Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[Meow Mix]

And who gets to decide what is and isn't "adequate justification"?

I've said it's subjective; but provided a proposed litmus test: any method of justification that leads to admittedly incomplete epistemic positions that literally can't be gotten out of no matter what the evidence is probably not an acceptable or reasonable one.

To a believer, "God moves in mysterious ways", might serve as adequate justification.

Such a weak epistemic scheme could be used to "justify" anything, which is to say it justifies nothing at all.

IMO, the idea that the same standards that we use to judge people might not be adaquite for judging an omnipotent being seems like adequate justification for dismissing those standards.

Analogously, people with more power and more knowledge are capable of worse atrocities and have to do a better job of defending it if it's in fact justified.

In God's case we have only "the entirety of physical suffering throughout eternity" to justify.

Whether or not the "general principal properly applies to the situation" is also up for grabs. It isn't something that you have a right as a participant in a discussion like this to decide for everyone else, and it makes your reasoning sound circular.

I am not sure where you got the idea I was "deciding for everyone else," am I not allowed to argue my case? What are you doing if not arguing your case? That's just a confusing response.

I think that the general principle applies to both cases and I have argued why. You think it does not. So that's the discussion. Presenting argument isn't "deciding for everyone." You and me are cool, right? This is just fun discussion? Because it seems like you are accusing me a couple of times now of arguing in bad faith. Is that really what you think?

Except that's not what's being discussed. The position your OP is dealing with is one where someone is saying, "we don't have the information necessary to make this judgment", not "I have information but I can't share it with you".

Okay, maybe I didn't make it explicit, but it seems as though silence is epistemically the same in this instance as not being silent (but only saying, "I can't tell you.") God is ostensibly silent about justifying atrocities like childhood leukemia (or perhaps not, there are other bad theodicies like "it's because of the Fall" and such, but you get the idea). You're right that I should have explicitly brought out this premise, so I do so now.

Remember in your OP you're not arguing with God, you're arguing against someone whos suggesting that there may be some greater purpose that we don't understand that potentially negates the PoE.

Yes, but we're ostensibly arguing with that person to say, "your acceptance of a position you literally can't be evidenced out of is not a reasonable move."

Nope. That's not what your hypothetical answer to the PoE is suggesting at all. Its not saying "I have information but I'm not going to give it to you" it's saying "Neither one of us has the information we need to make this judgment". Its a completely different scenario.

Again (not an exasperated "again," more just meaning I said something new about this just a few lines above), God's ostensible silence on the issue is about the same as God saying something, but only saying "I can't tell you why." They affect the reasoning the same way. If we are not given good justification for the appearance of malevolence, we should not put ourselves in an epistemic position where we don't know it's benevolent, yet assume it, and then set that position up so we can literally never be given evidence to the contrary that we'd accept.

Yes, for someone who believes in God in this way, any action is justifiable, although "justifiable" isn't really the right word, since to someone with that kind of belief nothing would need to be justified. Still doesn't make this special pleading.

I'm not attached to fallacy names so I don't mind dropping it (it still is special pleading, though). As long as you understand the problem with it, I don't care what you call it.

OK then, how about explaining how your analogy is pertinent, instead of just saying that it is.

In both cases we have a claim of special knowledge that could explain away evidence of malevolence. In both cases we must either accept that on faith (or doubt it). In both cases if we accept it without a good reason, then we fall into a trap whereby there will never be a good reason to stop accepting it. It's an epistemic trap, and thus it is not reasonable to uphold.

 

[F1fan]

IMO, the idea that the same standards that we use to judge people might not be adaquite for judging an omnipotent being seems like adequate justification for dismissing those standards.

I agree. The dilemma is that the God of theists want lower moral standards for their God then humans. If a God is everything it's supposed to be it should have the highest standard.

Looking at nature, and the claims theists make of their Gods, it's apparent theists can't hold their god to a high moral standard because it would fail miserably. The compromise has to happen somewhere.

And this:

"Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn’t apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too".

Whether or not the "general principal properly applies to the situation" is also up for grabs. It isn't something that you have a right as a participant in a discussion like this to decide for everyone else, and it makes your reasoning sound circular.

