I've discussed anthrodicy from the perspective of wild animals on occasion, asking "if there's a higher power (humans), why don't they intervene to reduce all of this suffering?" Great for my kind of parties because you get interesting replies & fights.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Anthropodicy* ?
-
Tidepodicy
-
Adventures in TidepOdyssey
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Evil is the absence of man. We see this in how distance or detachment reduces our empathy, and how rural areas are less prosperous than urban ones.
-
Additionally, we refer to it as Man's "inhumanity" to man. That is, man withdrawing from himself.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Because of his limited scope - we tend to optimise locally, which is often negative globally.
-
And even when we try to optimise geographically globally, we may still be optimising locally due to failure to consider the bigger picture
-
TL;DR: because we are not omniscient.
-
Also because there are many of us. A lot of (maybe most) evil is done by people trying to be good but failing due to lack of omniscience (and in some cases common sense). Some is done by people who don’t care about good.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
#Alvinplantinga interesting on problem of evil from religious perspectivehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m_sk0AjJDkk … -
Massimo has his own ‘priors’. Not sure we’ll solve this in a tweet but interesting to see last paragraph he raises two huge unanswered puzzles and just rest easy with ‘So?’
-
It is fine not knowing things. What is not fine is going "therefore God".
-
Agreed. But it works both ways, eg problem of evil does not mean 'therefore not God'
-
It means "you have to solve this problem with your God model before you can claim God". If there is a God, they clearly can't be simultaneously omniscient, -potent and -benevolent, so the Christian God, as interpreted by most Christians, is ruled out.
-
The Christian God allows humans agency for good or ill. If he blocked all evil ( my read of your claim? ) or indeed were controlled in all we did by him we’d be automatons.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
No one ever has "complete control over their actions." This is the fundamental attribution fallacy at work. "Evil" is not a useful concept. Etc. The question as framed cannot elicit useful answers, because it contains too many unexamined assumptions.
-
And having glanced at the answers you *did* elicit, I'd say that you are none the wiser. It would be interesting to see what question you really wanted to ask.
-
Given that
@slatestarcodex is not an angel (I think), I’m not sure he intended to ask anything, just to turn around a typical theological discussion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.