on the programme - what's the point of discussion on religion that gives religion a free pass?

Annoying that this sort of discussion always seems to go down the route of wishy-washyness to the point where it's almost impossible to argue against something so vague. But if they did have 'true believers' they'd just go 'Because God/Jesus/Bible says so' and end of discussion.


* he's so 'silenced' he's been all over the media since he was 'silenced' :pac:

fisgon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who the hell are they? Ah yes Tony Flannery is one of the silenced* priests. Hardly a 'questioning believer' though really as he hasn't left the priesthood, even though the Vatican would probably rather he did...

Gina Menzies is a 'frequent guest on RTE' according to Wikipedia :rolleyes: and is a theologian :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oliver Sears runs an art gallery

Why weren't there any non-believers on the programme - what's the point of discussion on religion that gives religion a free pass?

Annoying that this sort of discussion always seems to go down the route of wishy-washyness to the point where it's almost impossible to argue against something so vague. But if they did have 'true believers' they'd just go 'Because God/Jesus/Bible says so' and end of discussion.


* he's so 'silenced' he's been all over the media since he was 'silenced' :pac:

Oliver Sears is an atheist Jew, and talked about his family and the holocaust, and how many Jews stopped believing after 1945, so they did have a non-believer there.

I think if there had been true believers there it would have shown up the massive inconsistencies in their position. Gina Menzies, on the other hand, tried to make out that no-one really believed any more in the literal truth of the bible, or in this simple omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving god, which is simply not true.

You need the extreme religious point of view on so as to expose how empty it is.

Hotblack Desiato

Yes when we point out crazier bible stuff the response of most christians is 'nobody believes in that part any more' it's delicious especially as they don't realise they've just torpedoed their entire belief system below the waterline.

El_Duderino 09

I thought it was an interesting discussion. The catholic priest wasn't a Catholic but he was a decent guy and I wouldn't worry about his ability to make moral decisions. I think that's what it comes down to. If people want to take part in Catholicism from a cultural perspective in the same sense as cultural Jews, then fair enough. They can say ridiculous things for an hour on Sunday as long as they behave morally for the rest of the week. In general I think that's how most catholics in Ireland do it and that's definitely the way they are trending.

I wish Sarah pulled them up a bit harder on some points but it was a respectful discussion with more actual content than most of the inane chatter you're likely to hear on the radio.

ScumLord

It was very wishy washy. It's a bit alarming that people these days logically have problems with their faith and decide they can't accept the religious norm and instead fall back into a believe of whatever makes them feel good. It's like religious nonsense has been washed away but we're left with this stubborn stain of belief.


They kept going on about evil and asking "why are humans so violent"? But science explains violence quite easily, it's survival of the fittest. Nature is cruel, it has a million different ways to kill any living thing you can think of. It's not at all surprising humans are violent, we are a product of nature we're no more violent than any other living creature on the planet. What is more surprising is our compassion and empathy, with not only our own kind but the animals we eat and even the environment we live in. But again science can explain that, empathy is one of humans greatest evolved traits, it's very helpful to us individually and as a group.


These people seem to have lost their faith in the religious doctrine and replaced it with fanciful thinking, completely internalising the discussion rather than looking into the alternatives.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

They kept going on about evil and asking "why are humans so violent"? But science explains violence quite easily, it's survival of the fittest.

Not sure what you are referring to. How does 'survival of the fittest' explain evil.
If I walk in to a school and shoot 50 kids, you'd just nod and think 'Survival of the fittest'?

Nature is cruel, it has a million different ways to kill any living thing you can think of.

Nature is cruel, in its hunt for balance. I think 'Survival of the fittest' in nature makes sense - but you then come to the question of whether we are 'in nature'. I'm not sure there's an easy answer to that.

It's not at all surprising humans are violent, we are a product of nature we're no more violent than any other living creature on the planet.

No, but the question is about evil. We do not label sharks as evil because they are just eating - doing what come natural. It's not that complicated.
Someone burning their child's arm with cigarette butts - much less straightforward. Are they 'evil', or is that survival of the fittest - the act of a natural being following their designated path through the jungles of the inner city?

