RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

From: Stathis Papaioannou <>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:02:38 +1100

Bruno Marchal writes:
> Le 12-déc.-06, à 03:58, 1Z a écrit :
> >
> >
> > 1Z wrote:
> >> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree that the problem of evil (and thus the equivalent problem of
> >>> Good) is interesting. Of course it is not well addressed by the two
> >>> current theories of everything: Loop gravity and String theory.
> > both of these easily answer the problem Of Evil
> > if you treat them as Theories of Everything (and not just Everything
> > Physical).
> I was "kind" enough to consider them as theories as everything indeed,
> but then it is an obvious fact that Loop Gravity (LG) and String
> Theories (ST) does not even address the question, nor any qualia
> question. Of course, LG and ST, like all physicalist approaches, rely
> on an implicit materialist theological doctrine.
Haven't you said in the past that science is silent on the question of whether there is
a real material universe? It is assumed by most scientists, as by most people, but it is
not actually one of the testable predictions of the scientific theory.
> > The Problem of Evil is the Problem of reconciling a good God with a
> > suffering world.
> No. This is only a version of "the problem of Evil" in christian
> theologies. In Buddhism, the "problem of evil" can arguably be
> translated into the problem of finding the roots of suffering (and how
> to cut them). In non-eliminative materialism the problem of evil is the
> problem of why and how information processing by neurons does make a
> first person feeling pain, etc.
OK, but if you just say "problem of evil" it generally means what Peter has said above
to most people who have heard of the term.
> Here I was alluding to the quasi trivial fact that to get a
> "scientific" theory of "suffering" (and thus more generally evil) we
> need a theory of qualia before.
But even such a theory (if possible) would not explain what evil is any better than saying
that it is suffering, or some variation on this.
> > Since
> > there is no God in either theory, the problem does not arise.
> Which illustrates that ST and LG are not theory of everything (unless
> we take the materialist doctrine, but then comp is wrong, or my
> argument UDA is incorrect, ...)
> But evil exists, (no?), if only through the existence of suffering
> (although "evil" is a notion arguably far more complex than "just"
> suffering (hope you grant a relation between suffering and evil)).
> Of course, from a comp point of view, LG and ST address only the fourth
> hypostases (Z1 and Z1*, perhaps S4Grz1 and the X logics too). And they
> does not try to distinguish between the communicable and the non
> communicable part of it.
I don't see how it's such a big problem. Consciousness exists, therefore feelings exist,
and some of these feelings are unpleasant ones. Explaining consciousness is difficult,
but once granted, you don't need an extra theory for every different type of feeling.
> BTW you are quick saying there is no "God" in LG and in ST, is that a
> theorem? I don't see the question addressed in those theories except
> perhaps somehow by Hawking ...
> (
LG and ST do not specifically discuss elephants and are not dependent on the existence
or nonexistence of elephants for validity. It is possible that without God the universe
would not have come about, but the same is true for elephants.
Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Dec 12 2006 - 07:02:55 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST