Tuesday, November 24, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Evil and Me

by Greg Benford - 50 Voices of Disbelief

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/benford20091122/

It all started with experience, as most philosophical positions should. What’s an idea worth if it cannot withstand the rub of the real?

My mother taught English and my father taught agriculture in Robertsdale High in southern Alabama. Except for his three years of fighting in The War. My twin brother and I were born in 1941 and sensed that he was gone, and only when he returned in August 1945 did the reason why he went dawn on us.

I recall a big party with much celebration, and I asked my father in the 1980s what that had been about. I expected that he would say it was for his return. But he told me it was because the bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima and everyone knew he wouldn’t have to go to Japan for the invasion. Many had died, but in Robertsdale there was a party. Life was like that. It always had been.

He was a forward observer in field artillery, fighting across France, the Bulge, and through Germany to Austria. I believe he was the only beginning forward observer in his battalion to survive the war, and suspect that his farm-boy field smarts made the difference. In 1945 he returned to teaching, developing an agriculture training program for the whole state. Then in 1948 the Cold War called him with a Regular Army appointment, which he seized as a way up into a world he had glimpsed in the war. We went with him, first to his training post in Oklahoma at Fort Sill (where in 1967 he retired as commandant), then to Japan for 1949–51. Into the world beyond blissful America.

My father served on MacArthur’s general staff, and we saw the whole range of Japanese life, hard and strange, with communists rioting in the streets and farmers working the rice paddies only miles away, in a fashion unchanged by millennia. With my brother, I lay in bed at night in our compound housing and listened to marines firing at communists trying to get inside. One morning we sneaked out of our house before dawn and watched the Marines pull bodies out of the rice paddies. I realized that the world was a lot bigger and tougher and darker than sunny Alabama knew.

As the Cold War deepened, its chill winds blew the Benfords to Atlanta in 1952, then Germany in 1954, where I saw the colossal damage wrought by the Big One, the greatest of all wars, and the suffering that had followed. That shocked me, coming out of my Episcopal upbringing. Both of my parents had firm religious faith. My brother and I were acolytes in the church and confirmed in formal ceremony in 1954. But my experience in devastated lands meant that more and more I thought about theodicy, or the problem of evil—if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent, then why do bad things happen to good people?
...
Continue reading
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/benford20091122/

Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 25 of 25 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #434463 by Pete.K on November 24, 2009 at 12:03 pm

That's exactly how I see it, if there was god, why would he let the weak suffer and the evil people fleece the poor, simple god fearing folk.

On 23rd Nove 2009 Channe4 (UK) programme uncovered the true evil carried out in the name of religion.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-43/episode-1
I would love to see RDF support the work in Nigeria to dispel the myth of religion through education.

Other Comments by Pete.K

2. Comment #434476 by rokeisland on November 24, 2009 at 12:50 pm

He hits on one of the most obvious issues that followers blind themselves to.

Not only does God allow evil, but there are numerous examples in the bible where he commands it (genocide, rape, slavery). Christians try to say that the New Testament doesn't condone that sort of behavior, but the New Testament endorses slavery and other assorted evils.

Believers try to tell me that it is all a part of free will and God's plan. I ask them if they have stopped and helped the last homeless person they saw on the streets asking for a handout. It is their christian duty to open their home to these people, share their food, and help them back on their feet. Inevitably I get a response, "but I helped by volunteering to _____", to which I can only respond by saying that in other words they ignored the person and drove off to their comfortable homes and try to expiate their guilt by buying it off with a good deed volunteering elsewhere.

Sure.

Other Comments by rokeisland

3. Comment #434480 by black wolf on November 24, 2009 at 1:10 pm

It took Benford about 50 years to get to grips with disbelief. At Pharyngula, some comments express annoyance that creationists were not swayed in a single debate.
minor quibble: group selection

Other Comments by black wolf

4. Comment #434482 by Noodly on November 24, 2009 at 1:13 pm

I had a discussion about this recently with a relative who is a Jesuit priest and a well known Catholic theologian.

