Rose's complaint

Art48

What's the matter, Rose? You look a bit sad.

Well, I am. Yesterday, a man was rather rude and short-tempered with me. And today I find my neighbor has lied to me in the past. Sometimes I wonder why God allows evil.

Well, Rose, you wouldn't want to be a robot, would you? You wouldn't want to live where everyone else was a robot, too, right? But for us to not be robots God has to allow us free will and free will means that sometimes people will misuse their free will and do evil. Do you understand?

Yes, but I thought things would be different here in heaven.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious people often use free will to explain how evil can exist in the creation of an all-good God. They present a false dichotomy of free will vs robot. They say without free will we'd be mere robots. They say that free will and its misuse is why evil exists in the world. And God, by gosh, can't do anything about it. God had to choose between giving us free will or letting us be mere robots.

Yet, they also believe that in heaven we all have free will but there is no evil.

Is there free will in heaven? Yes? Is there evil in heaven? No? Then free will doesn't explain (or inevitably lead to) evil.

QED

SpaceDweller

Is there free will in heaven? Yes? Is there evil in heaven? No? Then free will doesn't explain (or inevitably lead to) evil. — Art48

You have discovered nothing new because evil doesn't come because of free will.

It's rather God's laws that make us recognize evil.
I recently googled "what is purpose of religion" and come upon one interesting conclusion:

The essence of religion is to develop in us the sense of recognition of evil

universeness

It's rather God's laws that make us recognize evi — SpaceDweller

Which god and which set of god laws are you referring to?
The Abrahamic god certainly does not obey its own laws, it's just like Boris Johnstone in that sense.

The essence of religion is to develop in us the sense of recognition of evil

So do you think godless humans like me, are unable to label any act by another human, evil?

SpaceDweller

Which god and which set of god laws are you referring to? — universeness

All religions have in common to lay out laws or commandments or some set of rules.
and what all these rules have in common is recognition of evil because obeying rules implies good.

So do you think godless humans like me, are unable to label any act by another human, evil? — universeness

that's tough question because morality is subjective.
but what is sure is that you can't judge what's good or evil without some laws.

universeness

↪SpaceDweller

Ok, but can a human judge what’s good or evil without god laws. Can we not make our own humanist laws?

Sir2u

but what is sure is that you can't judge what's good or evil without some laws. — SpaceDweller

Not sure about that, could you explain a bit how you got to that conclusion. and maybe you could explain what you consider a law to be.

skyblack

The POV approach for the OP's narrative is good.

A simple point, perhaps not particularly related to the question in op (or perhaps it is), it won't be a rose either in this world or in "heaven", if it complains. It must be a 'human' disguised as a rose.

Sir2u

it won't be a rose either in this world or in "heaven", if it complains. It must be a 'human' disguised as a rose. — skyblack

Maybe Rose is the name of the person. :wink:

SpaceDweller

↪universeness

What you consider humane someone else may consider inhumane, how do we then make laws?
I think laws need to be well tested and crafted and not depend on what majority thinks is right.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+30%3A5&version=NABRE

↪Sir2u

If there is no law then how do you know what is right and what is wrong?

for example:
you are forced to choose to either kill yourself or kill your friend.
there is no law for this situation, therefore what is right and what is wrong?

universeness

What you consider humane someone else may consider inhumane, how do we then make laws?
I think laws need to be well tested and crafted and not depend on what majority thinks is right. — SpaceDweller

Was this the quote you linked me to?

Every word of God is tested;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

We make laws by electing politicians. Democracy is the best way imo. The majority elect the law makers.
Laws are tested by lawyers in courts every day.
Every word of gods written by humans into books have been tested and found to be pretty poor guidelines.
Many proposed words of gods incite violence, justify ethnic cleansing, slavery, racism, autocratic rule, etc
They even suggest really repugnant ideas such as ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesars,’ even though he was an evil scumbag who destroyed whole peoples!

universeness

you are forced to choose to either kill yourself or kill your friend.
there is no law for this situation, therefore what is right and what is wrong? — SpaceDweller

There is your own moral law. I would refuse to kill myself or my friend and I would try my best to attack the b******, who was trying to force me to make this unacceptable choice. If the circumstance meant I must choose between these two options then my own moral code dictates that I must choose to kill myself.

SpaceDweller

We make laws by electing politicians. Democracy is the best way imo. — universeness

Democracy just like any other form of government is nothing else but ideology, and just like democracy come so will other forms of governments come and then people will claim how good it is.

Every word of gods written by humans into books have been tested and found to be pretty poor guidelines. — universeness

Word of God survived the test of time.
laws that humans make do not survive the test of time, human laws are constantly changing.

Many proposed words of gods incite violence, justify ethnic cleansing, slavery, racism, autocratic rule, etc
They even suggest really repugnant ideas such as ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesars,’ even though he was an evil scumbag who destroyed whole peoples! — universeness

you mix morality of the OT with morality of the NT, I don't see anything wrong with NT morals.

They even suggest really repugnant ideas such as ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesars,’ even though he was an evil scumbag who destroyed whole peoples! — universeness

Which is money, Caesar made money and he controls the flow of money, and so is the case today and so will be forever.

