Author Topic: A list of arguments for atheism  (Read 1869 times)

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
A list of arguments for atheism
« on: April 22, 2020, 07:17:42 am »
https://exapologist.blogspot.com/2019/09/sixty-arguments-for-atheism.html?m=1

I will explore, adress and evaluate the arguments in this list, though many in comjunct and not separate since 50+% of those, as far as I can see are variations on the Problem of Evil and while I think they offer defeaters for most theodicies if they were taken on their own, I don't see how they affect classical theism as such (in thr spirit of Brian Davies etc.).
Some arguments need to be adressed though and looked at in which way they raise the probability of naturalism and whether they favor it over theism.
I wpuld appreciate help and comments, especially since sometimes I will add another link about criticisms of theistic arguments. This is probably the fullest list of atheistic arguments out there. Engagement should prove fruitful and enhance philosophical knowledge.

ClassicalLiberal.Theist

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2020, 02:44:28 pm »
Are you going to be posting your responses somewhere? If so, where?

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2020, 11:12:16 pm »
I'll just do it here. Maybe it helps getting some people back into the forum.

ClassicalLiberal.Theist

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2020, 09:40:25 am »
Okay. I'm looking foward to it.

jd3

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2020, 02:30:13 pm »
Looking forward to this. Depending on how much time you have to really dive in, you might consider expressing the thoughts you post here in another medium, such as a blog, podcast, youtube video etc. where you could really flesh them out. But I'm happy to hear your thoughts below and chime in. My initial thought in scanning through them is that of the roughly 80 arguments listed (including some added in the comments) roughly a third (or even, as you suggest, half) are variations on the problem of evil and have probably already been addressed by Davies, and the ones based on physics can be dealt with by either A. a proper understanding of AT metaphysics or B. a proper understanding of what physics is (Nigel Cundy's book "What is Physics? A Defense of Classical Theism" could be useful, but I haven't read it).

ClassicalLiberal.Theist

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2020, 08:58:50 pm »
Nigel's book is good; however, he at times seems to get various things about Aquinas' thought wrong. In addition, much of the physics in the book is represented with mathematical equations, but he does explain what they mean and demonstrates their metaphysical implications. I would recommend it, but I don't know if it will be necessary to challenge the ex-apologist. I think it would be more useful to listen to his interview on the classical theism podcast. He explains the physics that would probably be of most importance in this case.

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2020, 06:51:25 am »
It is important to some arguments, especially when alternative metaphysics are concerned, which is almost always the case when alternatives to theism are provided. That Aristotelianism entails Theism is rarely doubted and if it fits the scientific model best, as Cundy argues, then it is a strong case against arguments which doubt said metaphysics.

guest2

  • Guest
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2020, 08:04:48 am »
I must say I just can't get worked up about the problem of evil. If God is the good itself, as classical theists maintain, what can this objection mean? It is as if to say the good itself is not good enough. The sceptic if granting that objective good exists; otherwise, the so called problem of evil makes no sense: if evil is subjective, then there is not even prima facie grounds for this objection.

Besides, I don't think we need Davies for the privation understanding of evil. With this understanding of evil and the classical theist understanding of God, the problem of evil becomes a squabble about just how much suffering seems compatible with the existence of an all-powerful, good God, which takes much of the wind out of the sails of the objection.

guest2

  • Guest
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2020, 06:55:06 pm »
Having looked a little more at these arguments, most are terrible. I think more substantive would be a response to the argument about divine simplicity and knowledge of contingent beings.

By the way, what is meant by naturalism in the OP? Naturalism in the sense of materialism simply cannot be true. I'm fairly certain about the existence of God, but I am we even more so about the fact materialism is false. If God doesn't exist, then we still aren't purely material beings. The philosophical and empirical arguments on that score are, to me, decisive. These arguments on their own might not add to directly to those for God's, but they get rid of any objections based upon the truth of materialism.