His answer to free will in heaven is that "we will be in a state of perfection, so no free will is needed", to which the obvious answer was "why then does God put us through the trial of life on earth that puts at risk this eternal good life when we might as well just have the good life from day one".

To which the answer was "to give us free will" and my reply "but you just said that perfection doesn't need free will".

I won't bore you with the "Atheism is just another faith" discussion.

Other Comments by Noodly

5. Comment #434488 by Stafford Gordon on November 24, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Good writing throughout, but the last two paragraphs do it for me; so, black wolf, do I misunderstand?

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

6. Comment #434493 by aquilacane on November 24, 2009 at 2:33 pm

I never saw it that way. The source of unfavourable events (evil) was always obvious. The idea of god was always silly, there's no evidence, and the claim didn't answer the source of god. Where does god come from. If god can always exist, so could the universe (pre/post big bang). Non starter, the hypothesis has no traction.

Other Comments by aquilacane

7. Comment #434507 by Nunbeliever on November 24, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Free will is an interesting subject. I think I could put forward a pretty sound argument that there actually is no such thing as free will.

But even if there was free will in it's purest form. Why is it SO important for god? We have to remember that christians believe (symbolically or not) that the reason we live in this sinful world full of misery and suffering is BECAUSE of FREE WILL. Because Adam tasted the fruits of the tree of knowledge.

If free will, is of such importance to god. Then why on earth did he condemn the humanity as a whole to unimaginable misery and suffering simply for exercising it?

I have NEVER understood why this fruity mistake was such a big deal anyway. Even if interpreted symbolically it is not portrayed as a very serious thing to do. They where hungry for knowledge. I think that is quite a noble cause. In fact the foundation of all science. All children challenge their parents. If god wanted total obedience and ignorans then WHY create free will? It just does not make sense...

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

8. Comment #434542 by flying goose on November 24, 2009 at 4:53 pm

Is there any such thing as counter causal free will?

Surely everthing can be reduced ultimatly to causes in the physical world? Is not the mental world an epi phenomemon, that it it self has causes in the physical world?

Other Comments by flying goose

9. Comment #434545 by Bonzai on November 24, 2009 at 5:04 pm

Before you people go on, you should define what is free will. Are the deniers of free will saying that we are just sleep walking zombies? Now I have chosen to write on RD.net instead of attending to more urgent business, at least this appears to be a choice. I also have decided that I want to post on this thread. Now are you saying these are all illusions?

I don't understand why some people are so eager to deny free will just because they think that will close a loophole for God. I mean, eager, in that they almost appear to wish that it is the case.

First of all, I don't think "God" has anything to do with it, 'free will' or no free will. Secondly it is kind of drastic. If this is what it takes to disprove God, ie. to reduce yourself to a meat zombie, it wouldn't be a very liberating kind of atheism. It would be a hard sell.

I was about to apologize for being disagreeable and argumentative today. But fuck it, the apology is not in the script, but I was programmed to be an argumentative jerk. Live with it. Oh, but you have no choice either..

Other Comments by Bonzai

10. Comment #434573 by canatheist on November 24, 2009 at 5:59 pm

This man speaks from his heart and like a lot of us who where brought up in at least a semi-religious family and culture, tried in good faith, to get his answers from religion, the bible and God.

Alas, his search for answers was doomed from the beginning, as religion, the Bible and God do not have any answers, just raise more questions.

It is unfortunate that it has taken him so long to come to grips and accept his Atheism, but this speaks to the true insidious impact of religion on society. Those who take comfort in the arms of religion have consciously turned their brains off, and those of us who follow Adam's path of wanting to eat from the tree of knowledge are told we are sinners for questioning at all. The pursuit of knowledge is one of the most noblest pursuits of all.

Richard Dawkins is quite right in saying childhood indoctrination into religion is a form of child abuse, and like other forms of abuse, the effects don't show up until later in life.

It's time we start holding religious leaders accountable.

Other Comments by canatheist

11. Comment #434575 by Bonzai on November 24, 2009 at 6:07 pm

Well obviously some people here haven't read the Book Of Job.

