Question of Evil
May. 6th, 2008 03:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackIf you were the God, and all possible parallel universes existed side-by-side, what would you do? Would you delete most, or transform them into copies of the one where people were happiest? Or let them run?
To me, that thought experiment relates to several questions:
* The problem of evil "If God existed, and were omnipotent and good, why would he let there be bad things". If you can even conceive of God not reordering all his universes to be "best", that is one possible answer to the question. (Not that I think that's true, but it's possibly a rebuttal to the argument that "There are bad things, therefore God is at most two of good, omnipotent, and existing")
* A logical extension of local morality. People naturally care more for people close to them (both friends, and people similar to them, and people physically closer to them). To a greater or lesser extent depending on circumstance. This has bad effects, that far away tragedies can get ignored, but good effects, that people can choose to help some people close to them, even if this is a drop in the ocean compared to everything else, but a lot better than just freezing up. But if all possible parallel universes existed, it would make it obvious how every thing you chose to do was an essentially arbitrary decision about how people close to you matter more than everyone else,
To me, that thought experiment relates to several questions:
* The problem of evil "If God existed, and were omnipotent and good, why would he let there be bad things". If you can even conceive of God not reordering all his universes to be "best", that is one possible answer to the question. (Not that I think that's true, but it's possibly a rebuttal to the argument that "There are bad things, therefore God is at most two of good, omnipotent, and existing")
* A logical extension of local morality. People naturally care more for people close to them (both friends, and people similar to them, and people physically closer to them). To a greater or lesser extent depending on circumstance. This has bad effects, that far away tragedies can get ignored, but good effects, that people can choose to help some people close to them, even if this is a drop in the ocean compared to everything else, but a lot better than just freezing up. But if all possible parallel universes existed, it would make it obvious how every thing you chose to do was an essentially arbitrary decision about how people close to you matter more than everyone else,
no subject
Date: 2008-05-12 03:20 pm (UTC)I think that's probably natural (and good, and what most people do).
Sorry, I don't want to criticize what anyone believes personally, but since we're here, I'd like to explain what I was trying to say. I think most people who believe in a good, omnipotent God, accept they're not certain how God and suffering can coexist, but either think some answer is mostly right, or that it makes sense for a reason we can't see.
Isn't that an argument from an atheist point-of-view?
Well, yes :) Or rather, not quite -- I think medieval christian philosophers asked the question, and proposed various answers. Possibly the answer that God is not good, not omnipotent, or not existing is more recent :) But just because it's believed by fewer people doesn't make it wrong :)
Hilarityallen's last post made a very good summary of the position.
Basically, I see what you're saying about suffering. If I was in charge, I don't know what I'd do specifically. It's quite possible that a good God would have a world with some suffering for all the reasons you name.
But that doesn't seem to explain why some people have some suffering, and some people seem to have nothing but suffering. Some people are born, live for a couple of days or a couple of years, and die, with no chance to do anything at all. Surely the world would be plainly better if they were given some chance?
I don't mean that's conclusive, but I think that's the question the "question of evil" is trying to ask. And I think we have a number of potential answers, including yours, including some other traditional ones brought up in the thread, including the one my post #1 point hints at, but none feel quite satisfactory (to most people).
no subject
Date: 2008-05-12 05:45 pm (UTC)Or rather, not quite -- I think medieval christian philosophers asked the question, and proposed various answers.
IIRC, the answers they proposed boil down to a number of fairly simple positions:
a) There is justice in this world, really.
b) There will be justice in the afterlife.
c) God's reasons are not for us to know.
d) Free will.
e) A universe containing human beings has to work in ways that allow the existence of human beings, which necessitates the existence of the other things in the universe that are consequences of that, including sickness, natural disasters, &c.
I am inclined to reject the first three pretty much a priori, as the first seems self-evidently false and the other two dodge the question. The latter two really seem to be fudging on the omniscience and omnipotence criteria.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 12:12 am (UTC)Pretty much, except that I didn't think I'd be able to list them exhaustively (it's quite possible nuances or other answers existed I didn't specifically know), I just wanted to make the point that the question existed.