Problem of Evil | Surprised by Logic
Separate out the issues
Do you remember the delicate touch you employed in order to play Pick up Stix? Dumping them all out on a table produced a challenging mess.
Similarly when confronted by the onslaught of jumbled sound bytes that stand in lieu of rational, orderly arguments, we have to first untangle the issues before we can discuss what is being advanced.
Recently my ‘go-to’ source for messy thinking, the Letters to the Editor page of the local newspaper, provided fun fodder.
The tragic death by handgun of a local child prompted a letter. The author’s premise ran like this:
All persons who advocate the rights of the unborn should also advocate regulating the rights of handgun owners.
He reasoned two ways:
by asking questions calling into question the heart and sympathies of pro-life supporters
by pointing out that since the misuse of cars can cause accidental death, and we accept government regulation, then we should equally embrace state and federal regulation of guns
Were I to dialogue face to face with this gentleman, I would gently point out that the use of a fallacy doesn’t take the place of marshaling reasons to support a claim.
Just what is the fallacy? Look at his questioning technique I cited. That is nothing more than a ‘kind’ version of an ad hominem attack. Focusing on the character of your opponent is a weak substitute for a reasoned argument. Succumbing to a fallacy also communicates that you don’t know what else to say in support of your position!
What about my letter writer’s 2nd tactic, to tie the details of one kind of accidental death to another? He’s arguing in essence for a broader principle:
All objects that can be misused resulting in the accidental death of someone should be regulated by the government.
Is he going to agree or balk? If he agrees, then take his argument seriously and push it to the point of the absurd.
I just googled this topic: “Too much of this can kill you”
and what popped up after you tube videos of ‘too much love’ was the following from a CBS News website (see the link at kidney failure):
Doctors have traced a man’s kidney failure to his habit of drinking a gallon of iced tea each day.
Black tea has a chemical called oxalate, known to cause kidney stones or even kidney failure in excessive amounts.
But tea isn’t the only everyday ingestible that could kill you.
Mr Letter-writer is going to have to limit the scope of his claim. His broad-sweep application of ONE situation (government regulation of drivers and cars) cannot, ipso facto, be applied to every situation. Keep him focused on how to solve the evil killing of the child.
Actually, what both the wrong use of cars and the wrong use of guns has in common is the evil nature of the handler of either. Now THERE’s a topic worth discussing!
Tags: Abortion, Ad Hominem, Hand-gun violence, Kidney Failure, Letters to the Editor, Pick-up Stix, Problem of Evil
Categories Argumentation, Argumentum ad absurdum, Assertions, Assumptions, Claims, Fallacies, Irrelevance, Premises
Logical Gal and what is ‘good’?
What is good? That depends!
The concept of ‘good’ varies. So we need to ask some questions. As I grow in being a logical gal, I’m gradually getting better at remembering to pause, think and ask clarifying questions before going any further. I’ve often misunderstood the pre-suppositions behind someone’s statements or even their questions and responded inappropriately.
So here are points to consider and clarify:
Does the speaker mean have in mind something …..objectively good? or just subjectively good? For example – It is good to care for widows and orphans is an objective value that is true no matter the culture or period of history. Mint-chocolate-chip ice cream is good is a subjective evaluation based on the subject (in this case – me!) and her preferences.
Or is the speaker thinking of ……..something effective at gaining results? For example – Completing one’s homework and preparing for tests is good in the sense that it leads to desired results. Staying up late and partying without any advanced preparation for tomorrow’s test is NOT good.
Or does the speaker have in mind ……..something more along the lines of ‘good for’? Like taking a combination of Echinacea, zinc and vitamin C is ‘good for’ fighting a cold.
I’ve been pondering the various meanings of the term good ever since I heard a philosopher discuss the ‘problem of evil’. The new twist for me was how the speaker narrated this problem as something Neo-Darwinian Atheists had to solve. For these materialists, ‘good’ refers to traits that are adaptive. Adaptive means these characteristics get passed down to the next generation because they help the species survive. So ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ would be how one describes ‘maladaptive’ traits – those that DO not help the species survive. Theoretically they would then NOT be passed down to successive generations, right? (unless there is something ‘wrong’ with the whole natural selection mechanism…but that’s ANOTHER problem!).
Hence, the question: What explains the continued existence of evil or bad stuff in our world?
See what ‘good’ can come from all these questions! I’ll look forward to some of your thoughts on ‘good’ and/or on this ‘problem of evil’.
Tags: Adaptive Traits, Colds, Echinacea, Good, Maladaptive Traits, Natural Selection, Neo-Darwinian Atheists, Pacifism, Problem of Evil, Vit C, Zinc
Categories Presuppositions, Questions, Terms