This isn't accurate. Rules in logic are much like laws, and these are both applied with numerous applications. In law if there's an illegal act the prosecutors can file charges for violations that apply. RICO laws have been applied in some interesting ways. As for special pleading it's one of my favorite violations by creationists who try to inflate the creationst claims while dismissing work done by biologists. They don't apply the same skepticism to their own weak claims. The theists protest my accusation of their fallacy. I'm not extending any sort of authority. Im pointing out their flaws in thinking as evidenced by their posts.

 

[F1fan]

Oh please, you are just wasting time in word play. I could stick the words 'I believe based on my best assessment of all things that....' in front of every statement I make but that's just makes reading posts tedious and nitpicky. People understand I am presenting a theory.

Got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. And there were no cookies.

Everyone knows there is no indisputable proof on any controversial topic or there would be nothing to discuss or form an opinion on.

Yet that didn't stop you from making statements that asserted these dubious topics as if factual, did it?

 

[George-ananda]

Got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. And there were no cookies.


Yet that didn't stop you from making statements that asserted these dubious topics as if factual, did it?

You got caught with an empty complaint on my wording style and not substance.

 

[Meow Mix]

Okay, but my point is that they might know something you don't.

Perhaps, but we have to be willing to accept evidence of malevolence at a certain point. We can't put ourselves in a position where we can use the reasoning to explain away all evidence of malevolence, forever.

Okay, I guess from your perspective that could be a possibility.

Now I think we're getting somewhere. You say "due to all the evidence to the contrary" and that's my point. From the perspective of people who talk this way ... there is evidence already of the goodness of God in their lives. They believe God has done good things for them already. So it's much easier for them to trust God in a hard situation.

Only if you ignore all the evidence of the goodness and blessings God gives. Because even the sun can appear angry and hateful when it's covered by the smoke from a fire for example. But it's still the same sun that other people enjoy.

If there is evidence of both good and bad then I would say this is simply evidence against both omnimalevolence and omnibenevolence, though.

So it's all about perspectives and how they can be mistaken. Is the glass half full or half empty? Is the sun evil because someone dies in the desert? Or is the sun good because it makes plants grow and gives you vitamin D? It's up to you to decide how you see things.

That's what the book of Job is about. How a good person can have bad things happen to them that don't make sense and still retain their faith in God. And in the end that faith is rewarded. And that's our power with God and we do have power if we use it.

And if this was our only life then it wouldn't make sense for God to take your child with a horrible disease but if there is more to come then it might make sense after all. In my belief God is not finished with this creation. He's making everything new. Then the only things that will be left from this old creation will be your accomplishments. The good things you managed to do. So it's not in vain. It's all building a better world and the fact God lets us partake and build something that is eternal is good but it's not going to be easy.

I understand your perspective on this. I'm only arguing that there is this epistemic pitfall that can't be reasoned out of once it's taken up. I think that's a problem to be avoided. Defending omnibenevolence is not a position I'm envious of, essentially.

 

[Quagmire]

I've said it's subjective; but provided a proposed litmus test: any method of justification that leads to admittedly incomplete epistemic positions that literally can't be gotten out of no matter what the evidence is probably not an acceptable or reasonable one.



Such a weak epistemic scheme could be used to "justify" anything, which is to say it justifies nothing at all.

Again "justify" isn't the right word. The idea that you think anything needs to be justified means you'll never really understand the other side's position.

Analogously, people with more power and more knowledge are capable of worse atrocities and have to do a better job of defending it if it's in fact justified.

Again you're confusing the subject. This isn't about God justifying himself.

In God's case we have only "the entirety of physical suffering throughout eternity" to justify.

That's if you actually believe anything needs to be justified.

I am not sure where you got the idea I was "deciding for everyone else," am I not allowed to argue my case?

You were doing more than that. You were setting the parameters.

What are you doing if not arguing your case?

I'm not arguing anything. We haven't gotten that far yet. I'm just trying to get you to stop moving the goal postd so we can argue.

That's just a confusing response.

All the more so because you didn't bother to consider it.

I think that the general principle applies to both cases and I have argued why. You think it does not. So that's the discussion. Presenting argument isn't "deciding for everyone." You and me are cool, right?

Not really.

This is just fun discussion? Because it seems like you are accusing me a couple of times now of arguing in bad faith. Is that really what you think?

I'll cut you some slack and say I think it's possible that you don't even realize that that's what you're doing.