What is more surprising is our compassion and empathy, with not only our own kind but the animals we eat and even the environment we live in. But again science can explain that, empathy is one of humans greatest evolved traits, it's very helpful to us individually and as a group.

Sure.

These people seem to have lost their faith in the religious doctrine and replaced it with fanciful thinking, completely internalising the discussion rather than looking into the alternatives.

Not sure you haven't done the same with science. Science may explain a lot - but there are serious gaps in terms of the 'problem of evil'.

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

Not sure you haven't done the same with science. Science may explain a lot - but there are serious gaps in terms of the 'problem of evil'.

I don't see that there is a problem of evil , if your question is why would someone torture a child for no good reason , you would look for a psychological reason either something with their upbringing or an underdeveloped brain where the person can't process empathy yet causing pain gives the person a reward.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote:

I don't see that there is a problem of evil , if your question is why would someone torture a child for no good reason , you would look for a psychological reason either something with their upbringing or an underdeveloped brain where the person can't process empathy yet causing pain gives the person a reward.

Right?
So a faulty brain you reckon?

There's a lot of them knocking about.

And they seem to be disproportionatley gathered in war zones. Which is odd.

Or maybe that's why there's wars? Faulty brains. Or bad childhood experiences.

Get Dr. Spock to the Middle East ASAP

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

I don't see that there is a problem of evil , if your question is why would someone torture a child for no good reason , you would look for a psychological reason either something with their upbringing or an underdeveloped brain where the person can't process empathy yet causing pain gives the person a reward.

The most dangerous conceit in humanity has to be that evil resides in the 'other' person.

fisgon

MaxWig wrote: »

ScumLord wrote: »

Not sure you haven't done the same with science. Science may explain a lot - but there are serious gaps in terms of the 'problem of evil'.

I think you have missed the point. Science doesn't have a problem of evil, nor does atheism or humanism. The problem of evil is a religious problem, an inability to explain both the existence of a loving, omnipotent god and the existence of great evil and suffering in the world.

The inconsistency is a religious one. The earthquake in Haiti, for example, is explained by geologists and seismologists from a scientific perspective as something caused by seismic forces beneath the earth's crust. Terrible things happen, science doesn't need to explain why, morally.

Yet the religious are in trouble explaining how a loving god can allow what was already the poorest country in the western hemisphere with huge disadvantage and suffering, to be further destroyed by a massive earthquake. This is inconsistent with the religious story about god and makes no sense.

MaxWig

fisgon wrote: »

MaxWig wrote: »

I think you have missed the point. Science doesn't have a problem of evil, nor does atheism or humanism. The problem of evil is a religious problem, an inability to explain both the existence of a loving, omnipotent god and the existence of great evil and suffering in the world.

No I got the point. Of course science doesn't have a 'problem of evil'. Scientists do though. If something dreadful is visited upon them . You can beat around the bush all day with this, but humans have a problem comprehending the inhumanity man visits upon man. It's a 'problem'. And one that has had the intelligentsia chattering for centuries.

The inconsistency is a religious one. The earthquake in Haiti, for example, is explained by geologists and seismologists from a scientific perspective as something caused by seismic forces beneath the earth's crust. Terrible things happen, science doesn't need to explain why, morally.

It's not a religious one. It's a societal one. Your earthquake analogy is weak I think. Much more relevant to a society from the past. And certainly more relevant to a discussion abut the origin of religion. The concept however is the same. Earthquake burns village. In the past, the villagers ask God - Why? Now, a baby get's its head chopped off and thrown in a bin, and society asks itself - Why? Really not a lot has changed. And clapping ourselves on the back about how sophisticated we are not to believe in an omnipotent god doesn't change that fact

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

Right?
So a faulty brain you reckon?

There's a lot of them knocking about.

And they seem to be disproportionatley gathered in war zones. Which is odd.

