What does it mean to say an event occurs spontaneously? If it means for no reason at all or out of nothing, then no. — luckswallowsall

It was intended to describe an event which has no preceding event that caused it to happen. Must every event have a cause then, do you think?

If it means through methods other than straightforward causality, sure. Something can happen in acausal way. But it's still not the same as for no reason at all because there probabilistic laws behind acausality. — luckswallowsall

Are you saying that events that have no cause are nonetheless caused by something? That's how I read your words, perhaps wrongly? :chin:

If one thinks about x, if one takes it into consideration, one is not ignoring x. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I'm sorry for being obtuse. I was looking for a deeper point that wasn't there. :blush:

Sorry, maybe I'm overthinking this. Do you mean to say that, because science does everything in its power to circumvent or destroy the human perspective, it can't be said to ignore it? :chin:

The whole idea behind overcoming bias, as misconceived as the idea that we can may be, is the belief that it's a feature of human perspective that we can overcome bias. — Terrapin Station

I'm sorry, I don't even know where to start with stuff like this.

the only point I was making was that science [...] isn't ignoring human perspective. — Terrapin Station

And I contend that it is, and that it cannot help but do so. By aspiring to 'impartial observers' they aspire to non-human observers. The human perspective is all about partiality. The only way that science addresses the human perspective is in its attempts to avoid it.

I think a move in the direction of socialism would be a good start. Until we reach that point, the transition to communism is too distant to consider.

what I'm focusing on is the fact that there is a belief that we can overcome bias — Terrapin Station

Yes, there is such a belief, and I believe it to be mistaken and wrong-headed. We humans have beliefs and opinions. Our perspective requires, and is based on, our bias, prejudice and partiality. These give rise to our opinions and beliefs, just as our opinions and beliefs give rise to our bias, prejudice and partiality. It's all mixed up together, and we wouldn't be human if these things weren't an intrinsic and fundamental part of us. These are not things we can just set aside, as if we can become Spock or Data just by deciding to do so. We are human, and humans have a human perspective. This is not right or wrong, it just is.

You give Satan her role, just as god did. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No, please don't overlay your religious beliefs onto mine. I worship God by the name Gaia. She is not a creator-God, and I do not acknowledge the Christian concept of the Devil.

I simply observe that yin has no meaning if yang doesn't exist. The same with good and evil.

Here are a couple examples of a belief that we can eliminate bias:

<links deleted for clarity>

Do you agree that those are examples of the belief? — Terrapin Station

Yes, I agree they are examples of the belief you describe. But my conception of bias and partiality is a lot broader than this. The links you offer describe ways to avoid making silly mistakes, simple misreadings and the like. The human perspective is much broader and deeper than these trivial examples, and the bias and partiality that result have a correspondingly wider reach.

For example, an American scriptural literalist scientist who is a biologist would be loathe to report that homosexual behaviour is widespread among God's creatures (as a minority behaviour), conflicting as it does with the Bible's perspective. But please don't focus on this one example; there are hundreds of others, referencing the hundreds of strange beliefs and opinions that affect what we humans [don't] say and do. Together, the result is bias and partiality, and the effect is much greater than simple mistakes and misreadings.

I don’t think one has to necessarily be at the event to experience it. Picasso’s experience of the bombing could be what was impressed on him by the nature of the bombing. It’s about his response to the horror. It’s a personal message to the world. Who understands it is another matter. — Brett

Yes, the message/experience thing is probably a semantic misunderstanding. As for the rest of what you say, it's what I was trying to say, but better put. :up:

I can't be bothered delving through so much detail, but I offer this: if God is all/everything in so many ways (omni-this, omni-that), maybe God is both good and evil, and much more besides? Equally, and for much the same reasons, maybe God is neither good nor evil?

