POE- Part 2 (David Hume)

David Hume was a Scottish philosopher that lived in the 18th century. He was known as a an economist, historian, and philosopher. While he contributed greatly in each of these areas, most of Hume’s influence that can be felt to this day was from the field of philosophy. Hume’s work on the design argument (teleological argument), Miracles, and determinism vs. free are still studied to this day and his effects in these areas can be seen all over the vast field of philosophy. However, Hume’s formalizing the problem of evil from its varied and rudimentary forms is what we will be focusing on in this section.

Hume, in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (book XI), develops four critiques (he calls them circumstances) of the universe and poses “problems” with the different facets of the design and nature of the universe. His four circumstances taken from his Dialogues are as follows (and paraphrased by me due to the difficulty of 17th century English):

 Why is there any pain at all, and not just a diminution (lessening) of pleasure instead? Even though pain acts as a stimulant for nature to preserve itself, why couldn’t pains of hunger, thirst, etc. be substituted for just a small diminution of pleasure which would still prompt them to seek the object necessary to their subsistence?

 Why should the world be governed by natural laws instead of by divine intervention in particular circumstances that would take away some evils? Surely God could intervene in certain points of history in order to eliminate all evil and produce all good?

 Why the frugality in the distribution of gifts or abilities for things in nature to avoid predation? Why not create fewer animals and endowed them with more faculties for their happiness and preservation?

 Why the inaccurate workmanship of all the springs and principles of the great machine of nature when it appears that certain parts of the universe that seem to not serve any purpose could be removed without producing a visible defect or disorder in the whole?

While each of these circumstances were important in the development of the problem of evil, in part X in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, we see a pessimistic look at life culminate into one of the most famous philosophical reflections on God and the problem of evil: “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

I'm not going to take the time to answer any of these at this time. If anyone is interested on my thought on how each of them are answered, I'd be happy to send them to you or post it as a different post. The quote from book X is what has been the focus for many years and is what was turned into "the" logical problem of evil by J.L. Mackie.

What we see in book XI with the four circumstances is a representation of the turn of knowledge from outward to inward. Without spending time on the epistemic gap that Hume created and it's influence on Immanuel Kant i would like to acknowledge that with knowledge turned inward (the subjective turn to the self), the problem of evil becomes formalized. Whereas there were reasons given in the past about the origination and reasons for evil, almost all of them were unknowable according to Hume because they dealt with religious "ideas" and not substance or sensory data. What is noticeable about Hume's circumstances is that each of them deal in one way or another with the felicity (happiness) of man or animal and this felicity is treated as the highest attainable good. This idea is very problematic for Hume.

What Hume has done is give the catalyst for the logical problem of evil which J.L. Mackie formalizes in the early 1900's. Hume put a name and some philosophical swagger behind the problem of evil.

J.L. Mackie formalized the problem of evil (namely the quote from book X) into what he considered a logical contradiction for the God of Christianity. We will be discussing him next.

Delay

Sorry for the delay on the next installment of the Problem of Evil. I've been slammed with stuff going on this week and I'll try to find some time in the next few days to get to it. It's going to be hit or miss over the next couple of weeks because of the crazy hours I'm working plus doing stuff on our basement. I can't wait to see all of you in Idaho. I'll be there in less than a week.

POE Part 1

“Almost no other theme recurs in great literature more often than that of humanity’s capability for Evil.” (Michael Peterson, God and Evil Westview Press, Oxford, 1998. 3) Given that atheistic philosophers refer to the problem of evil as the “Achilles heel” of theism, it’s no wonder that this issue has been so prevalent in journals and books within philosophical and theological academia. What started out as a pessimistic outlook on life within Greek tragedy, Voltaire, and Hume, has turned into a strengthening proof for atheism and a source of discomfort for many. As the photo above shows, much of the debate over the problem of evil stems from a belief that some of the most fundamental truths we hold about God are not compatible with a world that is full of evil.

While the problem of evil has been argued and rebutted in two predominant forms, logical and evidential, John Feinburg’s thesis in The Many Faces of Evil is the most accurate position regarding the magnitude and complexity of the problem of evil. He states:

"There is no such thing as just one theological/philosophical problem of evil that attacks all theologies in the same way. That is, there are as many distinct theological/philosophical problems of evil as there are theological systems.. What this means is that not everyone holds to the same account of God and evil."
(John S. Feinburg, The Many Faces of Evil Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL, 2004. 24 This book was the third revision of his doctoral thesis. It is one of the most comprehensive treatments of the problem of evil from a theistic perspective that has ever been produced.)