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2020, 06:41:20 am »
Changing plans: I tried it with argument per argument, but it doesn't work that way, it just a) takes too long and b) in answering I'm making references and answers to other papers on the list. Further more, as Jeremy observed, most arguments are bad. For example, I will copy it here in due time, I have taken on argument 20 “The argument from the philosophy of nature“, assuming that given its name ot would be worthwhile, but it turns out that he attacks the normal churchgoer on tge street, ID, and dismisses the scholastics as “academic theism“, being completely oblivious to the fact at how great their influence in the catholic, eastern, anglican and as an example of the protestants, Presbyterian tradition was. Fundamentalist bible thumpers aren't really a counter example, especially since sophisticated tradition are the interesting parts. Its like me attacking Loftus and claiming Oppy has been defeated.

Anyway let's categoriue the arguments, which should make it easier for all:

1. Evil and Divine Hiddenness

The first is self-explanatory. It can be turned on its head if the atheist himself accepts objective good and evil (e.g. Huemer, Wielenberg), other than that it is a question of the intrinsic coherence of theism. Fun note: In its rejection I think David Bentley Hart is even more radical than Brian Davies. As to Hiddenness, although Schellenberg wants it to be distinguished because, other than the PoE, it is only a problem if God did exist, I still put them together for several reasons. 1) It could be defeated by the same theodicy as the PoE, 2) given a rejection of the idea that God has a moral obligation toward us, it vanishes, 3) I don't think that the differences between the problems go beyond a different pastoral response.
In both cases there are good an bad papers here. For the former we should read the work of Rowe and Smith or Trakakis. For the latter Schellenberg himself. I refuse to read anything where the author is Stephen Law or Maitzen. A bad version of the hiddenness argument can be found as (I think) the last argument from the (late) development of monotheistic beliefs in evolutionary history. I think most of the hiddenness problems can be evaded by adopting inclusivism or universalism, as the real evil would only be if exclusivism were true. Molinist theodicies (Craig) are implausible.

Jeremy, I know that you are familiar with the mystics literature, do you think those insights are helpful? If so, please share them.

I am currently reading Michael Reas book on Hiddenness. Others have recommended the book of essays edited by Eleonore Stump “Hidden Divinity“. PM me for the PDF.

2. Selfsufficiency of nature/plausibility on available data

Pretty selfexplanatory. To quote Vallicella:“ Suppose Naturalism was completely unproblematic. You could answer in a satisfactory manner every question as a naturalist, then there would be [in spite of theistic arguments, religious, mystic and paranormal experiences] very little reason to go beyond it.“
An example of this objection is Oppys “The best argument against God“. Another one was a trivial point by Draper that a priori naturalism were more probable than theism due to a broader picture and fewer assumptions (theism here being much more specific than just “supernaturalism“). Another argument by Draper was that e.g. humanity is too unimpressive for theism, which gives evidence for naturalism. We should make a list as to what evidence would be evidence for either side.

3. Causal closure, mind-brain dependence, explanatory power in comparison, morality (Wielenberg, Maitzen)

Subcategory of 2 deserving a separate response. The last are arguments by Maitzen, that ordinary morality implies atheism and Wielenberg who argues for the absurdity of life were Christianity true.

4. Impossibility, incoherence of theism

E.g. incoherence in the attributes.


Even the best have have some brainfarts. Argument 10 by Schellenberg that free will would be more expected on atheism due to the failure of the free will theodicy. At some point we have seriously entered sophistry.

Anyway, like I said, this will certainly take a while, but I would be happy if you would help me, since I think we will all benefit. And while I agree with Jeremy that most arguments are utter garbage (Argument 20!, 46, 47), it is at least an exhaustive list with some worthwhile resources. It certainly shows that the case for atheism is way less diverse. I think this will be fun.

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2020, 07:16:08 am »
Jeremy made another good point. The falsehood of materialism is more certain than Gods existence. We should grant that, since nothing, not even God is as close to us like introspective data, which entails the falsehood of materialism, that we are libertarianly free, have bodily autonomy (falsehood of determinism and epiphenomenalism), have intentionality (pace physicalists like Michael Tye) and that we are really distinguished from our body.