For if God is good, is She good to herself, good to you, good to humans, good to philosophers, good to the world, good to the universe, good to fascists, and so on ad infinitum? For many of these goodnesses are mutually exclusive, rendering the whole question rather pointless. :chin:

However I look at this, I seem to end up with the conclusion that there is no Problem of Evil. It's just a big misunderstanding (of good, God, and so on).

Oxygen is not a candidate. The question is mitochondria? — Sculptor

Mitochondria are semi-automomous "beings" that live inside everyone of our cells. They migrate from the mother's cells to the unborn foetus in the early stages of "life", but are themselves no living because they can have no existence outside of the cell. — Sculptor

You stated that mitochondria are "no living" because they cannot exist outside of the conditions they need to survive. I responded by suggesting that this applies to humans too.

So is it fair to observe that humans cannot be alive, because they can have no existence outside of an oxygen-rich atmosphere? — Pattern-chaser

Maybe I erred in providing too much detail? I mentioned an "oxygen-rich atmosphere" when perhaps I should only have referred generally to an environment which contains the things necessary for human survival. Of course oxygen is not a candidate! :roll:

The fact that there is not much experience you get from Guernica, and the thing you get, a message, is after you learn some extra info about the painting, hints at how low of a quality that painting is. — Henri

The reason I define art as I do is that all other definitions I've come across have the same fundamental failing. They end up concluding that only members of some elite are capable of recognising/appreciating art. I reject all such conceptions of 'art' because of this unfortunate and incorrect feature.

I don't negate objective reality. I believe I have a good hold on what is good and bad, objectively — Henri


Then I have nothing more to offer on this subject that you will be able to hear. :sad: — Pattern-chaser

You present these two paintings... — Henri

No, you presented two paintings; I merely offered Guernica as one of (very) many examples.

I didn't ask what is the difference between literal message of the paintings — Henri

That's good, because I didn't answer that particular question. :up:

I don't negate objective reality. I believe I have a good hold on what is good and bad, objectively — Henri

Then I have nothing more to offer on this subject that you will be able to hear. :sad:

Take care! :smile:

An omnipotent being could just create a world were all beings can exist in harmony. — Echarmion

And if this unlikely scenario actually took place, would these beings exist in harmony, or might they behave in a less than harmonious manner, at least once in a while? Let's remember: God is responsible, not these beings.... :chin: This being the case, is your comment (above) still valid? The OP asks this:

If God exists and He is all good and all powerful why does He allow evil? — MysticMonist

And the answer, in the context of the comments I am posting, is that She doesn't allow it; it is necessary if good is also to exist.

the analogy is poor — Sculptor

I wasn't offering an analogy, but only applying your ideas elsewhere to see if they work there.

oxygen is common to all things, and quite different from the co-dependancy of mitochondria and animals — Sculptor

Then we humans are not alive, by your reckoning, for we cannot survive without the various foreign living creatures that share 'our' bodies with us*. It's so text-book it's almost a definition of symbiosis (co-dependency)! :smile:

* - I don't only mean mitochondria, although my reasoning applies there too, but (for example) gut bacteria, without which we cannot digest the food we eat.

Which one of the two provides more experience, a sense, a feeling, of "war is wrong"? — Henri

A message? :wink: That depends. Are you asking in relation to me? To you? To someone else? To all humans? The answer might be different in each case. That's the joy of art!

And it doesn't hold much value nevertheless, as I see it. — Henri

It's the last 4 words that make your statement true. Others may disagree, no? Again, that's the joy of art!

I'm asking if you agree that there is such a belief? — Terrapin Station

So do you disagree that there's a common belief that humans can be impartial/unbiased, at least in conjunction with each other? — Terrapin Station


No, I don't. — Pattern-chaser

Good and evil are relative. No, I don't mean that as an open-ended assertion, I mean that good to one species (humans) can be evil to another (bacteria), so it's relative in that sense. It's all down to context. — Pattern-chaser

And there's another way they're relative, equally specific. Good requires the existence of evil for its very meaning. You can't have yin alone; it is only meaningful in contrast and comparison to yang. So it is with good and evil too.