I would not judge history because times today are better, there may be even better times tomorrow and then they will judge how today was bad.

universeness

Democracy just like any other form of government is nothing else but ideology, and just like democracy come so will other forms of governments come and then people will claim how good it is. — SpaceDweller

I am not concerned with new policy which the majority of the humans on the planet, label as an example of ‘good government.’ I am concerned with ensuring very bad policy such as some of those created via religious doctrines in the past, are not ‘repackaged,’ and infect systems again. Putin’s religious affiliation is a good example. A theistic autocrat is a nefarious combination,

Word of God survived the test of time.
laws that humans make do not survive the test of time, human laws are constantly changing. — SpaceDweller

Firstly you are typing about the words of humans who claim what they type as the word of gods. The proposed words of the Hindu pantheon, Zeus, Odin etc etc have also survived. I assume you are an atheist when it comes to the Hindu gods, Zeus and Odin. Your ‘word of god,’ has much less authenticity than human laws.
You also make a very good point. A vile law of god cannot be changed because it’s duped followers believe that going against god laws is evil. Bad human laws can be changed. So if we are going to be grownups then we must not base our morality or laws on god fables because they are just the musings of ancient power brokers.

Which is money, Caesar made money and he controls the flow of money, and so is the case today and so will be forever.
I would not judge history because times today are better, there may be even better times tomorrow and then they will judge how today was bad. — SpaceDweller

Do you think todays nefarious characters from Trump to Putin and narcissist’s such as Elon Musk are as bad or are better than creatures like Caesar?
If you don’t judge history then you are doomed to repeat the mistakes in exemplifies.

Sir2u

If there is no law then how do you know what is right and what is wrong?

for example:
you are forced to choose to either kill yourself or kill your friend.
there is no law for this situation, therefore what is right and what is wrong? — SpaceDweller

I think that instinct would take over and I would kill the friend. Self preservation beats all except when your kids are involved.
That would be the law of nature. :wink:

Sir2u

Word of God survived the test of time.
laws that humans make do not survive the test of time, human laws are constantly changing. — SpaceDweller

The laws of god have been around for a couple of thousand years, natures laws have always been there.

But even if one were to accept the word of god, is it not man that interprets what god is trying to say?

M777

↪Art48

Maybe if there is a heaven, there can be no evil here on earth. Imagine a serial killer tortures you to death and you find yourself in heaven, wouldn't you thing something like "hmm, being in that mortal body was an interesting experience."

Alkis Piskas

Sometimes I wonder why God allows evil.
... But for us to not be robots God has to allow us free will and free will ... — Art48

Unfounded assumptions, assumptions, assumptions ... about an unfoundedly assumed entity!

skyblack

The rose has reached its completion, its perfection. The best it can ever be. There is no reason for the rose to complain. It reached its completion in its flowering. In the death of the bud is the flowering of the rose. And in the death of the flower....the cycle repeats. It is only the so called 'human' that is unable to die, therefore never Flowers to the perfection of its humanity, so it seems.

jorndoe

Morals have to do with concern for each other.

If there is no law then how do you know what is right and what is wrong? — SpaceDweller

I don't think morals can be reduced like that. Even given such a law, in any given situation, you'd still have to figure out if following it is the right thing to do.
Axiomatizing morals don't seem to work well, not rule-bound as such, performative. It's on us, bound by autonomous moral agents.
The various trolley problems also show that there can be dilemmas without one specific right thing to do.
And we have some examples where moral awareness evolved.
Tedious. :)

baker

Is there free will in heaven? Yes? Is there evil in heaven? No? Then free will doesn't explain (or inevitably lead to) evil. — Art48

But only good people get to heaven, people who do no evil.

Then free will doesn't explain (or inevitably lead to) evil.

Do you know any actual monotheistic doctrine that states that evil is due to free will?
Those that I'm aware of use the notion of "misuse of free will", and some then try to explain whence the misuse.

Can we not make our own humanist laws? — universeness

But what good are they?

Tom Storm

Word of God survived the test of time.
laws that humans make do not survive the test of time, human laws are constantly changing. — SpaceDweller

Actually this is pretty obviously false. Theist's moral actions (and what they imagine to be the word of god) has changed over the centuries, from enthusiastic killing of heathen and witches and advocating slavery, to more tolerant positions with the passing of time.

It's clear that theists have no objective basis to their beliefs. There is no word of god outside of interpretation. Believers simply hold subjective personal preferences about what they think god/s want. The very act of deciding upon which version of god is true is subjective, or an accident of birth. Depending what street you grow up on you are are either a Catholic or Jew; Sunni or Shia, Mormon or Baptist.

If we take mere Christianity as one example of personal preference morality, we know that believers do not agree about God's will. They hold very different views on capital punishment; abortion, gun ownership, homosexuality, climate change, drug law reform, euthanasia, the role of women, trans rights, etc, etc.

And in most cases theists will argue that their personal preferences about what god/s moral views are correct. Which is how we arrive at the moral quagmire of Christian ethics, wherein some hate fags and others fly the rainbow flag of diversity. And they all think their interpretation of scripture or god is accurate.

baker

Believers simply hold subjective personal preferences about what they think god/s want. — Tom Storm

But they don't see it that way. They believe they are being objective, neutral. (So do most people anyway.)

Which is how we arrive at the moral quagmire of Christian ethics — Tom Storm

Sure, but whose problem is that? The Christians themselves don't seem to have much problem with it. Each group of Christians, or even each individual Christian believes that they are right, that they are beyond, subjectivity, beyond personal preferences, and that it is other people (including some Christians) who are wrong. For them, this is not a problem, nor a source of doubt or any unease.

Tom Storm

↪baker

Agree.

Agent Smith

Superb! A dilemma (accept evil OR embrace robothood) worth pondering upon!

Protagoras would've been proud, OP!

I offer a counterdilemma:

Free will OR No evil!

Rose's complaint

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions