[FoRK] Re: A bit of religion - Problem of Evil
Thu Jan 5 09:10:48 PST 2006
At 07:33 -0600 on 1/5/06, Corinna wrote:
>"Kevin Elliott" <k-elliott at wiu.edu> wrote in message
>> As such the lack of "perfection" in our physical bodies is a straw man-
>> they weren't meant to be perfect.
>Part of the point, though, is that all sorts of things relating to our
>physical bodies are considered evil. I don't think the argument is talking
>about things like the shape of our spine, or the degradation of our bodies
>once we can no longer reproduce. There is a lot of human suffering relating
>to lack of resources - famine, etc - or due to competition with other
>organisms - wild animals mauling people, diseases - and other things. Maybe
>you want to define these kinds of things as not-evil... ?
I'll tackle a few of those. I submit that no human suffering exists
in the world today because of a lack of resources. We are the
unchallenged masters of the earth. Their is more than enough food
and water to put every man, woman, and child to bed with a full belly
every night. The world is not crowded. Every person on earth could
fit in a massive suburb the size of Texas (I'd have to track down the
citation, but that's what it works out to). In short, Maltus was a
Taking the question of the "Inherently Evil Human"- again, I don't
see that this refutes god in any strong way. Even if you accept the
argument that we are inherently evil (I don't), it only refutes god
if his goal was to make the physical "us" good. Christian theology
says it wasn't. If we are both body and spirit, then god has
concerned himself with the spirit. It wouldn't be surprising in
that framework for god to have planted evil within the body to
encourage the testing of the spirit.
BUT, I don't think their is any reason to believe the inherently evil
argument. For myself, I've created my own miseries. I don't think
they were there till I made them myself.
As to the small miseries that remain, I don't think they are evil. I
don't think disease is evil nor death. It's an open question as to
weather it's what god wanted, but I don't think their is a good
argument that it's existence disproves god.
>Also, that was just an example, not really a point of the original argument:
>"Here the suggestion only addresses certain aspects of the physiological and
>psychological environment; it must be kept in mind that G would have the
>ability to address and optimize across every remotely relevant element of
>our existence from the charge of an electron, to the nature of geography and
>space, to spiritual perspective, to the quality of the ecological
>constraints man must regard, to the manner in
>which our minds are structured -- indeed, of all realities, whether
>conceivable or otherwise. "
AGAIN, the assumption underlying the original argument is that god
wanted to create a paradise, and we have ZERO evidence of that. The
Christian argument is that god GAVE us a paradise, but we will make
of it what we will. And indeed, the vast majority of human suffering
is man made. We'd live in a very different world indeed if we just
stopped hurting each other.
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud.
After a while, you realize the pig is enjoying it.
Kevin Elliott <mailto:kelliott at mac.com>
AIM/iChatAV: kelliott at mac.com (video chat available)
More information about the FoRK