Ethics: Problem of evil part 3발음듣기
대기중
Ethics: Problem of evil part 3
90문장
0%
인도네시아어 번역 1명 참여
출처 : 칸아카데미
Ethics: Problem of evil part 3
(intro music) Hi, my name is Greg Ganssle and I'm a part-time lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at Yale University, and a Senior Fellow at the Rivendell Institute.
And today we're talking about the philosophical problem of evil.
In previous discussions, we've seen the charge of contradiction or the deductive logical problem of evil discussed.
And this is the claim that there is a contradiction in asserting that God exists, God is wholly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, and that evil exists.
The solution to this charge of contradiction, we found, was in the idea that God might have a good reason to allow evil.
A good God can allow evil if He has a good reason to do so.
It's from this point that the second major argument in the philosophical problem of evil begins.
This is the evidential argument. Rather than "the charge of contradiction,"
I like to call this "the unicorn objection."
Just like a unicorn might exist but they're awfully hard to find, this argument starts with the idea that maybe God has a reason to allow the evil we witness, but it sure seems like there is no reason out there.
So let me see if I can make this a little more rigorous.
I'm following an important paper that was published by philosopher William Rowe in 1979.
This argument goes something like this (and I'm going to simplify).
Premise one: There are unjustified evils in the world.
Premise two: If God exists, there will be no unjustified evils in the world.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.
Let me clarify a few things before I try to give a bit of an answer.
So, what is an unjustified evil?
An unjustified evil is an evil where there is no good reason to allow it.
No good being would allow this evil if he could prevent it.
The argument is that there are cases of evil like this in the world, and if there are, then God does not exist.
Now, notice the way I set up the argument, it's actually a valid deductive argument.
So why would we call this an evidential argument?
The answer is the first premise, "There are unjustified evils," can only be supported with an evidential case.
We cannot argue that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, there are unjustified evils.
We have to weigh the evidence, pro and con, for the claim that there are unjustified evils.
So let's begin to do that.
Well, William Rowe in his article tells a story of a deer who's caught in a forest fire and suffers horribly for four or five days before she dies.
And he points out that in the case of suffering like this, we cannot see any reason that God might have to allow it.
It looks like an unjustified evil.
And we can go through and look at some of the standard reasons God might have to allow evils and show that they don't seem to apply in this case.
For example, human free will seems to be irrelevant especially if the fire was caused by lightning.
Secondly, the fact that it's a good thing to have a regular cause and effect world doesn't seem to apply, because God could always end the deer's misery without really interfering with the regularities of the world.
So here's a case that looks like an unjustified evil.
How is a theist going to respond?
Well, another philosopher named Steven Wykstra begin this way.
He said, "We're looking for a reason that God could have to allow this evil," or "We're looking for what we could call a justifying reason."
And William Rowe's argument goes something like this.
First: It doesn't seem like there's a justifying reason.
Secondly: Therefore, probably there is no justifying reason.
And that's the kind of reasoning that's supporting premise one.
The evidence we bring to bear to premise one is that, as much as we think about it, we cannot discern a justifying reason, so it seems like there is none.
Then we conclude not that there definitely is no justifying reason, but that it's likely, or probably there is no justifying reason.
And then our conclusion becomes "Probably, there is no God."
Now what Steve Wykstra does with this is he thinks hard about this inference from "It seems like there is no justifying reason" to "Probably, there is no justifying reason."
I'm oversimplifying his case quite a bit, but it's as if he's making this claim.
Sometimes inferences of that kind are very strong and sometimes they're very weak.
So here's some examples. Look around the room.
It seems like there are no live elephants in the room.
Therefore, probably there are no live elephants in the room.
That seems to be a pretty strong inference.
What about this one? Look around the room again.
It seems like there are no carbon-14 atoms in the room.
Therefore, probably there are no carbon-14 atoms in the room.
Well that doesn't seem like a very strong inference, even if you look around the room twice.
What is the difference? The difference can be captured in the sentences of the form "If there were a ____, we would probably know it."
Now we'll take the first case.
If there were a live elephant in the room, we would probably know it.
That is true. You look around the room, and a live elephant is something you're going to notice.
If the room is small enough, there aren't a lot of large objects a live elephant could hide behind.
So it's a very strong inference.
But think about the carbon-14 atom.
If there were a carbon-14 atom in the room, we would probably know it.
That turns out to be false.
You cannot detect tacarbon-14 atom simply by glancing around the room.
So sometimes these inferences are strong and sometimes they're weak.
Now let's go back to Rowe's argument.
What is it with which he fills in the blank?
A justifying reason. A reason God could have to allow this evil.
So we look at a particular case of evil.
And we asked the question "If there were a justifying reason, would we probably know it?"
If the answer to that question is "Yes," then Rowe's argument is strong.
If the answer is "No," then it's weak.
Let me tell you why I think it's weak.
First of all, if God exists, we would expect that many of His reasons for doing things are going to be stuff that we cannot figure out.
Secondly, we can figure out reasons God might have for lots of the evils in the world: things due to free will, due to cause-and-effect universe.
There are lots of evils that we encounter where we can figure out what a justifying reason might be.
Third thing: every philosopher recognizes that we're not going to be able to figure out God's reasons in every case.