To define naturalism lets adopt their definition:

1. Conservative Naturalism: ontological physicalists like Dennett, Rosenberg, Papineau and Maitzen
2. Moderate Naturalism: allows abstract objects like platonic forms of math or morality (Quine, Wielenberg)
3. Liberal Naturalism: everything up to non-theism, which allows for dualism (Chalmers, Huemer, Burge, Strawson) of some sort, dispositions, certain forms of Aristotelianism (Mumford, Foot, Nagel)

There are views though in the third category that collapse into theism through Morelands argument from consciousness. Nagels views perhaps collapse into the fifth way. Pruss has made an argument that Powers ontology+S5 entails a necessary being.
A note to the second category: Wielenberg assumes objective morality as a brute fact independent of grounding. The question is also how wether the second category collapses into the first (Quine was an eliminativist and I believe reductionism a la Kim collapses into it).

A key point is wether intentionality can be reduced to powers or dispositions of material objects. Nagel recognizes that, as did Armstrong. If the mental property of aboutness is really there and cannot be reduced, then we arrive at a foundational mind.

Defining Naturalism is notoriously difficult and the concrete definitions I came across are self-refuting or indetermined, e.g. if one says that one believes in what future physics discovers. Van Fraassen polemically responded “So you don't know what you believe in?“. I'm also unsure if the idea of brute, independent, ungrounded (platonic) morality is even a coherent one.

Anything to add?

Atno

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2020, 04:11:43 pm »
I don't see the point in responding to every single argument there, especially since a lot of them are very weak and many are variations of the same ideas. But here's my assessment:

1- I think the problem of evil is by far the strongest argument the atheist has to offer. And most arguments in the list are really just variations of it. I differ from most people here in thinking that Brian Davies's and Hart's responses (as I understand them; I haven't read their books, but people have presented their ideas to me, I have read excerpts, did some research, etc., and don't think my opinion would change) are almost entirely useless. I think the defenses and theodicies we find among contemporary analytic philosophers, including "theistic personalists", are 1000x better and even necessary. God is not wholly unlike a virtuous person; if there is to be at least an analogy between God's goodness and ours, we need to assume God has intelligible morally sufficient reasons for allowing so much evil and suffering. And with that in mind:

A) It is always important to approach theism on the basis of the totality of evidence. In other words, we can grant that the problem of evil is really bad and in fact lowers the probability of theism. But that's not the whole story, for we also have positive arguments for theism. And I think the positive case for God's existence is a lot stronger, so as to be compelling and even withstand the attack of PoE and still swamp it out. Evil lowers the probability of theism, but still, the existence of contingent things, order, consciousness, goodness, etc. gives us a much stronger overall case for theism;

B) We can, in any case, weaken the problem of evil. In my opinion, the best response is Alexander Pruss's "blink of an eye" response (google it) combined with a host of theodicies. For all we know, an infinite afterlife can more than make up for, sublimate, etc., any evils we suffer in our finite existence here. And to this we add the Free Will defense; the soul building theodicy; and more;

C) If horrendous evils are still a problem, an explicitly Christian response (like that of Adams in her book on horrendous evils) may be required. The fact that God entered the picture through Jesus Christ, and suffered so much, can be a game changer. Those who suffer horribly in this life can be united in a special way to the suffering Christ God, converting pain into a love and dignity that lasts forever;

D) Animal suffering can still be a specific problem requiring specific responses. We might adopt a few ad hoc ideas (Pruss thinks it plausible that God removes the qualia of pain from animals in some situations), or we can adopt a radical response, such as Trent Dougherty's in his book on animal pain. Dougherty argues that God might transform every animal into a rational, Narnia-esque being in the afterlife and that their sufferings here may therefore be given a value similar to that in soul-building theodicies.

Of course, in any case, there is skeptical theism and we can choose to take a hit and keep moving; while the problem of evil can be a good atheistic argument, we nevertheless have stronger reasons to believe in God. And personally, I find theodicies very plausible - blink of an eye, soul building, free will, the religiously-inspired ones; I even find some plausibility in the radical animal theodicies. I don't think the amount of suffering we see is clearly incompatible with theism, I think it can make a lot of sense that God would choose to create a world like this.