Job asked many questions along the same vein: why is there evil, why do bad things happen to good, righteous people etc.

God's response? Basically he showed up to bitchslap Job for even having the gall to ask such questions to Mr. Almighty. He then went on to boast about his own awesomeness and took off(as always)

So there you go, if you still ask it proves you haven't been doing your homework. You get a F. God may show up to bitchslap you or worse tonight when everyone is sleeping and won't hear you cry.

Other Comments by Bonzai

12. Comment #434578 by Spinoza on November 24, 2009 at 6:20 pm

The free will topic, done properly, should run something along these lines:

1. Causal determinism is, in the relevant sense, true. (That is, invoking Quantum Indeterminacy for the purposes of this argument is a non sequitur).

2. We have a phenomenological feel of being able to make free decisions/choices.

3. What we take to be free decisions/choices could only be truly free if they were not merely points in a deterministic causal nexus, but involve at least some purely internal-to-the-agent self-causation.

4. Purely internal-to-the-agent self-causation requires that the agent be at least capable of removing itself from the deterministic causal nexus.

5. If a thing can be removed from the deterministic causal nexus (of nature), then it has free will [or free agency].

6a. Agents can remove themselves from the causal nexus, therefore they have free agency (but determinism is not, in the relevant sense, true).

6b. Agents cannot remove themselves from the causal nexus, therefore they do not have free agency.

------------------------------

This is basically a restatement of (much of) the Third Antinomy in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. There's more to the story, of course... but never mind.

Other Comments by Spinoza

13. Comment #434580 by SaintStephen on November 24, 2009 at 6:27 pm

I read Benford's novel Timescape many moons ago. And I read this essay just yesterday in my own copy of 50 Voices of Disbelief by Blackford and Schuklenk.

Tachyons might be involved.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

14. Comment #434635 by The_Intangible_Fancy on November 24, 2009 at 9:26 pm

@Bonzai

I am not much of a philosopher so I doubt I will do this justice but...

In terms of defining free will...it is certainly not easy. The most important aspect of it is the idea that YOU choose what you will do, not some other agent (whether it be divine or something else). But then you have to define what you mean by "you". Are we talking about the brain? About our genes? Is "you" the sum total of your biology?

Most people have a sense of 'being' themselves. I am me. It seems so simple. But what does that even mean really? My sense of myself goes beyond my physical body. I leave it to someone smarter than me to describe the phenomenon of the 'self'.

In any case, one of the primary problems with free will is that there are so many things in our lives that are beyond our control but that influence our decisions anyway. Where you were born, who your parents are, how much money your family has...none of these things is in your control but all of them can deeply influence your life. Your background doesn't just affect how you will make a decision when a choice comes up--it even determines the choices that will be available to you in the first place!

If you are poor your range of life options will be different from someone who is rich. But not only that, it will also affect how you choose between the various options as well. I remember reading in a book that children from poor families are less likely to ask questions to their doctor then children from rich families--in part due to how they are raised. Can you really say that the poor child "chose" to ask fewer questions when they were in most likelihood socialized to ask fewer questions? Is that really free will?

That at the end of the day is the problem of free will. Most people consider things like genetics and environment to be out of their control. But genetics and our environment undoubtedly have an effect on who we are as people and as a result, how we make decisions. With all of these outside influences (should genetics even be counted as an 'outside' influence?) acting on us, calling our choices 'free will' seems a bit of a stretch. But we all FEEL as though we are choosing...

In any case it is a complex subject and I haven't done justice to it at all. Sorry. -_-;

Other Comments by The_Intangible_Fancy

15. Comment #434649 by rod-the-farmer on November 24, 2009 at 10:02 pm

Sometimes the opinion surfaces in me that if you are not an atheist by the time you are eleven years old, what kept you ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

16. Comment #434670 by Nunbeliever on November 24, 2009 at 10:45 pm

To SPINOZA:

I can't imagine how a person could remove him-/herself from the "causal nexus" (of nature). That would in my opinion require that we are in some way spiritual or that the fuzzy thing we call consciousness is beyond the physical world.