Or maybe that's why there's wars? Faulty brains. Or bad childhood experiences.

Get Dr. Spock to the Middle East ASAP

That's a different cause , idiology can create structures that encourage evil acts, throw in politics religion and you have a receipe for violence. Isn't that why peaceful civil structures are valued very highly and why dictatorships for example are rightly viewed with deep suspicision ?

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

That's a different cause , idiology can create structures that encourage evil acts, throw in politics religion and you have a receipe for violence. Isn't that why peaceful civil structures are valued very highly and why dictatorships for example are rightly viewed with deep suspicision ?

Right, so there are as many types of evil as there are human concepts/constructs?

Is that correct?

Or can only certain concepts turn on the evil switch in our brain holes. Want to get the science right!

Peaceful civil structures? Like the UK? The U.S.? Israel? Ireland/Northern Ireland?

Or are we talking about different evil-free zones?

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

The most dangerous conceit in humanity has to be that evil resides in the 'other' person.

God no, we accept that we need one hand tied behind our backs, that is how society works. For example we wouldn't trust an unaccountable police force. We know deep down that people are liable to take short cuts be corruptable or enjoy exercising power regardless of the law.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

God no, we accept that we need one hand tied behind our backs, that is how society works. For example we wouldn't trust an unaccountable police force. We know deep down that people are liable to take short cuts be corruptable or enjoy exercising power regardless of the law.

So might you change your opinion then on evil?

Still consider it faulty brain parts?

Dodgy childhood experience?

Strange isn't it that we literally legislate for the fact that people just ain't no good!

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

Right, so there are as many types of evil as there are human concepts/constructs?

Is that correct?

Or can only certain concepts turn on the evil switch in our brain holes. Want to get the science right!

Peaceful civil structures? Like the UK? The U.S.? Israel? Ireland/Northern Ireland?

Or are we talking about different evil-free zones?

I doubt its possible to wrap everything up in a neat sentence. A serial killer is not the same as a soldier in the SS. They can both be judged to be evil but there are different reasons.
Ok peaceful is a debatable term but in average a democracy will be more peaceful than a dictatorship. Ireland versus north Korea for instance

ScumLord

MaxWig wrote: »

Not sure what you are referring to. How does 'survival of the fittest' explain evil.

There's no such thing as evil in science, at least not in the way religion see's evil as a real driving force. Evil is a descriptive word, it means really bad. Outside of the human experience there is no evil, there is just stuff that happens.

Nature is cruel, in its hunt for balance. I think 'Survival of the fittest' in nature makes sense - but you then come to the question of whether we are 'in nature'. I'm not sure there's an easy answer to that.

humans are a part of nature, we are an animal, we have the same needs and wants as any other living thing. That's very easy to answer. I shouldn't have used "survival of the fittest" though, it's just a phrase it doesn't really describe the natural process. The fittest don't always survive, natural selection is probably a better way of putting it.

No, but the question is about evil. We do not label sharks as evil because they are just eating - doing what come natural. It's not that complicated.
Someone burning their child's arm with cigarette butts - much less straightforward. Are they 'evil', or is that survival of the fittest - the act of a natural being following their designated path through the jungles of the inner city?

People used to consider animals like sharks and wolves as evil. When a new male lion takes over a pride he kills all the cubs that the last lion sired. We would see that as cruel but the lion is compelled to ensure it's own genes get passed on.

not sure you haven't done the same with science. Science may explain a lot - but there are serious gaps in terms of the 'problem of evil'.

What serious gaps? Science is an ever evolving process, we haven't been at it for that long. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers just answers to questions it's asked. Unlike religion science doesn't claim to have all the answers from the beginning, it's a tool for getting the truth.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

I doubt its possible to wrap everything up in a neat sentence. A serial killer is not the same as a soldier in the SS. They can both be judged to be evil but there are different reasons.

This soldier is the example I assume of the ordinary man following orders?
I agree that it is different in that specific example. What about the SS Soldier who takes pleasure from the screams of agony he hears?
Is he similar to a serial killer?
All we can agree on in that case is that there are as many types of evil as there are humans.

