[FoRK] A Bit of Religion - response by the original person
Fri Jan 6 14:55:10 PST 2006
... who has been following the discussion of his writing with interest.
He's not really interested in tech-related things, or else he'd subscribe.
It's up to you all to say if you'd mind a non-tech interloper on this list,
making waves by writing about controversial arguments :)
At any rate, I said I'd post a response by him, and if any of you want to
talk with him directly, he can be reached at (frond) at sbcglobal dot (net).
I wish to say up front that I respect your [Kevin Elliott's] response (and
those of the
group as a whole). I can see that your response is characterized by a
serious regard of the problem. It has been stimulating and, I believe,
helped me improve the quality of my reasoning. While I first found
myself wondering whether there was something to the argument regarding
free will (which argument I have suspected before has merit), upon
consideration, I do believe the original argument sustains with
unaltered force. Let me explain.
First, a question: Are you firmly convinced that in every conceivable
manner the world is as good as it can be. Are there no improvements, no
matter no trivial, which could be made to the order of existence? Is
each and every element of the real precisely the best it can be? I hold
that any negative answer will confirm the argument, and that any
positive answer will, effectively, refute itself.
I would also like to observe that freedom is a morally, materially, and
psychologically bounded concept:
Criminals are executed or incarcerated,
I can not depose Bush from office (a good very much to be desired), and
The pope could not on the morrow convert to Buddhism.
Freedom is a concept already deeply infringed upon by the nature of our
existence, and in a rather thorough manner.* It requires little
imagination to grant G the powers of infringement already intrinsic to
reality, without substantially - if to any degree - altering the
character of an already subordinate value.
*For a counterrgument about the absolute nature of freedom, consider the
kind of absolute freedom identified by Sartre.
It is a crude example, but take the Twentieth-century's favorite
bogeyman: Hitler. Imagine Hitler had been struck (by G) with a kidney
disease which was either crippling or incapacitating (or fatal), to
whatever degree necessary to prevent either a) his rise to power or b)
by alteration of the psychological environment, his particular ambitions
and ideology. As you have already claimed that disease is not in itself
an evil, and as I doubt any defender of G will deny G's sovereignity to
afflict his creation, such an example seems apropos.
Since I am not a member of this list (and my only interest, really, is
this kind of conversation), this will be my last response. If you or
anyone else would care to take up the issues in another forum, I would
be very interested.
I can be reached at frondBUTIsbcglobalDON'TdotLIKEnetSPAM.
More information about the FoRK