2- Argument from hiddenness I take to be a weaker version of the problem of evil. There can be value in discovery; in being sorta in the dark and even having doubts; in having to dedicate oneself to studying a metaphysical issue such as God's existence; etc;

3- Arguments from materialism I find particularly weak. I'm very convinced that dualism is true and I think it is very strong evidence for theism; there are perfections of immaterial consciousness, intelligence, reason, will, etc., and there must be a source for them. Personhood must come from a foundational Person. And even if materialism were true animal, multiple realizability could allow for intelligence to be material in humans but immaterial in God;

4- Problem of material causation I find quite weak. A theist could be open to biting the bullet with a few caveats, as Rasmussen does in his dialogue with Leon. In any case, I think the idea that matter is a perfection to be very implausible; matter is just a limitation, an act of existence intrinsically limited to spatial location, extension, temporal change, etc., so an immaterial (more perfect) being can create a material (less perfect) being. Moreover the Kalam might refute such an argument;

5- Incoherence arguments I don't take too seriously.  I am not convinced of any particular arguments for omni-God being incoherent, I think there are good responses in the literature for all of that. But if a theist is convinced that even a suitably defined omnipotence/omniscience/etc is incoherent, they can bite the bullet and instead adopt Yujin Nagasawa's Maximal God thesis. God just is the Maximal, metaphysically consistent and possible set of Power, Knowledge and Goodness. If a being can't be omniscient, still there can be a maximally knowledgeable being, and ao on.

The rest of the arguments I just find very weak. I don't think any of that even comes close to the cogency and power of theistic arguments; that we need God to explain Being, Consciousness, Order, Value, etc.

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2020, 04:20:24 pm »
Goodness and Evil are notoriously difficult to define. I have a PDF of Oderbergs new book if someone is interested.

RomanJoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2020, 09:17:02 pm »
From a metaphysical standpoint the problem of evil does nothing to theism. The intelligibility of being isn't rendered meaningless because the primary cause is not perfectly good. That said, I think those of particular religious stripes are threatened by the problem of evil. At most it could show that the divine revelation of, say, Christianity is false--that God is not all good.

Atno

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2020, 01:01:20 am »
I don't think so. I think theism as a whole would be compromised, since I agree with Samuel Clarke in thinking that if the Necessary Being is personal/intelligent, then it must be good. How could it even make any sense for a being to be intelligent but indifferent towards the good? That would constitute a limitation, a form of irrationality. If a being is intelligent, rational, then it must care about goodness and fittingness, and must in fact desire the good.

If the Necessary Being is personal, but doesn't care about or desire things to be good and fitting, then the Necessary Being is stupid, which is absurd. How and why would it be stupid or have such a limitation/lack of perfection? It would be deficient, less than purely actual, limited, etc.

And if the Necessary Being is not personal, then all perfections associated with personhood (such as intelligence, will, consciousness, etc) would have magically come into being from nothing. We don't secure the intelligibility of being after all. The source of existence must also be the source of perfections, otherwise we would have a case of a reality (such as intelligence) coming into being from nothing. Plus all the other arguments we have for attributing intelligence, will, etc. to the First Cause.

Thus the Necessary Being must be intelligent (in fact, it must be omniscient). But if it is to be omniscient, it must know moral truths, natural laws, etc; it must in fact desire the good and reject evil, and given that there is no ignorance, weakness or any other imperfection in the First Cause, it must be morally perfect.

So the problem of evil is indeed an argument against theism in general. And a powerful argument, in fact, as I think Davies's and Hart's "classical theist" response is almost entirely useless. Some theodicy must be true. Still, even without knowing any theodicy, one can (and should, I think) still find the positive case for God's existence to be more compelling than the problem of evil.

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2020, 11:46:54 am »
Rasmussen was really impressive in the dialogue. Not only have I never heard of the geometrical argument for a necessary beimg before, but he also forced Leon to embrace a position where Mackie rolls around in his grave. And iIrc he argues for the foundational mind without once violating the Principal of Material Causality he conceded for the sake of argument (creatio ex nihilo just became ex deo).