If we hold to Feinburg’s claim, the problem of evil cannot be limited to a logical inconsistency or an evidential probability. It must be seen in light of the diversity of theologies and philosophies concerning the character and attributes of God. This means that neither a free will defense by Plantinga, nor an epistemic rebuttal (CORNEA) is sufficient to make the problem of evil go away.

What is needed is, as John Milton said, “an attempt to ‘justify the ways of God to man.’” This is called a theodicy. Many different theodicies have been attempted, most notable being Augustine, Aquinas, Leibniz, Hick, Yandell, etc. Each of these men proposed ways to account for the problem of evil within a Christian theological framework, without ignoring the reality of evil (such as Spinoza or the Christian Scientists). While these men have been the focus of a majority of the scholarship and work of different theodicies, several other theologians have sought to deal with evil by attempting either theodical suggestions or a full blown theodicy itself.

Within this overview of the POE (problem of evil)it will be in our best interest to to skim the whole and only focus on a few of the main players. While who the main player are could be a subject of another discussion, I have chosen to focus on six of them. They are: St. Augustine, David Hume, Fyodor Dostoevsky, J.L. Mackie, Alvin Plantinga, and William Rowe. While the works of Spinoza, Leibniz, John Hick, Marylin McCord Adams, Karl Barth, etc. are all important and have added much to the discussion on evil, for the sake of brevity, I will only focus on these six men.

The intent of this treatment of evil is twofold. One, I would like those who have never looked at the issue to have some sort of framework and reference point from which to approach the issue in real life situations. Second, I would propose that although the POE has become a major theme and discussion in modern day academia and culture, it remains a modern day problem stemming from the enlightenment's subjective turn to the self and our overwhelming sense of entitlement that is hammered into the very fibers of who we are as humans today. As we go bit-by-bit through this difficult issue, I will conclude this whole discussion with the thesis I have just presented and try to establish and verify its validity. In doing so, we must deal with Immanuel Kant, which is never an easy thing to do, but necessary nonetheless.

Again, I welcome any feedback and will do my best to answer questions or make necessary changes in order to make this discussion more readable and enjoyable for everyone.

The Problem of Evil

I have spent a lot of time studying this subject. Much of my masters degree to this point has been dedicated to the pursuit of answers to this "problem" in some form or another. Whether it was creating a theodicy out of Karl Barth's christocentrism or just doing an overview of the subject from David Hume to William Rowe, I have wrestled with the issue over and over again. What is "evil"? How is it defined? Where does it come from? Does it have any metaphysical or ontological properties or is it, as Augustine defines it, a privation of the good (the privatio boni)lacking any substance in and of itself? Over the next several weeks, I will do my best to tackle the problem of evil and give the conclusions I have drawn to this point on the matter. If you are one who doesn't feel strong in your belief system or are new to being a christian, then I forewarn you to proceed with caution because in order to face the problem of evil properly, one must ask some very difficult questions. While this discussion is better in person and not over the net, I still think it would be beneficial to all for me to go through this. Especially since the problem of evil is the supposed "Achilles heel" of Christianity and is the number one problem that most people have with Christianity and believing in God.

I can't promise to make this subject an easy one to read or understand because some of the terminology is probably unfamiliar to most people. I will try my best to take the time to define what I am talking about in cases where I think that it may be confusing. However, I could spend weeks and pages just doing definitions and that would be unproductive, so a little advice to all who read this. Don't be lazy. If you don't understand something, look it up. When I read a lot of this stuff, I keep my web browser on dictionary.com and one on Google.com. I'll do my best to make sure that the verbiage doesn't take away from what I'm writing, but again, this is a fairly complex issue so be forewarned, yet again.

I will start writing this tonight and hopefully have the first part posted in a few days. My first part will be a brief overview of the problem with a thesis statement and then I will outline the different parts of where we will go. I'm going to spend some time on Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Brother's Karamazav" and also on Plantinga's free will defense because of the significant impact they have had on this subject.