Ok peaceful is a debatable term but in average a democracy will be more peaceful than a dictatorship. Ireland versus north Korea for instance

Why not the U.S. and N.Korea?
And assume that we are allies of the U.S.?
What would your answer be then?

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

There's no such thing as evil in science, at least not in the way religion see's evil as a real driving force. Evil is a descriptive word, it means really bad. Outside of the human experience there is no evil, there is just stuff that happens.

Sure. So we can say there is no such thing as evil outside the human experience. Granted.

humans are a part of nature, we are an animal, we have the same needs and wants as any other living thing. That's very easy to answer. I shouldn't have used "survival of the fittest" though, it's just a phrase it doesn't really describe the natural process. The fittest don't always survive, natural selection is probably a better way of putting it.

And natural selection somehow explains the sadistic glee that humans take in the suffering of other living beings?

People used to consider animals like sharks and wolves as evil. When a new male lion takes over a pride he kills all the cubs that the last lion sired. We would see that as cruel but the lion is compelled to ensure it's own genes get passed on.

No one who watched even an hour of David Attenborough would see it as cruel. If the argument is that evil only exists in our perception of the world, I agree totally. But nothing exists for us outside our perception of the world.

What serious gaps? Science is an ever evolving process, we haven't been at it for that long. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers just answers to questions it's asked. Unlike religion science doesn't claim to have all the answers from the beginning, it's a tool for getting the truth.

Again, I agree. Nothing complicated in that.
'Serious gaps' was a poor choice of phrase.
So you are basically saying that evil only exists in our subjective human experience, and as such science has nothing at all to say on the subject?

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

So might you change your opinion then on evil?

Still consider it faulty brain parts?

Dodgy childhood experience?

Strange isn't it that we literally legislate for the fact that people just ain't no good!

its a matter of degree , I doubt most people would enjoy or want to be serial killers even if it wasnt a crime. On the flip side I would absolutely expect a lot of people to participate in "legalised killing" given a dictatorship structure , say Cambodia in the 70's.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

its a matter of degree , I doubt most people would enjoy or want to be serial killers even if it wasnt a crime.

On the flip side I would absolutely expect a lot of people to participate in "legalised killing" given a dictatorship structure , say Cambodia in the 70's.

Those two sentences completely contradict one another - except for the dictatorship part. If it wasn't illegal most people wouldn't anyway? But if it was legalised, people would.

So you are saying that the evil resides in the particular style of government?
Not in the person committing the act?

Bit convenient, no?

ScumLord

MaxWig wrote: »

Sure. So we can say there is no such thing as evil outside the human experience. Granted.

And natural selection somehow explains the sadistic glee that humans take in the suffering of other living beings?

No one who watched even an hour of David Attenborough would see it as cruel. If the argument is that evil only exists in our perception of the world, I agree totally. But nothing exists for us outside our perception of the world.

See the problem with most natural documentaries is they want to promote nature and be able to show a story about an animal so that people and young children can relate. They avoid showing most of the killing, the suffering and death that animals go through.

They avoid the fact that killer whales are extremely cruel to their prey, in much the same way a cat will keep a prey animal alive to play with it many predators will do the same thing.

All animals are cruel to other animals, that's what humans have come from, we are part of that natural selection process, cruelty and even things like war are not exclusive to humans. So it's not at all surprising that we behave like every other living creature on the planet.

What is unusual is humans paying respects to their prey animals, providing medical care, changing their habits to protect their environment. Religion has labelled nature as something that humans should subjugate and abuse nature for our own needs, it's only recently that the human race has come out from under that misconception thanks to science giving us an appreciation for life in general.

So you are basically saying that evil only exists in our subjective human experience, and as such science has nothing at all to say on the subject?

No, I'm saying evil isn't anything more than a word that describes a very bad act. It's not a real force, there's no such thing as good / evil, light vs the dark side. there is no such thing as evil as described by religion.