Atno, do you agree that evil is a privation of goodness? Or, to formulate it like Rasmussen, that goodness is always more foundational and evil “builts“ upon it? If you agree as much I think we can find a middle ground. I must also recognize that Davies' non-theodicist position has often not been communicated that well. While I have neither time nor space to do him justice, consider what Maimonides wrote in his “Guide for the Perplexed“. After establishing Gods aseity, self-sufficiency and immutability, Maimonides directly draws from the fact of creation to the Goodness of God, despite obviously recognizing all the evil, because God couldn't benefit from it. Doing something for its own sake is what we could call benevolence. Maimonides is an adherent of full apophatic theology, so I think he'd agree with me that Gods goodness isn't human goodness. I don't support your view that God needs good moral reasons, if that is to mean in terms of moral standards that we also adhere to. The PoE is no problem for supernaturalism and, pace you, no problem for certain kinds of theism. Maimonides himself argues that creation is mirroring Gods perfection and that humanity is a neglectible factor.
What I mean to suggest is that this view is a good retreat. Davies isn't concerned with those evidential arguments from Rowe or others, Feser neither, due to their rejection of such a view on Gods goodness.
I still think though that theodicies can provide valuable insights. I also think that they help explaining certain kinds of evil. So I'd encourage everyone to proceed, since it is always preferable to have a justification that we can understand. What I like about the classical answer though is that it enables us to even turn the table.

Hiddenness is in a similar field.

I have to read Drapers paper on the a priori much more likelihood of source physicalism than theism , but I fear that this is more a topic for the philosophy of mind.

Anyone got something to add on mind-brain dependence or evolution? Not that I think the latter works in any way without teleology, but I'd still be interested in insights for reasons as to why God might have used it.

RomanJoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2020, 02:04:46 pm »
I don't think so. I think theism as a whole would be compromised, since I agree with Samuel Clarke in thinking that if the Necessary Being is personal/intelligent, then it must be good. How could it even make any sense for a being to be intelligent but indifferent towards the good? That would constitute a limitation, a form of irrationality. If a being is intelligent, rational, then it must care about goodness and fittingness, and must in fact desire the good.

If the Necessary Being is personal, but doesn't care about or desire things to be good and fitting, then the Necessary Being is stupid, which is absurd. How and why would it be stupid or have such a limitation/lack of perfection? It would be deficient, less than purely actual, limited, etc.

And if the Necessary Being is not personal, then all perfections associated with personhood (such as intelligence, will, consciousness, etc) would have magically come into being from nothing. We don't secure the intelligibility of being after all. The source of existence must also be the source of perfections, otherwise we would have a case of a reality (such as intelligence) coming into being from nothing. Plus all the other arguments we have for attributing intelligence, will, etc. to the First Cause.

Thus the Necessary Being must be intelligent (in fact, it must be omniscient). But if it is to be omniscient, it must know moral truths, natural laws, etc; it must in fact desire the good and reject evil, and given that there is no ignorance, weakness or any other imperfection in the First Cause, it must be morally perfect.

So the problem of evil is indeed an argument against theism in general. And a powerful argument, in fact, as I think Davies's and Hart's "classical theist" response is almost entirely useless. Some theodicy must be true. Still, even without knowing any theodicy, one can (and should, I think) still find the positive case for God's existence to be more compelling than the problem of evil.

Thanks for addressing that Atno. I hadn't contemplated much on this, but considering now the adage that being is convertible with goodness or that actuality is perfection, I think you're right that the problem of evil can pose a metaphysical challenge to theism in general.

Atno

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2020, 08:45:38 pm »
Yes, Rasmussen is one of my favorite philosophers at the moment. He's relatively easy to reach and talk to, as well.

Dominik, I still can't make sense of that "theism" you're suggesting wouldn't have problems with the PoE. It seems to me that, in the attempt to dissociate God from criteria human moral goodness, we end up dissociating him from all goodness, or at the very least from any notion of "moral goodness" which makes sense to us. If the later, that is also problematic because I would argue that (here in agreement with Hart) to be beyond good and evil (even our understanding of it) just is to be evil. A God who, for instance, doesn't need any morally sufficient reasons to permit a child to suffer horribly is evil or deficient. 

I do think that evil is a privation of goodness, but that does nothing to weaken my position. Moral evil is a violation of moral laws, and we know (or I believe we know) facts/evils which ought to be repugnant and antagonic to any ideal rational observer. Since God is an ideal rational observer, he must oppose evils, and that leads to the problem of evil.