Then again I don't expect you to take a look at any of it either.

Okay, maybe I didn't make it explicit, but it seems as though silence is epistemically the same in this instance as not being silent (but only saying, "I can't tell you.") God is ostensibly silent about justifying atrocities like childhood leukemia (or perhaps not, there are other bad theodicies like "it's because of the Fall" and such, but you get the idea). You're right that I should have explicitly brought out this premise, so I do so now.



Yes, but we're ostensibly arguing with that person to say, "your acceptance of a position you literally can't be evidenced out of is not a reasonable move."



Again (not an exasperated "again," more just meaning I said something new about this just a few lines above), God's ostensible silence on the issue is about the same as God saying something, but only saying "I can't tell you why."

Again (and that is an exasperated again) what God's saying or not saying is not the topic.

They affect the reasoning the same way. If we are not given good justification for the appearance of malevolence, we should not put ourselves in an epistemic position where we don't know it's benevolent, yet assume it, and then set that position up so we can literally never be given evidence to the contrary that we'd accept.



I'm not attached to fallacy names so I don't mind dropping it (it still is special pleading, though). As long as you understand the problem with it, I don't care what you call it.



In both cases we have a claim of special knowledge that could explain away evidence of malevolence. In both cases we must either accept that on faith (or doubt it). In both cases if we accept it without a good reason, then we fall into a trap whereby there will never be a good reason to stop accepting it. It's an epistemic trap, and thus it is not reasonable to uphold.

No, we don't have a claim of special knowledge in both cases, just in your analogy.

"I don't know why but I have faith" is not a claim to special knowledge.

It's just faith.

 

[F1fan]

You got caught with an empty complaint on my wording style and not substance.

Really? You making highly questionable claims that you offer no effort to back up is an empty complaint?

Yet another highly questionable claim. This is debate.

 

[F1fan]

Again "justify" isn't the right word. The idea that you think anything needs to be justified means you'll never really understand the other side's position.

I've encountered many people who knew what they believe, but didn't know why they believe it. So these folks didn't understand their own position, and I had many insights as to why they did.

 

[Meow Mix]

@Quagmire if I hit "reply" to this last message, the interspersed quotes have so little context that I might as well start a fresh message and try to summarize everything.

1) First of all, if we're not cool, I never knew I rubbed you the wrong way, so I don't know what to do about that other than keep it professional I guess.

2) I'm unsure what you meant by "you were setting the parameters." I was presenting an argument the same as anybody else would. Can you elucidate what you mean by this? For instance, there is very little context around this comment, and it seems as though we'd have to scroll up to possibly multiple messages to connect it together. Can you put this in context for me?

3) You accuse me of "not considering" your response. I have considered your response: it was an accusation of "deciding for everyone else." I stated it was a confusing response and that I was making an argument. In what way have I not considered your response? I requested clarification and provided my understanding of the situation.

4) God's silence is part of the topic, implicitly so in the OP, explicitly so when it became pertinent to make it so.

I feel as though this has become convoluted enough that perhaps a reframing might be in order. The crux of issue 2 in the OP (which these responses seem to be centered around) is that it is possible to adopt an invincible position (invincible to counter-evidence), and that this is not a good thing, not a reasonable thing. If our explanations cover everything and literally nothing can contra-indicate our explanations might be incorrect, we don't really have an explanation.

I think that we do need justification if we are to be reasonable. If your argument is simply that someone can have faith that God is good, that they don't need justification, then you're simply talking about a situation outside the realm of reason and isn't subject to debate. It's also subject to abject dismissal though if that's the case. I made OP for the analytical philosophy, not blind faith. There are a billion other threads on blind faith and a billion reasons why faith without justification is unreasonable.

 

[1213]

Yet God does little or nothing to change bad circumstances to innocent people. Is it good if one of your kids was diagnosed with Leukemia?
You didn't cause it, it was just the random lottery of life as created by God. So are all the children who lose the lottery of life in God's creation showing us the good about god and what it creates?

I think it could be possible that I or other people would have caused it. Still, even Jesus had to suffer, all though he was really innocent. It is possible in this life that person has to suffer. And I believe it is because this is the place where we can learn what evil means, as people originally wanted. Luckily this is only a short lesson and those who are righteous, can go back to life.

