Tom Caylor writes:> From: Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden> Subject: Re: ?> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:31:19 -0800> > > On Jan 28, 10:35 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke....domain.name.hidden.org> wrote:> > Tom Caylor wrote:> >> > > The question of the "meaning of life", and also the problem of (the> > > existence of) evil (whether you believe in God not), has at its core> > > the question of what is this "non-thing" entity called a "person"?> >> > > By the way, the problem of evil that I am referring to is simply the> > > problem of the existence of evil. We just know it exists. We see> > > people treated as things. We know it is wrong. The simple existence> > > of evil is a problem. > >> > If you don't believe in an omnipotent, benevolent God who orders the universe> > it isn't a problem. It's just a consequence of different people having competing values.> >> > You are talking about a different "problem of evil" than I am. You> are using the word "problem" in the sense of a logical contradiction.> I think you saw below that by "the problem of evil" I mean "evil"> itself. It is something that is more direct and palpable, something> that requires a *person* to be conscious of its existence, rather than> just a mathematical processor cranking out a logical inference. Evil> *is* the problem.> > At the risk of overkill, but I don't want to take any more chances,> let's take an analogy: weeds on a lawn. You are looking at the> classical "problem of evil" in the sense that if you believe that a> benevolent and all-powerful gardener is in charge of this lawn, then> (if you narrow the scope of all of the definitions enough) the> existence of weeds is a contradiction. A mathematical processor could> infer that. I'm just looking at the weeds themselves, independent of> any gardener, and saying, "This is bad." Being able to make that> judgment requires a person.Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say "let x=good", and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike some scientific types, I am quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, but it has no bearing on the truth.Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Get connected - Use your Hotmail address to sign into Windows Live Messenger now.
http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Jan 31 2007 - 04:50:11 PST