Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[Meow Mix]

Today I'd like to address a particular response often given to the Problem of Evil: that God has a good reason for allowing evil to occur, even if we're don't know what that reason is. This theodicy usually looks something like this:

Erin: Why does child leukemia exist? Why doesn't your omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being prevent it?
Theodicist: What makes you so certain child leukemia doesn't serve some greater good?
Erin: But what greater good? All I see is suffering.
Theodicist: Well, God is omnipotent and omniscient. There could be some purpose to child leukemia that you and I just don't understand that ultimately enables some greater good. Furthermore, since God is good and God allows child leukemia to exist, we can even assume that there is some purpose to it that we just don't know because you and I are finite and fallible.

This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

There are two objections to note here. One comes in the form of a parody:

Say that an extraterrestrial lands on planet earth and blasts a bunch of people seemingly at random with a ray gun. Inexplicably, the extraterrestrial agrees to stand trial for its actions. "I am immensely more powerful and more intelligent than you are," ET says to the judge and to the people of Earth. "You cannot say that my actions were malevolent. I have benevolent reasons for them that you couldn't possibly understand."

Intuitively, is it the case that we are incapable of arriving to the conclusion that what ET did is malevolent in a reasonable fashion? They may be more powerful and more intelligent than humans, but it seems to me as though we are still behaving reasonably by concluding the actions were malevolent in the complete absence of any evidence they were benevolent. Do you agree?

The second objection is the consequence of allowing special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacy for a reason.

Let's say that our theodicist from the earlier conversation dies, and finds themselves in a throne room before God. God gets off His throne, whips out a holy flanged mace, and begins to mercilessly beat the everloving snot out of the theodicist.

"It's okay," the theodicist might think. "This is God, God is smarter and more powerful than me. I may not understand it, but God has a good, benevolent reason for doing this."

A day passes of beatings. A week. A month. "God must have a good reason for this," the theodicist continues to think. A year goes by. A decade. Millennia. Eons.

Is there ever a point where the theodicist can break out of their special pleading argument? Is there ever a stopping point where they may admit, "ok, maybe God is just malevolent?" No -- they can continue their special pleading argument infinitely. Can you see why that's a problem?

 

[an anarchist]

Today I'd like to address a particular response often given to the Problem of Evil: that God has a good reason for allowing evil to occur, even if we're don't know what that reason is. This theodicy usually looks something like this:



This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

There are two objections to note here. One comes in the form of a parody:

Say that an extraterrestrial lands on planet earth and blasts a bunch of people seemingly at random with a ray gun. Inexplicably, the extraterrestrial agrees to stand trial for its actions. "I am immensely more powerful and more intelligent than you are," ET says to the judge and to the people of Earth. "You cannot say that my actions were malevolent. I have benevolent reasons for them that you couldn't possibly understand."

Intuitively, is it the case that we are incapable of arriving to the conclusion that what ET is malevolent in a reasonable fashion? They may be more powerful and more intelligent than humans, but it seems to me as though we are still behaving reasonably by concluding the actions were malevolent in the complete absence of any evidence they were benevolent. Do you agree?

The second objection is the consequence of allowing special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacy for a reason.

Let's say that our theodicist from the earlier conversation dies, and finds themselves in a throne room before God. God gets off His throne, whips out a holy flanged mace, and begins to mercilessly beat the everloving snot out of the theodicist.

"It's okay," the theodicist might think. "This is God, God is smarter and more powerful than me. I may not understand it, but God has a good, benevolent reason for doing this."

A day passes of beatings. A week. A month. "God must have a good reason for this," the theodicist continues to think. A year goes by. A decade. Millennia. Eons.

Is there ever a point where the theodicist can break out of their special pleading argument? Is there ever a stopping point where they may admit, "ok, maybe God is just malevolent?" No -- they can continue their special pleading argument infinitely. Can you see why that's a problem?

I have a different theory on how God could claim benevolence whilst their is evil in the world. The cause of all human suffering is negative karma that humanity, as a collective, accumulates. Let’s use me for an example. I live in a first world country. People dying here of cancer just like any other country. I believe that I, and my fellow countrymen, are directly responsible for these children’s cancer. The evil that we output into the world comes back one way or another. If we aren’t directly affected by the negative karma we create, I suppose it goes to the innocent kids. Just by paying taxes, we fund daily war crimes (as an American at least). Most Americans are in denial of their role in human suffering, yet they ask how can God let suffering happen in their streets.

 

[Meow Mix]

I have a different theory on how God could claim benevolence whilst their is evil in the world. The cause of all human suffering is negative karma that humanity, as a collective, accumulates. Let’s use me for an example. I live in a first world country. People dying here of cancer just like any other country. I believe that I, and my fellow countrymen, are directly responsible for these children’s cancer. The evil that we output into the world comes back one way or another. If we aren’t directly affected by the negative karma we create, I suppose it goes to the innocent kids. Just by paying taxes, we fund daily war crimes (as an American at least). Most Americans are in denial of their role in human suffering, yet they ask how can God let suffering happen in their streets.

This doesn't seem like it fits in with the PoE. In the PoE premises, God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being: such a being would be able to prevent this karma mechanism you speak of; and they would ostensibly be culpable for its existence in the first place.

Punishing an innocent for the action of another is not very benevolent, on top of that; so this would just worsen the PoE.

 

[viole]

Today I'd like to address a particular response often given to the Problem of Evil: that God has a good reason for allowing evil to occur, even if we're don't know what that reason is. This theodicy usually looks something like this:



This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

There are two objections to note here. One comes in the form of a parody:

Say that an extraterrestrial lands on planet earth and blasts a bunch of people seemingly at random with a ray gun. Inexplicably, the extraterrestrial agrees to stand trial for its actions. "I am immensely more powerful and more intelligent than you are," ET says to the judge and to the people of Earth. "You cannot say that my actions were malevolent. I have benevolent reasons for them that you couldn't possibly understand."

Intuitively, is it the case that we are incapable of arriving to the conclusion that what ET is malevolent in a reasonable fashion? They may be more powerful and more intelligent than humans, but it seems to me as though we are still behaving reasonably by concluding the actions were malevolent in the complete absence of any evidence they were benevolent. Do you agree?

The second objection is the consequence of allowing special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacy for a reason.

Let's say that our theodicist from the earlier conversation dies, and finds themselves in a throne room before God. God gets off His throne, whips out a holy flanged mace, and begins to mercilessly beat the everloving snot out of the theodicist.

"It's okay," the theodicist might think. "This is God, God is smarter and more powerful than me. I may not understand it, but God has a good, benevolent reason for doing this."

A day passes of beatings. A week. A month. "God must have a good reason for this," the theodicist continues to think. A year goes by. A decade. Millennia. Eons.

Is there ever a point where the theodicist can break out of their special pleading argument? Is there ever a stopping point where they may admit, "ok, maybe God is just malevolent?" No -- they can continue their special pleading argument infinitely. Can you see why that's a problem?

So, if I buy a gun and kill the first kid I see, I operated in the interest of a higher good?

ciao

- viole

 

[Shakeel]

This life is a test. If it was perfect, it would be no test.

You fail to comprehend that theists believe in God. When someone believes in God and a message He sent, they don't need to understand everything.

God has told us about the day of judgment and what would happen and why so the confusion of the individual in your story can only be because he has no idea about those things and his punishment can be only due to his own sins.

A child's cancer is a test. It is a test to the parents. It is a sign to mankind that should remind you that you are not in control. That despite all your knowledge, you just can't cure cancer unless God wills it. We are inherently weak, needy and ignorant. Your child dying slowly of cancer in the hands of the world's best doctors should make you think a little.