If a being is intelligent and rational - in any way - then he ought to know facts like "an innocent person should not gratuitously suffer horribly", "people are not to be tortured for fun", and so on. These are facts based on the intrinsic natures of the beings involved, in the natural law which ultimately is founded on the eternal law. God cannot possibly will for people to be tortured for fun; he cannot be indifferent to it, either. He cannot be indifferent, and, having the means to stop, must do so. Unless that God were quite literally stupid or irrational, incapable of grasping simple truths and acting accordingly, which is absurd.

Do you think God could possibly create a world that consisted of nothing but children being horribly tortured forever? And if so, do you think such a God could still be considered "good" in gratuitously providing Being to such a world? That seems clearly absurd to me. If the horrendous world is impossible, we are already placing God in a moral context that is analogous to our understanding of morality. I think that's inevitable.

To me, every rational agent (possessing Intellect and Will) is a moral agent by its own nature. And we know enough about morality to know that any rational agent should recognize that "torturing people for fun is wrong" and is to be avoided and shunned. God is a rational agent. So God is a moral agent and should also recognize moral truths and act accordingly. In fact, as the ground of all being, rationality, and natural law, God cannot fail to recognize and act accordingly to moral truth. To suggest God could possibly allow an innocent child to be tortured for no reason whatsoever is as insane as saying that God could desire to create square circles or feel frustration over not being able to create married bachelors, etc.

So it is quite simple to me. Consider any example of a horrendous evil. If God can tolerate such an occurrence without any morally sufficient reason (MSR as traditionally understood in standard theodicies), then either 1) God is irrational or non-rational, or 2) that horrendous evil really is not some kind of universal evil after all (i.e. our moral knowledge is completely wrong). I think 2 is unacceptable. You can accept 1, however, and maintain that the Necessary Cause is not rational, but I wouldn't call that theism anymore.

I see no way around this. To adopt Davies's line, either we have to become radically revisionistic about our moral knowledge and hold that a horrendous evil is NOT something universally repugnant that any *ideally rational being* would/should seek to oppose; OR we have to turn God into some effectively irrational being which is indifferent towards that which any ideal rationality would oppose.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2020, 08:52:38 pm by Atno »

guest2

  • Guest
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2020, 01:01:22 am »
I'm not sure what is meant he by the approach of Davies and Hart. The former I associate with the idea God is not a moral agent. Whilst I see some validity to this, I agree it has issues, not least because the Platonist in me would say that creation must in some sense reflect God anyway, even if he is indifferent to it as a personal being. But I think the privation understanding of evil, if that is what is meant as well, is fundamental to all understandings of evil and imperfection, and must underlie all the other theodicies. That creation is by its nature open to imperfection, because not even God can create another God, is to me the foundation of all the more particular theodicies, which are needed mostly to deal with certain specific issues.

As a consequence of this, I think we need to be a little less coy about a further option for explaining some of the instances of evil in the world: God cannot stop them. I don't think this is as problematic as the problem of evil suggests, because even God can't do what is impossible, and evil as privation suggests at least the possibility of certain evils existing if creation does. The rest is more a matter of details, and if we can't say for certain why such and such an evil occurs, I think that only is very minor evidence against theism at best, and agree with Atno that the evidence for theism must be taken as a whole.

I think it also worth emphasising the traditional hierarchy of being. In that hierarchy, for most of creation, imperfection doesn't equal suffering or evil. Only in the corporeal and infernal realms does it do so. This is quite a different vision to the modern view that informs sceptics, which only takes in the corporeal realm, and that from only certain aspects.  The reason I think this is important is that the problem of evil seems to often come down to intuitions about the amount and kind of suffering in the corporeal world, and whether a truly good, all-powerful God would allow it. Seeing that suffering in its proper place and proportion is therefore of great importance.

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2020, 06:55:41 pm »
Time is rare today, I will continue in due time. Meanwhile I will link to Davies book so that it is more clear what he is talking about:

https://noachideblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/141094444-54650507-the-reality-of-god-and-the-problem-of-evil.pdf

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2020, 05:34:49 pm »
Atno,

If you say that some theodicy is true, do you mean that for the evil to occur God must have some reason we ourselves recognize as moral reason? IOW given that we both accept the PSR, there is always a reason for the contingent occurence, but I think we differ on when that condition is satisfied. Take the example of a kid having cancer.

