# God and the Problem Of Evil. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2012, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411 "2012-10-31T08:57:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/61 "2012-11-01T16:44:19Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > was raised religious, struggled with it all in college, have come to some conclusions i feel comfortable with. > > 1. God, whatever that is, has been ill-defined by religion. er. wrongly defined as “the thing that wants things to go the way we think things should go.” obedience to this thing will make you get more things how you want them in life. Religion exists because it claims to have special access to God and what God wants. If they are unable to define God clearly, or give a logically consistent view of God, or give any reasons why their God is more true than the church down the street’s God, then it is all a crock, isn’t it? That doesn’t mean there isn’t a God out there, just that the real God isn’t at all like any of our views of him and worshiping a made-up deity is a waste of time - or no more useful in your moral development than going to Star Trek cons. > [@](#): > > does evil even actually exist? most people see the cruelty of nature as evil. that poor, sweet innocent gazelle baby who is eaten by cheetahs. or that tree that fell on uncle sam and killed him. > i’m not so sure these things are evil…they just suck for the person they suck for, but are either good or ambivalent for the other side. There is a big difference between random acts and caused acts. If the tree fell due to random natural forces, it is tragic but not evil. If the God who controls all gave it a push, it could be called evil. If God designed the world to make killing floods and storms inevitable, he is as liable as a company that designed a product which will inevitably electrocute its users. Maybe God has pointy hair? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/62 "2012-11-01T17:02:18Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > As a Christian, I think this is exactly right. This is the particular way that God is unknowable (rather than unknowable like at what time a specific nucleus will decay). God is contradictory according to the logic of our universe because God is not of this universe. > > Thus, someone trying to understand God using logic or science is going to fail. Belief in God must be based on faith. If there were proof that God exists, then faith would be superfluous. But the self-contradictions in God’s attributes necessarily thwart any attempt at proof. There cannot be any logical proof. That is Biblically inaccurate. Read the story of Moses and the rock. Moses was not allowed into the Promised Land because he disobeyed and struck the rock and had the water flow, not just pass his staff over it. What God wanted was an example of proof of his power, what Moses did allowed an alternate explanation, which meant more faith was required. The argument that proof or evidence somehow lessens faith only came about when we got into real time, not legend, and God stubbornly refused to show up. Why did Jesus reappear if faith is so great? Why the miracles? And logic, by the way, is not a function of natural law. It holds no matter what the value of c and h is. Give up logic, and then we get to ask about God making a taco too big to eat. It is easy to use language to name something as a square circle, but such a thing is inherently self-contradictory. > [@](#): > > Do not fall into the fallacy of the excluded middle. While God may be unknowable in his entirety, that does not mean that all parts of God are unknowable. And divine revelation comes into play–God can choose to reveal himself. But you just said that this would destroy faith, didn’t you? And where is he? ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/63 "2012-11-01T17:06:16Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > This is the particular way that God is unknowable (rather than unknowable like at what time a specific nucleus will decay). God is contradictory according to the logic of our universe because God is not of this universe. > > Thus, someone trying to understand God using logic or science is going to fail. Belief in God must be based on faith. If there were proof that God exists, then faith would be superfluous. But the self-contradictions in God’s attributes necessarily thwart any attempt at proof. There cannot be any logical proof. > > Do not fall into the fallacy of the excluded middle. While God may be unknowable in his entirety, that does not mean that all parts of God are unknowable. And divine revelation comes into play–God can choose to reveal himself. It’s a bit off-topic now, but are you suggesting that God is deliberately opaque to allow the existence of faith or that God is unknowable simply because true “knowledge” of God lies beyond the reach of the natural world? If the former, then we only really know one thing about God: That He is coy. We don’t even know why He values faith. We certainly don’t know His intentions or what He wants, assuming He wants anything at all. Additionally, God should really know that revealing Himself directly subverts His divine mystery and necessarily destroys the faith of people who experience Him, right? You can’t un-have a divine revelation, I wouldn’t think. If the latter, you’re just opening a big can of worms unless you care to conjecture as regards ways the supernatural can interface with the natural or describe what it means, practically, to be outside of existence. ---
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/64 "2012-11-01T17:17:21Z")
