Yujin Nagasawa: The Problem of Evil for Atheists (ft. Paul Draper)

[@johnsoloninka322]

Everyone politely said “I loved your wonderful article” and then totally trashed it’s confounding of optimism and atheism, and suggestion that adding an omnipotent benevolent God for theists helps them rather than actually CREATING the problem of evil!! The shallowness of thinking gives academic philosophy a bad name…and deservedly so.

[@Absolute_Optimist]

Still though, Yujin's point hits hard when you think about it precisely because it at least implies that atheists should be pessimists. That atheism + modest optimism are not compatible. That means that when pessimism is fully taken seriously, it seriously reduces the motivation to do good because if the reality does not care, what is the point of caring about goodness, meaning, and other beings because remember that suppose you do good but then immediately your good turns into extreme evil or a tragedy through sheer indifference of reality? Some atheists even go as far as to say that morality is not objective, consciousness does not exist, etc. etc. and they seem to have a worldview that seems coherent but it is such a dark, self-sabotaging worldview though.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

I'm not sure I actually heard a definition of what the "problem of evil" was - from listening for 30 minutes I think he and I may be talking about two different things.

[@TheFamousMockingbird]

I think Kierkegaard said it best regarding life. When you are born there is the sound of screams of pain from labor, when you die the scream of pain from death.

[@kpmorgan]

This is not true across the board.

[@GusSchultzPlays]

I heard Nagasawa state over and over that he's just trying to show that theism has more Solutions to the problem than non-theism. But it's never made apparent here why we should care about that if the evidence we have is less likely on theism. Is this covered in the book and/or paper? That seems like it would be really crucial for this to be a meaningful discussion.

[@GusSchultzPlays]

Well, I've gotten thru everything but the eastern philosophy section of the book, and the answer to my question is: "Kind Of?" He rather consistently talks about forming a POE for non-theists/atheists, but his method of getting there is to genericize the argument out to Modest Optimists. It is briefly mentioned/alluded-to the fact that theisism and some forms of non-theism (by which he means naturalist forms of pantheism and axiarchism) entail modest optimism. But for atheists, he just rests on evidence that many atheISTS are modest optimists with no attempt to show that atheISM is committed to it. Then in a chapter on objections he takes one section and acknowledges that atheists can be pessimists and that this does present an extra option for them, but seems unconcerned about how this bares on he thesis. This lack of concern stems from a focus, not on atheists/atheism, but on modest optimism. So while I think there's a lot in the book that can be agreed with, I think it fails in the broader dialectic context of POE debate because of what it doesn't spend any/enough time discussing.

[@I_am_who_I_am_who_I_am]

The problem of evil is a Christianity problem because it has embedded duality concepts. In Islam and particularly in Judaism God is creator of evil too. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.", Isaiah 45:7 "Say: 'All things are from God'", Surah An-Nisa 4:78 There, solved it for you.

[@VolrinSeth]

So god is evil? Thanks for clearing that up.

[@PrestonGranger]

@@VolrinSeth He would have to be, if he existed. That, or inept.

[@tionarry]

You do know that an English translation and some other translation says "allows" and not "create"

[@VolrinSeth]

@@tionarry Same difference with regards to the problem of evil.

[@tionarry]

@@VolrinSeth I don't think "same difference" is a real word. But if you mean it's the same, it's not

[@petersage5157]

I'm rubbish with remembering names, but I hardly ever forget a voice. Are you the guy who called in to The Line with a bunch of word salad for Aron Ra?

[@TheRepugnantConclusion]

haha that was not me

[@siergeplo1161]

The main problem of abrahamic theists is that the whey don't understand that for atheist "evil" in their [Abrahamic] definition doesn't exist. There's either ethical or not-ethical actions, and for nature the term "evil" does not apply entirely. And this pathetic allegory with a "suffering overweight person with diabetes" was so nonsensical that I almost dropped watching the video, how ridiculous it was. I know that religious people LOVE their allegories, but that was on another level of "searching for deeper meaning" in their own imagination, which was on a completely different plane from the discourse. It was like arguing with a wall.