Why the kid has cancer can be explained by pointing at the cell cycle at which a tumor suppressor has mutated which led to the development of cancerous cells.

This is sufficient, but do you think that there lacks an explanation? How is that happening and why didn't God intervene? I agree in the first case, but I assume that it could be collapsed into the explanation above. I disagree in the second case though. I think the search for such a theodicy is misguided (“Plagues on both your houses“ to quote Davies on Mackie and Swinburne) and won't provide insight. Even in the cases where God intervenes I would apply the reason here in the same way in which if it is asked why God actualized a particular wirld instead of another. Rob Koons had a great interview a few days ago in which he also talked about the Problem of Evil. I will give a link and a time stamp later, I very much agree with him.

With that said I recognize that there are classical theists who disagree with me, e.g. Pruss, Rasmussen and Dougherty. I don't reject their solutions out of hand. In fact I have great sympathy to Doughertys animal theodicy. But I think starting from the assumption that God has any particular moral obligation, be it even only analogically comparable to usit, is the wrong approach.

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2020, 05:48:29 pm »


1:26:05 is when Koons starts on the Problem of Evil.

Atno

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2020, 11:49:28 pm »
Yes, I do think we need an explanation that gives us a moral reason for why God would allow such a thing. I am 100% in agreement with Swinburne and the "personalists" on this (and classical theists, of course). I think Davies' and Hart's responses are wholly inadequate, and I've tried to explain why I think this is the case.

I have yet to watch that video, but I have heard Koons speak briefly on the subject before, and it was something to the effect that God's creation of the world ex nihilo was so removed from our experience etc. that we could not judge it properly, etc. I agree only to the extent that the question invites a healthy skepticism, but I still side with Pruss and other theodicists.

Atno

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2020, 11:53:18 pm »
Oh, and I also wanna add that I think the Christian theist has an advantage over the bare theist when it comes to the problem of evil. Not only do I think that classical theism doesn't solve the problem, I think that something like the Incarnation and Suffering of Christ are reasonably expected, and the idea that (as Adams suggests) those who suffer horribly can be united to the Cross of God is very attractive to me. I think this is a good philosophical argument for Christianity.

jd3

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2020, 01:51:52 pm »
While we're on this subject, I'm curious A. What everyone's preferred solution to the POE is and how you could explain it in just a few paragraphs and B. What do you think of my preferred solution, which combines 3 responses together:

The fact that God offers an infinite afterlife more than compensates for any temporary evil experienced in this life. Imagine you experienced a perfect 80 year life, except for one time when you stubbed your toe and experienced 30 seconds of pain. Surely, the ratio of good to evil during those 80 years is so astronomically good that no one would complain about God not preventing that one incident. Yet, God offers an even better ratio of good to evil. Even assuming you suffer for 80 miserably years, the ratio would be infinity to 80 years, which is much greater than 80 years to 30 seconds. Since no one deserves to exist in the first place, the fact that God offers such an afterlife constitutes infinite goodness.

Second, even if one does not accept this ("if God were TRULY good, he would have prevented the toe-stubbing"), you would have to establish that God has no valid reasons for allowing the evil that he does. To respond that God is omnipotent and thus could accomplish everything he wants *without evil* is question begging. Thus, the logical problem of evil fails. One might alter their response and say that "it seems unlikely that God could have a good reason for Evil", which is known as the "evidential problem of evil." Here too, given our limitations (imagine a dog trying to understand the internet) we are not in a great position to say what is likely or unlikely.

Third, suppose that one rejects all of the above, accepts the evidential problem of evil, and thus declares God's existence unlikely. We would still have to deal with the cosmological arguments, such as the Aristotelian argument from change, that establish the existence of God. Given two arguments, one that declares God to be unlikely vs. one that establishes, with certainty, the existence of God, we should favor the latter. For it is much easier to find ways around the evidential problem than to get around the cosmological argument.