 

[viole]

I have a different theory on how God could claim benevolence whilst their is evil in the world. The cause of all human suffering is negative karma that humanity, as a collective, accumulates. Let’s use me for an example. I live in a first world country. People dying here of cancer just like any other country. I believe that I, and my fellow countrymen, are directly responsible for these children’s cancer. The evil that we output into the world comes back one way or another. If we aren’t directly affected by the negative karma we create, I suppose it goes to the innocent kids. Just by paying taxes, we fund daily war crimes (as an American at least). Most Americans are in denial of their role in human suffering, yet they ask how can God let suffering happen in their streets.

The latest tsunami killed about 200,000 people. Indiscriminately. Would you say that tsunamis are the result of the evil accumulated by human beings? What about earthquakes, exploding volcanoes and falling asteroids?

Was Pompeii wiped out by bad karma?

ciao

- viole

 

[Meow Mix]

This life is a test. If it was perfect, it would be no test.

You fail to comprehend that theists believe in God. When someone believes in God and a message He sent, they don't need to understand everything.

God has told us about the day of judgment and what would happen and why so the confusion of the individual in your story can only be because he has no idea about those things and his punishment can be only due to his own sins.

A child's cancer is a test. It is a test to the parents. It is a sign to mankind that should remind you that you are not in control. That despite all your knowledge, you just can't cure cancer unless God wills it. We are inherently weak, needy and ignorant. Your child dying slowly of cancer in the hands of the world's best doctors should make you think a little.

Does this use of children's pain to "put us in our place" seem good to you? Your moral compass registers this as good? (Asking, not putting words in your mouth). Out of curiosity.

 

[viole]

You fail to comprehend that theists believe in God. When someone believes in God and a message He sent, they don't need to understand everything.

We noticed that.

child's cancer is a test. It is a test to the parents. It is a sign to mankind that should remind you that you are not in control. That despite all your knowledge, you just can't cure cancer unless God wills it. We are inherently weak, needy and ignorant. Your child dying slowly of cancer in the hands of the world's best doctors should make you think a little.

Why do theists keep on concentrating on the parents, and the ordeal they have to go through, and how spiritually and deep that tragedy can influence them, and forger the child?

that poor child who hardly experienced a day of life and then suffers immensely to his demise. If that is a test, how is your God different from Dr. Mengele?

ciao

- viole

 

[Meow Mix]

So, if I buy a gun and kill the first kid I see, I operated in the interest of a higher good?

ciao

- viole

Well, I see where you're going, but no; because it doesn't fulfill the conditions of the hypothetical: you can't claim to be more powerful and more intelligent, and ostensibly in the hypothetical the argument being made is the being might have some reason.

 

[an anarchist]

Punishing an innocent for the action of another is not very benevolent, on top of that; so this would just worsen the PoE.

I’m not saying God is punishing the innocent. Those who are responsible for the negative karma, which creates this evil hellish world we live in, those people is who God will punish. Punished because of the injustice done to the innocents as a result of man’s immorality.

such a being would be able to prevent this karma mechanism you speak of; and they would ostensibly be culpable for its existence in the first place.

Suppose that God doesn’t own the universe, rather, the antithesis of God, (what some call Satan) is the current ruler of the universe. Mankind is responsible for returning ownership of the universe back to God, out of Satan’s hands. So yes, in theory, God can prevent all evils. But He already did that with the creation of Eden.
It is man’s responsibility, not God’s, to bring an end to human suffering. I believe that starts with each individual doing some introspection on what their role is in the collective suffering, and what they can do to negate it. On this particular subject, I would say you would find many diverse views within Christian circles.

 

[an anarchist]

The latest tsunami killed about 200,000 people. Indiscriminately. Would you say that tsunamis are the result of the evil accumulated by human beings? What about earthquakes, exploding volcanoes and falling asteroids?