Because otherwise the very structure of our brains are constantly subjected to the causal nexus. And since consciousness, from a naturalistic point of view, is the result of processes in the brain neither consciousness nor FREE WILL can possibly be removed form the "causal nexus".

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

17. Comment #434679 by Quine on November 24, 2009 at 11:10 pm

Comment #434545 by Bonzai:

... but I was programmed to be an argumentative jerk. Live with it.

And you can reflect upon this. The thinking about thinking (which many of us are glad you do) provides a feedback loop with often unpredictable results. Beyond living with it, I enjoy it, and encourage you to continue.

Other Comments by Quine

18. Comment #434684 by Steve Zara on November 24, 2009 at 11:17 pm

Comment #434545 by Bonzai

I was about to apologize for being disagreeable and argumentative today. But fuck it, the apology is not in the script, but I was programmed to be an argumentative jerk. Live with it. Oh, but you have no choice either..

Please don't apologise. Sites like this need minds like yours.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #434696 by prolibertas on November 25, 2009 at 12:05 am

'And what could heaven be like? Either it’s a place where we cannot sin (no free will) or we don’t want to sin.'

How stupid of me not to have thought of that. I tend to forget that theists have a tendency to make apologetics that contradict their apologetics on another issue. I think I have an instinctive expectation that people will at least be consistent, even if they're wrong. I must work on that.

Other Comments by prolibertas

20. Comment #434708 by Spinoza on November 25, 2009 at 12:40 am

Nunbeliever, there you have it.

Either you think there is final causation (teleology) or you don't. If you do, then you've got to reconcile it with efficient causation (the causes and effects of 'medium-sized dry goods', so-to-speak). If you don't, there's no real problem, except you end up a Spinozist.

Other Comments by Spinoza

21. Comment #434711 by Corylus on November 25, 2009 at 12:50 am

Oh dear, that means I was programmed to be the hippy mouse.

image name

Damn.

Other Comments by Corylus

22. Comment #434773 by Barry Pearson on November 25, 2009 at 8:54 am

I just want to say that I recently bought both "50 Voices of Disbelief" and RD's "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing" (both paperbacks) from Amazon.co.uk for less than £20 the pair!

Amazing value, amazing books, and that's my spare time gone for weeks!

"50 Voices of Disbelief" has some views that I have never seen expressed in that way before (as we are seeing in some of the excerpts). I have tended to feel that there are perhaps about 10 general paths to atheism (including always being there), but I may have to revise that upwards.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

23. Comment #434774 by flying goose on November 25, 2009 at 8:55 am

In the thought that I am part of the whole, I will be content with all that comes to pass.
Marcus Aurelius:

If you find yourself alone, riding in green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled; for you are in Elysium, and you're already dead! What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Maximus Decimus Meridius

Sorry, could not resist it.

Other Comments by flying goose

24. Comment #434836 by PERSON on November 25, 2009 at 1:13 pm

I think free will exists, but like consciousness it is a convenient illusion. If you think you can effect events, surely that's an advantage that will be selected for?

What is a "meat zombie"? Perhaps you mean "meat robot" or "machine o' meat". Surely there's much more to mind than a will that is free? Would absence of free will make that much difference? How?

"No free will" does not mean no choice. A computer program can make a choice, e.g. if x is greater than 10 and y is less than 3, do one thing, otherwise do another. Choices depend on the inputs. The inputs in the case of humans come from the outside, but also the unconscious mind. The "user interface" to the unconscious mind makes it seem as if the thought originated in the sense of self.

The unconscious mind is just the bits of your mind-system that you aren't thinking about at the moment yet continue to run in the background and make suggestions as needed.

Other Comments by PERSON

25. Comment #434938 by Spinoza on November 25, 2009 at 4:00 pm

So much confusion... Bonzai was right to ask for definitions first.

Other Comments by Spinoza

Reload Comments | Back to Top