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

This soldier is the example I assume of the ordinary man following orders?
I agree that it is different in that specific example. What about the SS Soldier who takes pleasure from the screams of agony he hears?
Is he similar to a serial killer?
All we can agree on in that case is that there are as many types of evil as there are humans.

its complicated , if you are saying if you tested all SS men an women would there be a statistical association with psychopathic personalities , I have no idea. I'd assume most of them would not have been serial killers in civilian life or otherwise on their own account would have sought out ways to kill or torture people. What they were doing was "legal" for them.

MaxWig wrote: »

Why not the U.S. and N.Korea?
And assume that we are allies of the U.S.?
What would your answer be then?

Im a fairly strict non interventionist so I have issues with state violence Democracy is flawed because it concentrates power and allows individual rights to be trampled. When does the US taxpayer get to untick the war spend box on their tax return? How could Americans be conscripted into the Vietnam war when the US wasnt even attacked? so yes imo there are in some countries not enough protection for the individual from the state.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

See the problem with most natural documentaries is they want to promote nature and be able to show a story about an animal so that people and young children can relate. They avoid showing most of the killing, the suffering and death that animals go through.

Well, some are pretty graphic, but fair enough. People don't like death - I hear ya!

They avoid the fact that killer whales are extremely cruel to their prey, in much the same way a cat will keep a prey animal alive to play with it many predators will do the same thing.

A cat will do it as a means of practice/entertainment. It's 'hard wired' for want of a better word. As is the case with the whale.

We are hard-wired to enjoy the sadistic torture of others?

All animals are cruel to other animals, that's what humans have come from, we are part of that natural selection process, cruelty and even things like war are not exclusive to humans. So it's not at all surprising that we behave like every other living creature on the planet.

All animals are different from humans. We are conscious. We no longer rely on instincts for survival in terms of attaining food and the killing of prey. Which is what you have been describing. It's a pretty fundamental difference.
And no one is saying anything about this being surprising.

What is unusual is humans paying respects to their prey animals, providing medical care, changing their habits to protect their environment. Religion has labelled nature as something that humans should subjugate and abuse nature for our own needs, it's only recently that the human race has come out from under that misconception thanks to science giving us an appreciation for life in general.

Why is that unusual? The only way 'paying respect' to the prey animal is unusual is that it harks back to ancient ritual. When we really did struggle to separate ourselves from nature.
If religion has labelled nature as something to subjugate, it is for the very reasons we are discussing. Our animal nature is never far from the surface - and the idea that that is 'not a problem' is bizarre.
It's very easy to say proudly that we are animals on the one hand, while on the other you feel disgusted and ashamed of the animal nature you possess on the other.
Animals kill. Animals maim. Only one animal struggles with the fact that it does a number 2!

No, I'm saying evil isn't anything more than a word that describes a very bad act. It's not a real force, there's no such thing as good / evil, light vs the dark side. there is no such thing as evil as described by religion.

No, but we order the world as though there is. And there is no escaping that fact.
We put bad people in prison. We see good ones in the mirror.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

its complicated , if you are saying if you tested all SS men an women would there be a statistical association with psychopathic personalities , I have no idea. I'd assume most of them would not have been serial killers in civilian life or otherwise on their own account would have sought out ways to kill or torture people. What they were doing was "legal" for them.

Right - so given the correct environmental conditions, we will let the beast out. Nothing to separate you from the rest. My only point is that it's a dangerous idea to think that you are special. BUT, that is what we do! All of us. SS Soldiers believed they were the good guys. That's the point. But there are no goodies or baddies.

Im a fairly strict non interventionist so I have issues with state violence Democracy is flawed because it concentrates power and allows individual rights to be trampled. When does the US taxpayer get to untick the war spend box on their tax return? How could Americans be conscripted into the Vietnam war when the US wasnt even attacked? so yes imo there are in some countries not enough protection for the individual from the state.

But as long as they keep eating burgers and don't annoy anyone, evil keeps it's head down.
Maybe if they got a BK in N. Korea we'd see less evil there too!