Was Pompeii wiped out by bad karma?

ciao

- viole

I would, actually. Might be tactless to say ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Meow Mix]

This life is a test. If it was perfect, it would be no test.

You fail to comprehend that theists believe in God. When someone believes in God and a message He sent, they don't need to understand everything.

God has told us about the day of judgment and what would happen and why so the confusion of the individual in your story can only be because he has no idea about those things and his punishment can be only due to his own sins.

A child's cancer is a test. It is a test to the parents. It is a sign to mankind that should remind you that you are not in control. That despite all your knowledge, you just can't cure cancer unless God wills it. We are inherently weak, needy and ignorant. Your child dying slowly of cancer in the hands of the world's best doctors should make you think a little.

Other than the moral compass question, let me now actually examine this in terms of the argument.

What need does an omnipotent, omniscient being have for a test? Why does a sign to mankind that "you are not in control" have to be as traumatic as child leukemia? Couldn't an omnipotent, omniscient being find literally infinite other ways to do this?

This seems to describe a conspicuously malevolent being, not a benevolent being with an ineffable purpose for the suffering.

 

[viole]

Well, I see where you're going, but no; because it doesn't fulfill the conditions of the hypothetical: you can't claim to be more powerful and more intelligent, and ostensibly in the hypothetical the argument being made is the being might have some reason.

I know, but I once won a debate with a theist who was insisting that God could only create the best of all possible worlds. That was relating to the Leibnitz cosmological argument, PSR. Modal logic and all that.

obviously, if God is really that, then me killing a child could only make this world better or equal to what was before. By necessity.

ciao

- viole

 

[Meow Mix]

Suppose that God doesn’t own the universe,

Snipping the rest (I did read it) because we have already left the Problem of Evil and I need to point that out. It's still interesting to discuss, but remember, the Problem of Evil only applies if the premises apply. In this case that you're talking about, the premises would not apply.

 

[viole]

I would, actually. Might be tactless to say ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What is that? Looks like what my doctor wrote on the latest prescription. Or, is that tactless to ask that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Meow Mix]

I know, but I once won a debate with a theist who was insisting that God could only create the best of all possible worlds. That was relating to the Leibnitz cosmological argument, PSR. Modal logic and all that.

obviously, if God is really that, then me killing a child could only make this world better or equal to what was before. By necessity.

ciao

- viole

I see what you're saying. I've made a similar argument before, so I may have misinterpreted you before.

(e.g., theist said that God introducing suffering was good because it allowed for things like heroes to exist. So I asked, well what if I somehow could open a door to a dimension where no one has ever suffered before and I started making them suffer. Have I done a good thing? etc.)

 

[an anarchist]

What is that? Looks like what my doctor wrote on the latest prescription. Or, is that tactless to ask that?

Ciao

- viole

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ this guy? Just a feller shrugging his shoulders ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[viole]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ this guy? Just a feller shrugging his shoulders ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Allright.
Now, volcanoes and asteroids were destroying life long before humans could accumulate negative karma. Which is a mechanism I would like to know more about, anyway. Prima facie, it looks just like yet another made up rationalization. But I might be too superficial. How does it work? Like the points we accumulate when we buy in our preferred supermarket?

Anyway, isn.t much more parsimonious to postulate that volcanoes simply explode every now and then, and that is incidental what form of lives live in their neighborhood at the time? And that God simply does not care?

ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

Spoiler: Caution: Mischief lurks within

Define evil.
Doctor Pangloss has eviscerated all attempts at this.
We must be rigorous, ya know.

 

[Shakeel]

The latest tsunami killed about 200,000 people. Indiscriminately. Would you say that tsunamis are the result of the evil accumulated by human beings? What about earthquakes, exploding volcanoes and falling asteroids?

Was Pompeii wiped out by bad karma?

ciao

- viole

I don't believe every death is a punishment. I don't know the reasons to disasters from the religious point of view unless Allah mentioned it somewhere as is the case with Pharao and Lut, for instance.