On the Deism thread, Dronester and Rahvin briefly discussed the topic of divine benevolence.
Since it would probably lead off-topic there, I would like to open a thread to discuss it.
I want to start with a couple of quotes from Dronester’s
Message #67 and
Message #122 in the Deism thread. It isn’t my intention to single out Dronester (the argument is very widespread), but it’s just convenient to use his quotes because of proximity.
dronester, #67, writes:
About three thousand children die from starvation EVERY DAY. It is a horrible way over a long period of time to die. What's the "higher purpose" for that?
About three thousand children die of malaria EVERY DAY. Consider all the other terrible diseases that kill children every day. What's the "higher purpose" for that?
Thousands of women are raped and murdered everyday. What's the "higher purpose" for that?
First, this is clearly a division fallacy. That humans are intelligent does not mean that human
kidneys are also intelligent. Likewise, that the universe has a higher purpose does not mean that every facet of the universe also has a higher purpose." It's fully possible for the universe to simultaneously have a "higher purpose" and include lots of meaningless details.
It’s also an appeal to emotion, which isn’t relevant to the topic of deism (although it is relevant here: see below for my argumentation).
-----
dronester, #122, writes:
It is rational to believe a parent wouldn't want any harm to their children
By extension, it is logical/natural to project that a personal, loving god wouldn't want harm to its creations also
This causes some cognitive dissonance for me.
The argument assumes that a higher purpose must be emotionally charged in order to serve the best interests of the benefactor. Or, it at least assumes that the agent of the higher purpose (i.e. god) believes that this is the case.
It also assumes that the best interest of the benefactor is to be protected from things they consider to be bad.
I have spent an inordinate amount of time at EvC discussing the concept of free will, but I think it is very applicable here.
In order for benevolence to exist, a benefactor must exist.
One can hardly be thought of as a benefactor if one is not a distinct, independent individual.
Thus, benevolence requires individuality (free will).
If benevolence is meant to serve
multiple benefactors, then
each intended benefactor must be a distinct individual.
But, where there are multiple distinct individuals, there will inevitably be disagreements and, consequently, conflicts of interest.
Any attempt to restrict the amount of conflict that is allowed results in a decrease in the number of potential benefactors that can be served, because it limits the spectrum of opinions, and thus, the range of individuality, that can exist.
Thus, benevolence cannot exist unless conflicts also exist.
The argument that the existence of "bad" makes God an asshole implies that our personal best interest would be better served if we did not have free will. But, how can this be?
-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2