But, even though it is true that same cards are not dealt for all people, the point really is not what cards you are dealt, but how you play with them. It could be that you have everything perfectly and you lose, because you play poorly, or you may have “bad cards” and play them well and get eternal reward. Because in Biblical point of view, the goal is not this life, but eternal life with God, the meaningful thing is how you use this life and are you righteous or not.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

...fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

I think it would be good to also know that God has not left people alone:

…don't be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they don't sow, they don't reap, they have no warehouse or barn, and God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than birds! Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his height? If then you aren't able to do even the least things, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if this is how God clothes the grass in the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith? Don't seek what you will eat or what you will drink; neither be anxious. For the nations of the world seek after all of these things, but your Father knows that you need these things. But seek God's Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.
Luke 12:22-31

KJ21
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.

That is not the same as saying “God is both good and evil”. Good is good and because He is good, He has given people opportunity to reject Him and good. And evil is really nothing more than lack of good, the emptiness that is left when good is not around.

...Christians have murdered so many over the millennia, they thought they were doing God's work.

It is really sad. Bible has nothing that would support Christians to kill anyone, it is clearly against it, for example because:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

So God can be bad and it cannot be held accountable, so it's good? That don't work.

God is not bad, nor evil.

 

[stvdv]

The Problem of Evil is a premise-based argument. If the premises don't apply to a particular brand of theism, then the PoE doesn't apply.

I read many Scriptures from Hinduism, not once did I read "God is Omnibenevolent", but I did read the other 3 omni-words
Could you tell me where is said in the Scripture that you read, that "God is Omnibenevolent"?
I am just curious if "God is Omnibenevolent" is actually written

If the Scripture does not explicitly say "God is Omnibenevolent"
Then it would mean that some people created it themselves
(Which is interesting ... because ...why would they do that?)

 

[F1fan]

I think it could be possible that I or other people would have caused it.

So you're saying if you had a child born with a deadly genetic disease that it's possible you or someone else caused it?

Still, even Jesus had to suffer, all though he was really innocent. It is possible in this life that person has to suffer. And I believe it is because this is the place where we can learn what evil means, as people originally wanted. Luckily this is only a short lesson and those who are righteous, can go back to life.

If people HAVE to suffer as part of God's plan and desire, then I suggest you're accusing this God as being cruel and criminal. Now you might be the person who is claiming God is exempt from our moral rules, but who says? If this God has rules for itself, and different rules for humans, and it openly parades it's cruelty and torture for all to see, I suggest we humans have the right to protest and deem God immoral and not worthy or respect or worship.

It reminds me of the rules the Nazis had for themselves and the Jews, Romas, Gypsies, and political enemies just had to suck on it and face their torture and execution.

But, even though it is true that same cards are not dealt for all people, the point really is not what cards you are dealt, but how you play with them.

That's easy to say when you've gotten this far in life, right? You obviously weren't a child whose hand was so bad you had no more plays and forced out of the game.

But what you describe is the lottery of life, random luck, good or bad, no rhyme or reason. And no room for an interventional and personal God. If you insist this god exists then all good or bad luck can be pinned on it, including the death of children.

It could be that you have everything perfectly and you lose, because you play poorly, or you may have “bad cards” and play them well and get eternal reward. Because in Biblical point of view, the goal is not this life, but eternal life with God, the meaningful thing is how you use this life and are you righteous or not.

Only if you buy into the bull**** of everlasting life, which I doubt most Christians buy into if you ask them. The reality is our conscious awareness of this life. And the dubious claim of an afterlife is not really believable. So gamble on a bad claim? I don't think so.

I think it would be good to also know that God has not left people alone:

If only a God existed. Alas people gave to manipulate their own thoughts and feeling to believe one exists and it cares, even if their child is dying a painful, meaningless death while God's miracle never comes.

That is not the same as saying “God is both good and evil”. Good is good and because He is good, He has given people opportunity to reject Him and good. And evil is really nothing more than lack of good, the emptiness that is left when good is not around.

We can look at Bible stories (if you interpret them as being true) and conclude God is evil. You done;t create a world of people a certain way, and then drown them because something went wrong. IF something went wrong that's on the God. If it has to kill everyone that just points to the God being incompetent and immoral.