If there is anyone who wouldn't want me to waste their time on this, please let me know. Your feedback on what I'm writing will be very helpful. If it gets boring or too technical let me know that as well. I've already written hundreds of pages on this subject so the last thing I want to do is re-hash this subject and me be the only one interested in it. So I welcome your feedback. Thanks.

Music

What is it about music that is so powerful? What kind of music defines you? It has a hypnotic effect on me at times. Other times it floods my mind with memories or carries me off to far away places. I think that music is today's poetry. It's short, powerful, and is meant to captivate its audience. 150 years ago, you had to be part of "privileged" society to be exposed to music and to feel it's power. Back then, books were more readily available than music and it was poetry that took people to different places. The words inspired people. They had a hypnotic effect and at other times they flooded people's minds with memory. Nothing was more powerful than a well written poem and it flowed like a song when written in iambic pentameter.

I say all that to say this.. I love music. It consumes me at times and inspires me at others. Here is the list of what I'm listening to right now. Some you may like, some you probably won't. But that's the beauty of music. There is such a variety that one can find his/her taste and it may suit some, it may not, but it doesn't matter. What matters is what YOU like. It's one of the few things that truly can be labeled "subjective" and would fit nicely into someone's post-modern paradigm. Is it any wonder that music is such a booming business now days? It's our modern day escape.

So without any further adieu here's my list (not in any particular order of favorite) that I'm listening to right now:

1. Damien Rice- 9 Crimes
2. Ryan Adams- Songbirds
3. Miles Davis- Kind of Blue (album)
4.Sufjan Stevens- Vito's Ordination Song
5. The Killers- Hot Fuss (album)
6. Ennio Marircone- Different Works
7.Radiohead- Hail to the Thief (album)
8. Wilco- A Ghost is Born (album)
9. Donavon Frankenreiter- Move by Yourself (album)
10. Red House Painters- Songs for a Blue Guitar (album)
11. U2- Stay (faraway, so close!)

Refreshed from a long week

Nothing like a good nights sleep and a hot cup of coffee on a cold and windy morning to pick your spirits right up. My wonderful wife picked up some Tulley's coffe while in Idaho and I have to say that it's pretty good. There are few things in life that can help yesterdays woes disappear quite like a good cup of coffee (although a California Cab. doesn't do a bad job either). So to all of you coffee snobs out there who can't settle for Folgers in your cup, or for whom Maxwell house isn't good for the first or last drop, here's my list, in order of favorite, of some must-try coffee's:

1. Raven's Brew- Resurrection Blend
2. Raven's Brew- Dead Man's Reach
3. First Colony- Greenwich Village
4. First Colony- Old Government Java
5. Raven's Brew- Dharma Bean
6. First Colony- Mexican Altura Codapec
7. Tulley's- Madison Blend
8. Starbucks- Cafe Verona
9. Starbucks- Yukon Blend
10. Dunkin Donuts Coffee

Sorry If My Last Post Offended Anyone... okay not really :)

I'm of the mindset that people need to learn to LOVE each other. Love and acceptance. No matter who, what, why, when.. unless you don't agree with me then it's GO TIME! Looks like I found the guy who posted on my brother's site. Can you believe the nerve of these people!

As an update, things are going well here in the Burg. The wife and kids are all trying to get over being sick (thanks to all of you sickly folk in Idaho, or should we just rename the state "the GErM state"). I have now caught the sickness but because of my insanely large and powerful immune system, i just have mild symptoms.

Work is going well. I still am working at the place I don't want to be working, and I don't plan on quitting any time soon (to the relief of many of you I'm sure). Purposeware is going great. I feel like I'm growing by leaps and strides in my sales training and things are definately on the up and up. If any of you know people who would be interested in our product, just let me know.

I'll be in Les Bois from March 27th thru April 3rd. Hopefully I'll see most of you. If I don't, we must have not been that close to begin with, so it'll be okay.

Lil B, you'll appreciate this. I'm playing in a basketball league and had to play against the former ACC record holder for three pointers in a career (JJ Reddick just beat his record). He's pretty good(large understatement to boost my ego). It was nice competing against him and he was one of the most humble guys on the court.

Well, that's it for this section of my narcissistic journey. See you all next time when I.... you'll never guess.... talk more about myself.