So we all accept the idea that there are many cases we can figure out and there are many cases we shouldn't be able to figure out.
The question is, are there too many cases of that kind?
And this is where the disagreement is.
I think, if you have other reasons to think God exists, then you're in good grounds for saying that this argument is not strong, because the number of cases we cannot figure out is not necessarily so great to render existence of God unlikely.
This is one of those cases where both the theist and the atheist can say that the other side can be perfectly rational in their beliefs.
It's a matter of assessing the evidence differently.
In fact, in Rowe's article where he first put forward this argument, he makes this point.
He says he thinks it's perfectly reasonable for a theist to continue to believe in God even in spite of this argument.
So we've looked at the evidential argument from evil, simply one version of it by William Rowe.
And I've explained how a theist can respond, to see whether it's still reasonable to believe in God.
Of course, many philosophers have launched different versions of this argument which are more complicated and perhaps more difficult to answer.
번역
0%
(intro music) Hi, my name is Greg Ganssle and I'm a part-time lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at Yale University, and a Senior Fellow at the Rivendell Institute.발음듣기
대기중
In previous discussions, we've seen the charge of contradiction or the deductive logical problem of evil discussed.발음듣기
대기중
And this is the claim that there is a contradiction in asserting that God exists, God is wholly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, and that evil exists.발음듣기
대기중
The solution to this charge of contradiction, we found, was in the idea that God might have a good reason to allow evil.발음듣기
대기중
It's from this point that the second major argument in the philosophical problem of evil begins.발음듣기
대기중
Just like a unicorn might exist but they're awfully hard to find, this argument starts with the idea that maybe God has a reason to allow the evil we witness, but it sure seems like there is no reason out there.발음듣기
대기중
The argument is that there are cases of evil like this in the world, and if there are, then God does not exist.발음듣기
대기중
The answer is the first premise, "There are unjustified evils," can only be supported with an evidential case.발음듣기
대기중
Well, William Rowe in his article tells a story of a deer who's caught in a forest fire and suffers horribly for four or five days before she dies.발음듣기
대기중
And he points out that in the case of suffering like this, we cannot see any reason that God might have to allow it.발음듣기
대기중
And we can go through and look at some of the standard reasons God might have to allow evils and show that they don't seem to apply in this case.발음듣기
대기중
For example, human free will seems to be irrelevant especially if the fire was caused by lightning.발음듣기
대기중
Secondly, the fact that it's a good thing to have a regular cause and effect world doesn't seem to apply, because God could always end the deer's misery without really interfering with the regularities of the world.발음듣기
대기중
He said, "We're looking for a reason that God could have to allow this evil," or "We're looking for what we could call a justifying reason."발음듣기
대기중
The evidence we bring to bear to premise one is that, as much as we think about it, we cannot discern a justifying reason, so it seems like there is none.발음듣기
대기중
Then we conclude not that there definitely is no justifying reason, but that it's likely, or probably there is no justifying reason.발음듣기
대기중
Now what Steve Wykstra does with this is he thinks hard about this inference from "It seems like there is no justifying reason" to "Probably, there is no justifying reason."발음듣기
대기중
Well that doesn't seem like a very strong inference, even if you look around the room twice.발음듣기
대기중
What is the difference? The difference can be captured in the sentences of the form "If there were a ____, we would probably know it."발음듣기
대기중
That is true. You look around the room, and a live elephant is something you're going to notice.발음듣기
대기중
If the room is small enough, there aren't a lot of large objects a live elephant could hide behind.발음듣기
대기중
First of all, if God exists, we would expect that many of His reasons for doing things are going to be stuff that we cannot figure out.발음듣기
대기중
Secondly, we can figure out reasons God might have for lots of the evils in the world: things due to free will, due to cause-and-effect universe.발음듣기
대기중
There are lots of evils that we encounter where we can figure out what a justifying reason might be.발음듣기
대기중
Third thing: every philosopher recognizes that we're not going to be able to figure out God's reasons in every case.발음듣기
대기중
So we all accept the idea that there are many cases we can figure out and there are many cases we shouldn't be able to figure out.발음듣기
대기중
I think, if you have other reasons to think God exists, then you're in good grounds for saying that this argument is not strong, because the number of cases we cannot figure out is not necessarily so great to render existence of God unlikely.발음듣기
대기중
This is one of those cases where both the theist and the atheist can say that the other side can be perfectly rational in their beliefs.발음듣기
대기중
He says he thinks it's perfectly reasonable for a theist to continue to believe in God even in spite of this argument.발음듣기
대기중
So we've looked at the evidential argument from evil, simply one version of it by William Rowe.발음듣기
대기중
And I've explained how a theist can respond, to see whether it's still reasonable to believe in God.발음듣기
대기중
칸아카데미 더보기더 보기
-
Marina Abramović: The body as medium
14문장 0%번역 좋아요0
번역하기 -
Room: 1730-1765 at Tate Britain – Meet 500 ye...
16문장 0%번역 좋아요0
번역하기 -
Angela Ahrendts - Former CEO of Burberry
388문장 99%번역 좋아요3
번역하기 -
Total consumer surplus as area
67문장 0%번역 좋아요0
번역하기
