Greater Good @ MindSay

My super long reply to elbeaner's paper that he posted. Sorry for taking so long! :(

.

~~~

.

What you have written here only brushes the tip of philosophical arguments that have been debated for centuries. In saying this, I’m going to let you know right now that it is highly unlikely for anyone debating these questions would ever find a definite answer, so the most you can do for anyone is hold the knowledge that they might also be correct in more than one way, no matter how convinced you are of the soundness of your own moral convictions. Also, before I begin with my analysis of the subject, I’m going to remind anyone reading this that I do not claim to have expertise on this subject, I only wish to put down what I know, or for the matter of philosophy, what I think I know. ;)

~~~

Now, the first topic you discussed is what is called in Philosophy the “Problem of Evil”, which is a critique for theism, wanting to disprove it. Essentially it states the following:

1. “God” is believed omnipotent (all powerful)
2. “God” is believed omniscient (all-knowing).
3. “God” is believed omni-benevolent (all good).
4. Yet, there is evil in this world. (Evil in the broad sense of suffering in general).

Looking at this, an atheist might solve the problem by simply stating that “God” (and I am using God as a general term, for there are also arguments as to what God might be) does not exist. So, really, the problem here lies in the eyes of the theist. How can all of these things be true, when they seem inconsistent? There is more than one explanation for this, but I’m only going to give you a general definition of the ones I feel are most relevant.

The first is called Leibniz’s “Best Possible Worlds” solution. It states that:

1. This is the best of all possible worlds.
2. Hence, the evil that exists must be necessary to make the world the best it can be (not perfect).

Examples:

1.      Appreciation. Ex: Sickness makes us appreciate health better. War makes us appreciate peace. Etc...

2.      Hardship and suffering allows for the greater goods to exist such as charity and heroism.

3.      Challenges make genuine achievement possible.

So in other words, Leibniz believed that a world with all suffering was no good, and the good in a world with only good could not measure up to the good in a world where we can compare it to bad. Think about it this way: During school, when you work hard all week, the weekends are especially good, because you have worked hard all week. So when you are at home every day in the summer, the weekends are not so special because you are home every day. Leibniz believed (I would think) that the large amount of good gained in the comparison, outweighed the bad and also outdid the good in the perfect world, therefore making a world with some bad in it the “Best Possible World”.

Possible objections to this may be as follows:

1. The Extent/persistence of suffering is too great to explain this way.
2. Is it fair to make some people suffer for the greater good?
3. Aren’t there any less drastic ways of making us appreciative?

Another solution connected to this reasoning is the issue of Free Will. Free Will is an offshoot of Leibniz’s “Best Possible World” theory. It states:

1. Much of evil is a result of human’s misuse/abuse of Free Will.
2. Free Will is necessary for the greater good (or the “Best Possible World”).

The most common objection to this is:

1. Why didn’t God just make us good and free?

But when you think about it, would this really make us free? Is ignorance of evil really freedom from it? This is a question you’ll have to answer for yourself.

~~~

The next argument you seem to bring up is what is called the “First Cause/Mover” argument. It states that:

1. There are causes/movers in the world.
2. Nothing can cause/move itself.
3. The chain of causes/movers cannot go back indefinitely.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause/mover, and this is “God”.

Objections to this are as follows:

1. Number 3 above is false – there is no problem with infinite chains into the past.
2. Who caused “God”?

The second one is a very popular argument that is brought up a lot when you start on this train of thought. If  “God” caused the Big Bang and the Big Bang created the universe, then who is to say we cant just simplify the matter by removing “God” entirely. It is what most scientists would consider a violation of Occam’s Razor; the simplest theory is the most correct.

Many people base their arguments mainly on this assumption. I myself think that the “First Cause” Argument is a poor one, but just because you can disprove one argument does not mean that you have disproved the existence of God.

A good explanation dealing with objection #1 is called “Hilbert’s Hotel” and it deals with infinities. It’s a very interesting subject, and I know for a fact you can find it on the web if you look, so I’m not going to go into any detail here, I’m just going to refer you to it.

~~~

Some arguments you missed that I find relative to the proof of God are as follows:

Anselm’s “Ontological Argument” is one that is considered by philosophers to be a priori, meaning it is based on reason only and needs no outside evidence (unlike a posteriori which is based on facts about the world). It is as follows:

1. I have in my understanding an idea of “God”.
2. By definition, “God” is “that then which a greater cannot be thought”.
3. Something is greater if it exists in reality than if it exists only in the understanding.
4. Hence, if “God” existed only in the understanding, then “that then which a greater cannot be thought” would be “that then which a greater can be thought”.
5. Since this is impossible, “God” exists in reality.

Rene Descartes’ take on this is similar, but with minor differences:

1. “God” is defined as the “being with every perfection”.
2. Existence is perfection.
3. Therefore, “God” exists.

The terms “great” and “perfect” are relative. I’m not even going to get into my arguments against this one, because I get a bit angsty, but I know I’ve at least posted some of it on my blog if you want to search for it.

The argument of “Gradation” states the following:

1. There is gradation in things (better/worse, more or less noble, etc...)
2. Such comparisons presuppose a best, most noble, etc...
3. This standard is “God”.

Objections:

1. There is an assumed moral absolutionism – what is moral is relative. (What can I say, I’m a fan of relativism ^_^)
2. Why not make the standard perfectly evil? Why good instead?

There are also some good debates on belief and faith (kind of the half-way ground between arguments against God and arguments for God), which I find interesting, though I won’t state them here, as this is already a very lengthy post. If you want some good reading too, I suggest David Hume’s “Why I am not a Christian”. It’s not a bashing of the faith, its just some observations and arguments about the term “Christian” and the people who call themselves “Christians”. He also brings up some of these arguments in his speech, and also how religion is based on fear. I found it interesting when I read it.

My disclaimer here is that I don’t necessarily believe in any of the above arguments, I just wanted to give them to you so you could use them in review of you paper if you’d like. I’m open to argue any of them, but I was just warning anyone who wanted to argue that there might be nothing to argue if I agree! ^_^

Divisive tactics are profitable. The mood in America today is polarized with those in power ignoring those who are not. We cannot stand long with the governing half ignoring the other half. Calling me a bad person due to liberal beliefs and unpatriotic for opposing the war in Iraq is typical. The ignoring - even abolishment - of the right of dissent is not consistent with our heritage or the law of the land, but that is the way of things. How do you feel about the USA being an agressor nation? How do you fell about the SUV writeoffs and who benefits? How do you feel about the erosion of our rights and the checks and balances that have worked well for more than two centuries? Eminent domain and the right to protest by burning a flag make a glorious tandem for just a few days work by the Supreme Court and the House.There is a seemingly long forgotten principle of the greater good. It should be the basis for our legislative actions and national leadership.That is, we should vote for whatever means and people that provide the best possible of whatever is involved for the most people possible at the lowest cost possible. This is a policy of inclusion and unity as opposed to exclusion and division by whatever common denominator that applies. It leads to centrist thinking and de-polarizes those from opposing views to a middleground acceptable to a majority. If impeaching Bush is unacceptable, what can we do to accomplish the greater good. My suggestion would be to deny Bush the congressional majorities that make his whims and wishes the law of the land. Vote out the Republican extremists in the 2006  elections ivolving the entire House and a third of the senate. Note, I did not say replace them with democrats. Maybe there are independents - dare I call them centrists - willing and able to run and get elected. Short of impeachment, a harsh measure by any means, this would tie the adminstrations hands and remove the rubber stamp partisan approval of more of the nonsense. Simply put, Presidents are elected to execute the will of the people, not to impose their will on the people. We the people are tired of it.