Therefore a 'good' God would necessarily have to create evil, if only to give that goodness some meaning. That rather puts paid to the idea of a 'good' God, doesn't it? And remember, you're considering God as a creator-God (as I do not, but that's OK), so it's God who creates evil, if it is created, as there is no other creator to do it, is there? This seems to lead to the conclusion that a 'good' God would have to create evil in order to be a 'good' God. :chin:

So there is no Problem of Evil. It's just a mistake; a misunderstanding.

No, it's an application of your reasoning to a slightly different circumstance. That something cannot be considered alive if it can't live outside the environment it needs to survive (!) is something from which I can wrest no sense.

No, we can't, or maybe shouldn't, reject the human perspective, but science does, — Pattern-chaser

I can't see how, for the reasons I mentioned. Science is based on our observations. Our observations have to do with us beings that, for example, experience time as unfolding, rather than all at once. Our observations are coming through limited beings - both in space and time - and are biased because of this. Scientists can try to eliminate many factors, but they can never know what biases are created simply by being limited, time bound creatures. — Coben

Human bias and partiality is not limited to the limitations of our senses. Bias also stems from our opinions and beliefs. And what else is the 'human perspective' if it isn't (at least in part) our opinions and beliefs? [It's what you said too, but as well not instead.]

So do you disagree that there's a common belief that humans can be impartial/unbiased, at least in conjunction with each other? — Terrapin Station

No, I don't. We can (sometimes) act thusly. But when we do, we necessarily set aside our 'human perspective', which is the biased and partial way we (generally and usually) look at the world.

Responsibility flows from the ability to act and the duty to do so. An omniscient and omnipotent God has an unlimited ability to act. The duty is self-imposed by the third attribute - benevolence. The combination of all three is incompatible with suffering in a universe created by that God, hence the theodicy problem. — Echarmion

So omnipotence and omniscience have nothing to do with responsibility or duty: that comes from benevolence, from God being 'good'. Hmm, OK. So if God eliminates the tuberculosis bacteria, has She done good to humans, evil to bacteria, or both? Or neither, as would be my view. Good and evil are relative. No, I don't mean that as an open-ended assertion, I mean that good to one species (humans) can be evil to another (bacteria), so it's relative in that sense. It's all down to context. Is God, omnipotent as She is (apparently), expected to act so that Her actions are 'good' for all living things, or She is branded 'evil'? That makes no sense to me.

Science has always been grounded in observation, I admit. But "the human perspective"? Science explicitly rejects the human perspective, and aims to observe impartially, in an unbiased manner. No human perspective there. — Pattern-chaser

There's a belief that humans can be impartial/unbiased, at least in conjunction with each other. That's not rejecting human perspective. It's seen as a feature of the human perspective.

I'm not saying I agree that we can be impartial/unbiased, but the view that we can and should be isn't actually rejecting the human perspective. — Terrapin Station

We can't reject the human perspective. — Coben

No, we can't, or maybe shouldn't, reject the human perspective, but science does, and it does so actively and intentionally. It is not possible to reduce humans to unbiased/impartial observers without also getting rid of the human perspective: the way humans look at things; the point of view of a human. Adopting a human perspective is to adopt a biased and partial way of looking at things. How could it not be? And why is that wrong, if it is wrong? :chin:

It's a product as "a thing that is the result of an action or process". A man made thing. It doesn't just happen. It's produced. Maybe more precisely to say - a piece of art is a product. — Henri

It's certainly produced, intentionally. One might argue that views of nature (say) are art, but I think this is a refutation of that: art is intentional...