It is really sad. Bible has nothing that would support Christians to kill anyone, it is clearly against it, for example because:

Well there are a lot of Christians through history who aren't getting the message. These are God's people, and God's message. The problem lies with the God not being a good creator and not being able to communicate with them. You keep bringing up more reason not to worship this bad God of yours. No wonder i'm an atheist. I can't possibly want to believe this bad God exists. Think of the anxiety this bad God would impose in my mind if I thought it really existed.

God is not bad, nor evil.

Oh, you haven't read the Bible. OK, read the Bible then you'll see this God is bad and evil.

 

[Meow Mix]

I read many Scriptures from Hinduism, not once did I read "God is Omnibenevolent", but I did read the other 3 omni-words
Could you tell me where is said in the Scripture that you read, that "God is Omnibenevolent"?
I am just curious if "God is Omnibenevolent" is actually written

If the Scripture does not explicitly say "God is Omnibenevolent"
Then it would mean that some people created it themselves
(Which is interesting ... because ...why would they do that?)

It isn't directly written in Christian holy texts like the Bible if that's what you mean by "scripture."

However it is a belief common amongst Christians that God is not capable of malevolence.

 

[stvdv]

It isn't directly written in Christian holy texts like the Bible if that's what you mean by "scripture.

I did not mean by "scripture" the Christian holy texts (as I've no clue which ones you had in mind), hence I said "the Scripture that you have read"
But your reply singles out (I take your word for it) quite a few Scriptures. This makes sense to me, as it is conform the Scriptures I have read

 

[stvdv]

However it is a belief common amongst Christians that God is not capable of malevolence.

Okay, that is also the impression I've got. A bit strange though, IMO, because the world is seemingly full of malevolence, and IF the world is created by the Creator THEN He is responsible for it, being Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent

So, I have no clue how this concept of Omnibenevolence makes sense to these Christians

Then there is the "'fact" that the Bible clearly describes quite a lot of violent Divine Actions, which is totally contrary to an Omnibenevolent God

The only way to "see God's seemingly violent actions as non-violence", IMO, is when God lacks the ability to "judge". Because the moment you judge others or their actions, equals that you "live in duality (seeing good as well as bad)".

"Judgmental God" and "Omnibenevolent God" can't go hand in hand
@stvdvRF

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you're using is equivocation. For God to allow your child to die from a deadly disease is not the same as if your friend injected your child with a deadly disease.

Why don't you think they're the same?

 

[1213]

So you're saying if you had a child born with a deadly genetic disease that it's possible you or someone else caused it?

I think it is possible. But, I don’t think it is very useful to tell whose fault it is, because that doesn’t make anything better.

If people HAVE to suffer as part of God's plan and desire…

By what the Bible tells, everything was good at the beginning and there was no suffering. But, then people wanted to know evil and got expelled to this “life” that is like Matrix where we can experience what evil truly means, without anything of this world being able to destroy our soul, which is the important thing.

...Only if you buy into the bull**** of everlasting life, which I doubt most Christians buy into if you ask them. The reality is our conscious awareness of this life. And the dubious claim of an afterlife is not really believable...

Why would we accuse Bible God of something, without taking all that belongs to the belief? If you don’t believe the afterlife, you neither believe to the God also that is offering the eternal life for those who are righteous. And then this whole debate is really about some other god than Bible God.

…If it has to kill everyone that just points to the God being incompetent and immoral.

Don’t you think everyone’s body dies eventually? Why make big number about some, if all bodies die anyway? I disagree with you. I think that God has given this chance also for those who hates him, shows He is really good, better than humans who don’t want to give freedom to others. I think it is great that God is not like some communist/fascist leader, like many modern leaders seem to be.

However, incompetent and immoral seem to be just subjective opinions. I don’t think they are very meaningful. I personally think God has done extremely good job, even though some people choose evil are therefore not suitable to eternal life. I think it would be evil to force everyone to choose good.

…OK, read the Bible then you'll see this God is bad and evil.

I have read it many times and that is why I think God is perfect.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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

I agree. God is playing SimCity and He sucks at it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Objective morality is real.

Only if God must also follow the morals.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Yes. A child's life may well have ended up worse if they continued to live it. Have you thought of that? There is so much you don't know.

So God will torture a child instead of making it’s life easier? Why is negligence such a valued trait in a God?