Hope you guys enjoyed this new Philosophical Foundations video. As always, if you like what you see on Philosophy for the People, help us to defeat that meanie algorithm by commenting, subscribing, and sharing! PS - Feel free suggest topics for our next Foundations video, as well. Lots of good stuff on the way!
PPS - For those interested, this video draws from insights from the following works. An Introduction to The Philosophy of Religion - Brian Davies Evil and Omnipotence - JL Mackie Logical Arguments from Evil and Free-Will Defences - Graham Oppy God and Necessity - Brian Leftow The Nature of Necessity - Alvin Plantinga
The problem of evil fascinates me. Rational arguments can be made both ways, even tho I lean toward skeptical theism. Personally, I only found deep closure on this problem while looking at Christ on the cross (and reading on the life of the saints). What arguments or books ultimately convinced you, Pat?
Lot of great works have influenced my thought on the PoE. Just some off the top of my head (which means I’ll be forgetting a lot): God and the Permission of Evil - Maritain St. Thomas and the Problem of Evil - Maritain The Problem of Evil and the Reality of God - Brian Davies Wandering In Darkness/Atonement/Problem of Mourning - Eleonore Stump The Problem of Evil - Peter van Inwagen All God’s Creatures - Trent Dougherty Metaphysics of Good and Evil - David Oderberg Goodness, God, and Evil - David Alexander And of course lots of articles from lots of different thinkers, from Plantinga to Alston to Wykstra, etc. If you have my book, you’ll see how I think the best of some of these accounts can be synthesized to provide a robust theodicy.
Great video! Plantinga offers a very convincing response to the logical argument form evil. A future video on Problems of Omniscience and Freedom would be welcome. Thank you for the great content!
I agree - that is, I’m with Leftow. I don’t think defenses are all that difficult to come by. However, I don’t think they show, in principle, that there couldn’t be a successful logical argument from evil. Just that there hasn’t been a successful one so far. I’m currently working on an article arguing for a more fundamental problem that plagues the logical problem of evil, one that, I think, does put a principled end to the matter. We’ll see! Thanks for the suggestions as well. Good ones!
Many would define evil broadly as any negative state of affairs. Different formulations of the argument of evil will provide different definitions, of course, and/or focus on what the author takes to be the most relevant instance of evil (for example, animal suffering).
Pat, it’d be great to see you dialogue with Parker over at Parker’s Pensées. Your content always reminds me of each other. Also: Pat you ought to invest a a camera upgrade soon. Get that smooth bokeh background to your streams.
I think thomas Talbott and Andrew Hronich have persuasively argued that, while (christ mediated) universalism doesnt solve the problems of evil, nonetheless, it's a necessary component to solving those issue
First, I believe a Logical Problem of Evil is a success when it causes the theist to change a concept in their belief set For instance, Plantenga change from God being able to do anything logical to anything feasible. Second, I’ve seen the LPE formulated in normative terms, that seems very much successful.
The fact that so many poor and powerless men women and children are subjected to torture, abuse, and violence while God supposedly watches, for no justifiable reasons, makes it impossible to look at an idea like theodicy with any seriousness. It is an absurd idea, and it is absurd to defend it.
Even if an idea is absurd in itself, said idea might be worth looking at even if only to see how and why it fails. With this in mind, I think you're wrong in implying that such an idea should not be looked at with any seriousness. Sometimes, we need to take even absurd ideas seriously, not in the sense that they are worth believing, but in the sense that we might learn something from them even though they are absurd. The only restriction I would put on my position is that the absurd ideas/opinions in question have to at least be clear enough to be understood. Any thoughts on what I had to say?
@@alphonso4717 Some wrong ideas can and need to be grappled with. But this is not one of those. People don't find this idea and then find god, rather they become religious and then use theodicy to justify it.
@@josephk.4200 Would you say that theodicies aren't worth looking at because they are used to justify preexisting beliefs? I'm trying to understand why you think theodicies aren't worth looking at, even if only to diagnose what's wrong with them. Admittedly, understanding why isn't too pressing to me since we're both strangers on the internet. If I misunderstood anything of what you said in commenting this, let me know.
@@alphonso4717 Yes that is sort of my point. Theodicy is a non-question when there is not any evidence for the existence of God in the first place. Therefore it can be summed up as people trying to justify their religious beliefs morally, creating these unnecessary concepts like "Is god still good in spite of Evil" when the reality is you took a wrong turn, and answered the question of "does god exist" in the same way that fundamentalists do. Religious people assume the answer to a more basic and important central question, instead of grappling with reality. So Theodicy is obviously only relevant if you believe there is a god in the first place. I'm someone who came from a fundamentalist protestant background, and discovered that it was really just mental illness and poverty that allows and pressures people to believe these absurd ideas. I've read far too much of the Bible and christian religious literature to see any value discussing their ideas any more. There is little worth saving from the wreckage of Chrstianity, it is far more valuable to start from scratch and begin understanding the world with a material scientific perspective.
@josephk.4200 Agree to disagree. I think it's easy for there to be evidence for just about any religion, so I'm not too moved by the claim that there is no evidence for x religion. I'm sure most people are being hyperbolic when they say this, but I'm still not too moved by more modest claims such as "there is no good evidence for x religion." I hope you have a good rest of your day.
Hope you guys enjoyed this new Philosophical Foundations video. As always, if you like what you see on Philosophy for the People, help us to defeat that meanie algorithm by commenting, subscribing, and sharing!
PS - Feel free suggest topics for our next Foundations video, as well. Lots of good stuff on the way!