Is there any god who didn’t create some kind of rebellious entity to blame its failings on? ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/65 "2012-11-01T17:45:30Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Is there any god who didn’t create some kind of rebellious entity to blame its failings on? Seems to me that any system of belief proposing a set of standards must necessarily provide a counter-point to embody the absence of those standards. This doesn’t just apply to theism; you can see it pretty much everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/66 "2012-11-01T17:54:47Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > If the former, then we only really know one thing about God: That He is coy. We don’t even know why He values faith. We don’t even know _if_ he values faith. If all the evidence for an uncaring God might be wrong, then some Iron Age books could very well be wrong, too. Lots of other ones are. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/67 "2012-11-01T18:03:39Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > We don’t even know _if_ he values faith. If all the evidence for an uncaring God might be wrong, then some Iron Age books could very well be wrong, too. Lots of other ones are. Well yeah. I mean, we might as well also consider the possibility that God is off doing other stuff and the Devil Himself has been masquerading as God for millennia on a lark. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/68 "2012-11-01T18:06:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That is Biblically inaccurate. Read the story of Moses and the rock. Moses was not allowed into the Promised Land because he disobeyed and struck the rock and had the water flow, not just pass his staff over it. What God wanted was an example of proof of his power, what Moses did allowed an alternate explanation, which meant more faith was required. That story is about Moses’ faith, not faith in general. > [@](#): > > The argument that proof or evidence somehow lessens faith only came about when we got into real time, not legend, and God stubbornly refused to show up. Why did Jesus reappear if faith is so great? Why the miracles? Jesus’ reappearance isn’t objective evidence for God. Nor are any miracles. > [@](#): > > And logic, by the way, is not a function of natural law. It holds no matter what the value of c and h is. Give up logic, and then we get to ask about God making a taco too big to eat. It is easy to use language to name something as a square circle, but such a thing is inherently self-contradictory. Logic is a property of this universe. The assumption that logic always holds is similar to the assumption the universe is causal, or that gravity works everywhere and all the time, or that every proton is the same once we account for a few properties. Those are testable hypotheses, and thus are not necessarily true. > [@](#): > > But you just said that this would destroy faith, didn’t you? And where is he? Revelation is not objective evidence. > [@trabajabamos](#): > > It’s a bit off-topic now, but are you suggesting that God is deliberately opaque to allow the existence of faith or that God is unknowable simply because true “knowledge” of God lies beyond the reach of the natural world? The latter. > [@](#): > > If the former, then we only really know one thing about God: That He is coy. We don’t even know why He values faith. We certainly don’t know His intentions or what He wants, assuming He wants anything at all. Additionally, God should really know that revealing Himself directly subverts His divine mystery and necessarily destroys the faith of people who experience Him, right? You can’t un-have a divine revelation, I wouldn’t think. You’re committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. That is, that an entity has a property when considered as a whole does not imply that every subset has that property. For example, matrix multiplication is not commutable; however, the subset of matrices that are order-1 is. Likewise, that God is unknowable as a whole does not imply that any particular attribute is unknowable. And divine revelation is not objective evidence. > [@](#): > > If the latter, you’re just opening a big can of worms unless you care to conjecture as regards ways the supernatural can interface with the natural or describe what it means, practically, to be outside of existence. My conjecture: we, as a part of the universe, do have any means to objectively determine what is outside this universe or how anything outside could interact with what is within. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/69 "2012-11-01T18:18:29Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Jesus’ reappearance isn’t objective evidence for God. Nor are any miracles. > > \ > > Revelation is not objective evidence. This is all well and good as regards the necessity of faith, but it seems to me tacit admission of the reality that we really don’t know (can’t know?) anything at all about who God is, what He thinks about anything, or if He’s even there. > [@Pleonast](#): > > You’re committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. \ Likewise, that God is unknowable as a whole does not imply that any particular attribute is unknowable. In fairness to me, I’m not embracing the excluded middle so much as I’m saying that, in your own terms, the totality of God is unknowable. > [@Pleonast](#): > > My conjecture: we, as a part of the universe, do have any means to objectively determine what is outside this universe or how anything outside could interact with what is within. It’s an interesting thought but it sounds like “mysterious ways” to me. Why posit that there _is_ such a place as “outside this universe” at all? Simply to prop up theism? ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/70 "2012-11-01T18:38:17Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > This is all well and good as regards the necessity of faith, but it seems to me tacit admission of the reality that we really don’t know (can’t know?) anything at all about who God is, what He thinks about anything, or if He’s even there. Well, yeah, that’s what unknowable means. 😃 > [@](#): > > In fairness to me, I’m not embracing the excluded middle so much as I’m saying that, in your own terms, the totality of God is unknowable. And I think that’s not logically supportable. Whether it’s true or not is a different matter. You’re certainly welcome to make subjective statements about God (after all, that is what we Christians do), but you’ll need to accept that they’re not objective (which is what Christians should do). > [@](#): > > It’s an interesting thought but it sounds like “mysterious ways” to me. Why posit that there _is_ such a place as “outside this universe” at all? Simply to prop up theism? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just as we can’t know what’s outside the universe, we can’t know that there’s not anything outside the universe. It’s unknowable. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/71 "2012-11-01T18:59:15Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > And I think that’s not logically supportable. Whether it’s true or not is a different matter. You’re certainly welcome to make subjective statements about God (after all, that is what we Christians do), but you’ll need to accept that they’re not objective (which is what Christians should do). Fair enough. Honestly, I’d love to for everyone- theist and atheist alike- to acknowledge that all statements about God are absolutely and irrevocably subjective nature if only because that’d make it really, really hard to justify imposing the conclusions of those subjective statements on anyone else. Pope Urban: “We must reclaim the Holy Lands!!” Peasant: “Wot? Says 'ho?” Pope Urban: “The Almighty God demands it!” Peasant: “Well that’s just your opinion then, 'iddn’t it?” Pope Urban: “…” It’s fun to dip my toes in this now and again. Thanks for indulging me. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/72 "2012-11-01T19:46:34Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > That story is about Moses’ faith, not faith in general. You think God needed to test Moses’ faith at that time? Remember, Moses risked everything in Egypt. And, why would God care? The only answer is as a demonstration of his power to the assembled masses. Now to some extent they should be convinced also, but they weren’t, clearly in order for the priests who wrote the story to send a message to the doubters, just like in the last Narnia book. > [@](#): > > Jesus’ reappearance isn’t objective evidence for God. Nor are any miracles. But the argument isn’t that absolute evidence destroys faith, it is that any direct evidence destroys faith. And I thought that the risen Jesus was the absolute underpinning of Christianity. > [@](#): > > Logic is a property of this universe. The assumption that logic always holds is similar to the assumption the universe is causal, or that gravity works everywhere and all the time, or that every proton is the same once we account for a few properties. Those are testable hypotheses, and thus are not necessarily true. What natural constant defines logic? All the stuff you talk about is based on evidence - incomplete evidence in the cause of causality, since when we look far enough we see that at the quantum level the universe does not exhibit causality. Logic is not based on any of this. A & ~A being false is not determined from experimental evidence. > [@](#): > > Revelation is not objective evidence. Revelation in the sense of God chatting with a prophet supposedly? Sure. Revelation in the sense that God talks to all people in a cloud in all languages at once? Maybe not proof, but it sure is evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/73 "2012-11-01T19:50:38Z")
> [@temp\_user](#): > > God is like Rod Serling - a dispassionate observer. He knows you’re going to break your glasses, or its a shadow man from another bed, or it was Earth all along. But he’s not going to help you. But Rod Serling, wrote, or edited, all the scripts. Given what happens to some people in those shows, if they saw Serling standing there they would be quite justified in punching him in the snoot. Most writers would be much nicer to their characters if they were real. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/74 "2012-11-01T20:11:03Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You think God needed to test Moses’ faith at that time? Remember, Moses risked everything in Egypt. And, why would God care? The only answer is as a demonstration of his power to the assembled masses. Now to some extent they should be convinced also, but they weren’t, clearly in order for the priests who wrote the story to send a message to the doubters, just like in the last Narnia book. You’re free to interpret the story as you like, but I don’t see any reason to interpret it your way. > [@](#): > > But the argument isn’t that absolute evidence destroys faith, it is that any direct evidence destroys faith. And I thought that the risen Jesus was the absolute underpinning of Christianity. I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m making the distinction between subjective and objective evidence, not direct and indirect. Many Christians claim to have direct evidence of God, but it is subjective–not reproducible nor even useful to anyone else. > [@](#): > > What natural constant defines logic? All the stuff you talk about is based on evidence - incomplete evidence in the cause of causality, since when we look far enough we see that at the quantum level the universe does not exhibit causality. > Logic is not based on any of this. A & ~A being false is not determined from experimental evidence. Then what is logic based on? Are you assuming it is as an axiom? How is that different than any other non-falsifiable statement, like the ones Christians make about God? I do not think that assuming logic is non-falsifiable. We justify applying logic because we have objective evidence that it works. Every time someone checks that exactly one of A and not A are true, they’re doing an experiment testing that logic holds. > [@](#): > > Revelation in the sense of God chatting with a prophet supposedly? Sure. Revelation in the sense that God talks to all people in a cloud in all languages at once? Maybe not proof, but it sure is evidence. Anecdotes are not data. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/75 "2012-11-01T20:42:04Z")
> [@](#): > > I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m making the distinction between subjective and objective evidence, not direct and indirect. Many Christians claim to have direct evidence of God, but it is subjective–not reproducible nor even useful to anyone else. Why must that be the case? Suppose I know someone (call him Joe) who I believe to be sane, canny, and knowledgeable, and he informs me of his direct religious experience. To the extent that I believe Joe to be a trustworthy source, why is this not (possibly extremely mild) evidence of the truth of his religion? Why should this be useless? > [@](#): > > I do not think that assuming logic is non-falsifiable. We justify applying logic because we have objective evidence that it works. Every time someone checks that exactly one of A and not A are true, they’re doing an experiment testing that logic holds. Ehh. Without assuming the law of non-contradiction, how do you draw conclusions about your experimental results without begging the question? You can’t have falsifiability unless you’re willing to assume something about the deductive process. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/76 "2012-11-01T20:52:33Z")
Surprised nobody brought up Dostoevsky. One of the greatest passages that have ever been written on the subject: Brothers Karamazov: > [@](#): > > But then there are the children, and what am I to do about them? That’s a question I can’t answer. For the hundredth time I repeat, there are numbers of questions, but I’ve only taken the children, because in their case what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It’s beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity with children. And if it is really true that they must share responsibility for all their fathers’ crimes, such a truth is not of this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you see he didn’t grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight years old. Oh, Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will be when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: ‘Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed.’ When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, ‘Thou art just, O Lord!’ then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can’t accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child’s torturer, ‘Thou art just, O Lord!’ but I don’t want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It’s not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to ‘dear, kind God’! It’s not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don’t want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother’s heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don’t want harmony. From love for humanity I don’t want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it’s beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket." ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/77 "2012-11-01T20:54:42Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Why must that be the case? Suppose I know someone (call him Joe) who I believe to be sane, canny, and knowledgeable, and he informs me of his direct religious experience. To the extent that I believe Joe to be a trustworthy source, why is this not (possibly extremely mild) evidence of the truth of his religion? Why should this be useless? If Joe tells you that he had a ham sandwich for lunch, would you find that believable? If he tells you that the sandwich was delivered to him by Billy Joel, would you find it _equally_ believable, or just slightly less so? Now, if he tells you that Billy Joel delivered that sandwich by teleporting into his living room, where would you put that on your believability scale? No matter how believable you find someone to be, if the claim defies reality it would serve you well to doubt your friend. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/78 "2012-11-02T00:16:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Religion exists because it claims to have special access to God and what God wants. If they are unable to define God clearly, or give a logically consistent view of God, or give any reasons why their God is more true than the church down the street’s God, then it is all a crock, isn’t it? That doesn’t mean there isn’t a God out there, just that the real God isn’t at all like any of our views of him and worshiping a made-up deity is a waste of time - or no more useful in your moral development than going to Star Trek cons. eh. i wouldn’t say a religion has to be 100% correct nor God absolutely real for there to be value in religion. there’s value in tertiary aspects. communion, fellowship, a sense of belonging. hope. a however incorrect sense of understanding of things. insight. etc. i know some really religious people who are associated with brands of god i totally couldn’t ever buy into, yet they are better people not in spite of their religion, but because of it. there are a lot of problems with religion but i’m not going to say there’s no value. i know some Trekkies and nothing about their interest in sci-fi really contributes to their kindness, philanthropy or ethics. you can argue both are as make believe as each other, but one really presses on the matter of crowd-control, group-think and suppression of all the unsavory sides of being a human. the other is just dressing up and pew-pewing with toy guns and shit. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/79 "2012-11-02T07:02:43Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > eh. i wouldn’t say a religion has to be 100% correct nor God absolutely real for there to be value in religion. there’s value in tertiary aspects. communion, fellowship, a sense of belonging. hope. a however incorrect sense of understanding of things. insight. etc. I’d say more like 0% correct - as far as we can tell. Lots of social clubs give a sense of belonging. I’ve had no trouble with hope without god. And I’d rather work for a real understanding of things, based on evidence, than to try for a sense of it. > [@](#): > > i know some really religious people who are associated with brands of god i totally couldn’t ever buy into, yet they are better people not in spite of their religion, but because of it. there are a lot of problems with religion but i’m not going to say there’s no value. i know some Trekkies and nothing about their interest in sci-fi really contributes to their kindness, philanthropy or ethics. I’m sure I’ve read about sf conventions doing good works like blood drives. But for every person who gives to charity thanks to religion there is another giving to anti-SSM movements, My objection is to a religion’s sense of righteousness, the sense that whatever it teaches is correct because God said so in some invisible way. I’m as yet unaware of any wars between Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans, and I’m unaware of anyone introducing legislation to reduce the rights of the other side. It is not clear to me that religion makes people more moral as a whole. There was on period when every other letter to Dear Abbey was from a woman who wrote that her husband/boyfriend was a Christian man - and you just knew he was a cheater, a drunk or an abuser - or all three. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411/80 "2012-11-02T07:18:38Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > You’re free to interpret the story as you like, but I don’t see any reason to interpret it your way. Interpret it as you will, God seemed to have no problem making his presence very known, in a way which would convince most people today of his existence. He parted the Red Sea, he rode around in a cloud, he shat manna. What more would anyone want? Lots more, which is the point of those stories, as I said. > [@](#): > > I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m making the distinction between subjective and objective evidence, not direct and indirect. Many Christians claim to have direct evidence of God, but it is subjective–not reproducible nor even useful to anyone else. Okay, I was fooled by absolute. Subjective evidence isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, though we’ve had Dopers who believed for this very reason. > [@](#): > > Then what is logic based on? Are you assuming it is as an axiom? How is that different than any other non-falsifiable statement, like the ones Christians make about God? > > I do not think that assuming logic is non-falsifiable. We justify applying logic because we have objective evidence that it works. Every time someone checks that exactly one of A and not A are true, they’re doing an experiment testing that logic holds. That’s like saying that adding 2 and 2 and getting 4 is an experiment. It is more fundamental than that, and the basic rules of logic are true in all universes. We have to be careful what the rules really are - Aristotle is full of false rules, though not fundamental ones, and causality as a basic rule has been disproved. (BTW I am quite familiar with the axiomatic definition of addition, and I’m not saying that it is a basic rule of logic - just something not prone to experimental verification or refutation.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-the-problem-of-evil/639411.md?page=5)