Skip to main content

The 21st Century Monad Solution to the Problem of Evil

This is not the actual world!

Genius lyrics:

I admit I lost my faith
When I felt the shake from a Lisbon quake
And I could not believe
This is how things ought to be
So I wondered from place to place
But the evils of the human race
They made themselves apparent
That they were inherent

My life felt like someone else’s dream
And that’s when it came to me, and I could see

This is not the actual world

Yeah we’re in world 223
And a world like this must in some sense be
For God’s not choosing it to be praiseworthy
And what else could explain
This seeming random distribution of pleasure and pain?
On the just and the unjust alike
Falls the same rain

This theodicy it might seem odd
But it helped me make my peace with God, and now I see

This is not the actual world


You're welcome.

Comments

Scott said…
I think I read a paper in which someone actually made this argument. I don't remember who it was or where the paper was published. But I swear I've seen this argument in print.
exapologist said…
Ha! Please let me know if you remember the name of the paper or author.

Best,
EA
Scott said…
The author is Ken Gemes. The paper is 'The Problem of Evil and its Solution'.
exapologist said…
Excellent. Thanks, Scott!
Rayndeon said…
Well... here's the link if anyone is interested: http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/733/1/K_Gemes_Evil.pdf

I had difficulty believing that the author was able to write that with a straight face. Perhaps this is the philosophical equivalent of "trolling" your audience?

I read a book review about Colin McGinn's book on Disgust. The epithet can be aptly recruited here: "[In philosophy of religion] there is shit and then there is bullshit. [This paper] belongs to the latter category."

Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

CfP: Inquiry: New Work on the Existence of God

NEW WORK ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
In recent years, methods and concepts in logic, metaphysics and epistemology have become more and more sophisticated. For example, much new, subtle and interesting work has been done on modality, grounding, explanation and infinity, in both logic, metaphysics as well as epistemology. The three classical arguments for the existence of God – ontological arguments, cosmological arguments and fine-tuning arguments – all turn on issues of modality, grounding, explanation and infinity. In light of recent work, these arguments can - and to some extent have - become more sophisticated as well. Inquiry hereby calls for new and original papers in the intersection of recent work in logic, metaphysics and epistemology and the three main types of arguments for the existence of God. 


The deadline is 31 January 2017. Direct queries to einar.d.bohn at uia.no.

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…