PPS - For those interested, this video draws from insights from the following works.
An Introduction to The Philosophy of Religion - Brian Davies
Evil and Omnipotence - JL Mackie
Logical Arguments from Evil and Free-Will Defences - Graham Oppy
God and Necessity - Brian Leftow
The Nature of Necessity - Alvin Plantinga
The problem of evil fascinates me. Rational arguments can be made both ways, even tho I lean toward skeptical theism. Personally, I only found deep closure on this problem while looking at Christ on the cross (and reading on the life of the saints). What arguments or books ultimately convinced you, Pat?
Lot of great works have influenced my thought on the PoE. Just some off the top of my head (which means I’ll be forgetting a lot):
God and the Permission of Evil - Maritain
St. Thomas and the Problem of Evil - Maritain
The Problem of Evil and the Reality of God - Brian Davies
Wandering In Darkness/Atonement/Problem of Mourning - Eleonore Stump
The Problem of Evil - Peter van Inwagen
All God’s Creatures - Trent Dougherty
Metaphysics of Good and Evil - David Oderberg
Goodness, God, and Evil - David Alexander
And of course lots of articles from lots of different thinkers, from Plantinga to Alston to Wykstra, etc.
If you have my book, you’ll see how I think the best of some of these accounts can be synthesized to provide a robust theodicy.
Since you “lean towards skeptical theism” what is your answer to the Pandora’s Box Objection?
Great video! Plantinga offers a very convincing response to the logical argument form evil. A future video on Problems of Omniscience and Freedom would be welcome. Thank you for the great content!
I agree - that is, I’m with Leftow. I don’t think defenses are all that difficult to come by. However, I don’t think they show, in principle, that there couldn’t be a successful logical argument from evil. Just that there hasn’t been a successful one so far. I’m currently working on an article arguing for a more fundamental problem that plagues the logical problem of evil, one that, I think, does put a principled end to the matter. We’ll see!
Thanks for the suggestions as well. Good ones!
I say that the definition of evil needs to be made very clear. What you say here does not justify to me that God would at all be opposed to evil.
Many would define evil broadly as any negative state of affairs. Different formulations of the argument of evil will provide different definitions, of course, and/or focus on what the author takes to be the most relevant instance of evil (for example, animal suffering).
Pat, it’d be great to see you dialogue with Parker over at Parker’s Pensées. Your content always reminds me of each other.
Also: Pat you ought to invest a a camera upgrade soon. Get that smooth bokeh background to your streams.
Funny you mention it. Parker and I have been in conversation about getting together for a podcast. So, that may happen. Stay tuned!
I think thomas Talbott and Andrew Hronich have persuasively argued that, while (christ mediated) universalism doesnt solve the problems of evil, nonetheless, it's a necessary component to solving those issue
it's only a problem for various religions, as their ideologies and political fiction dont line up with reality
First, I believe a Logical Problem of Evil is a success when it causes the theist to change a concept in their belief set
For instance, Plantenga change from God being able to do anything logical to anything feasible.
Second, I’ve seen the LPE formulated in normative terms, that seems very much successful.
God's omnipotence does not extend to contradiction
The fact that so many poor and powerless men women and children are subjected to torture, abuse, and violence while God supposedly watches, for no justifiable reasons, makes it impossible to look at an idea like theodicy with any seriousness.
It is an absurd idea, and it is absurd to defend it.
Even if an idea is absurd in itself, said idea might be worth looking at even if only to see how and why it fails. With this in mind, I think you're wrong in implying that such an idea should not be looked at with any seriousness. Sometimes, we need to take even absurd ideas seriously, not in the sense that they are worth believing, but in the sense that we might learn something from them even though they are absurd.
The only restriction I would put on my position is that the absurd ideas/opinions in question have to at least be clear enough to be understood.
Any thoughts on what I had to say?
@@alphonso4717
Some wrong ideas can and need to be grappled with. But this is not one of those.
People don't find this idea and then find god, rather they become religious and then use theodicy to justify it.
@@josephk.4200 Would you say that theodicies aren't worth looking at because they are used to justify preexisting beliefs? I'm trying to understand why you think theodicies aren't worth looking at, even if only to diagnose what's wrong with them. Admittedly, understanding why isn't too pressing to me since we're both strangers on the internet.
If I misunderstood anything of what you said in commenting this, let me know.
@@alphonso4717
Yes that is sort of my point. Theodicy is a non-question when there is not any evidence for the existence of God in the first place.
Therefore it can be summed up as people trying to justify their religious beliefs morally, creating these unnecessary concepts like "Is god still good in spite of Evil" when the reality is you took a wrong turn, and answered the question of "does god exist" in the same way that fundamentalists do.
Religious people assume the answer to a more basic and important central question, instead of grappling with reality.
So Theodicy is obviously only relevant if you believe there is a god in the first place.
I'm someone who came from a fundamentalist protestant background, and discovered that it was really just mental illness and poverty that allows and pressures people to believe these absurd ideas.
I've read far too much of the Bible and christian religious literature to see any value discussing their ideas any more.
There is little worth saving from the wreckage of Chrstianity, it is far more valuable to start from scratch and begin understanding the world with a material scientific perspective.
@josephk.4200 Agree to disagree. I think it's easy for there to be evidence for just about any religion, so I'm not too moved by the claim that there is no evidence for x religion. I'm sure most people are being hyperbolic when they say this, but I'm still not too moved by more modest claims such as "there is no good evidence for x religion."
I hope you have a good rest of your day.