I wouldn't say it's communication, especially not in terms of literal messages. It does communication as means to transfer experience, which is the goal. So it's a transfer of experience. If you want to call that communication also, ok. — Henri

...but why is it intentional? Because it carries a message. Not a literal message, as you say. If a painting is intended to carry a literal message, it's reduced to a poor and inaccurate copy of a photograph. I can't see how it transfers experience, though. Guernica offers a message to me: the savagery of war is wrong! To you it might say something different. It doesn't matter. But there is a message there, not experience. To me (again), the experience was an air raid; the painting is a comment (i.e. a message) on the actual event, which I don't think Picasso experienced. :chin:

Art is complex product, but it's a product. When a chair maker creates a chair, customers are not scratching their heads wondering what to do with "the contraption". When a news writer publishes an article, readers are not bewildered in how to interpret the markings on a screen. Essentially, it is the same with art. — Henri

Art is not a product, I don't think. [A work of art can perhaps be seen as a product, but not usefully or meaningfully (IMO).] Art is a form of communication. A unidirectional communication, from the artist to the audience, without direct interaction. Art is beauty too, sometimes. And other times it's just anger or frustration (Picasso's Guernica?). Often, art simply challenges cultural values that we have, perhaps, come to take for granted. Art does lots of stuff that mere 'products' don't.

As you rightly point out, a chair is a product, and we don't puzzle about what to do with it, because we already know. And we already know what art is, in general terms. But that doesn't apply to an individual work of art. When we see art for the first time (or hear, if it's music, etc), we don't know what it's for, or what it means, or is intended to mean. But we know whether we like it or not, which is our role in the proceedings. We can judge products in a simple and practical way. I'm not convinced that we can (meaningfully and usefully) treat art in the same way.

If you are all-knowing and all-powerful, it follows that you are also all-responsible. — Echarmion

Omnipotence is a defining characteristic of God in the context of this problem.

[...]


...God isn't really a god after all, since she's neither omniscient nor omnipotent. — Echarmion

How does knowing everything (omniscience) and having unlimited power (omnipotence) make God responsible for Everything?

Then the mistake, imo, is that we can escape from the domain of 'language' at all. — fresco

• Language is the one and only tool we currently have that will allow us to communicate.
• Without communication, and there can be no discussion.
• This is a discussion....

This all serves to set up the thesis that science neglects experience and the human perspective when, to the contrary, science has always been grounded in experience and observation. — Andrew M

Science has always been grounded in observation, I admit. But "the human perspective"? Science explicitly rejects the human perspective, and aims to observe impartially, in an unbiased manner. No human perspective there.

Mitochondria are semi-automomous "beings" that live inside everyone of our cells. They migrate from the mother's cells to the unborn foetus in the early stages of "life", but are themselves no living because they can have no existence outside of the cell. — Sculptor

So is it fair to observe that humans cannot be alive, because they can have no existence outside of an oxygen-rich atmosphere?

Philosophy is for critiquing, without that it loses all sense, and becomes some kind of religion — Janus

Philosophy is not competition, it's co-operative learning. So it's not uncritical, but the criticism is just one part of the inquiry process. Philosophy is not for "critiquing", and it does not depend on it, or its lack, for it to be "sense", I don't think.

If all the authors wanted to critique is physicalism and objectivism per se, then why bring science into it at all. — Janus

Because science - as it is practised - includes and embraces physicalism and objectivism?

They may pass judgement in all ignorance of what they’re looking at. Is that proof that art is entertainment? — Brett

No, it's just a consequence of being the judge(s) of art.

And if the audience judges art, not the artist, does that mean the audience determine what art is and that being entertaining is all that’s required? — Brett

No, they don't decide what art is, the artist does that. The audience judge whether they like it or not.

If you are all-knowing and all-powerful, it follows that you are also all-responsible. — Echarmion

Is it God we're discussing, or just a scapegoat?

If god is supposed to care about pigs and cows, she has a lot to answer for. — Echarmion

Really? I thought that one fell squarely on humans, not God. Or must She bear the responsibility for everything, regardless of who does it? :chin:

But if person X believes in God with property A and not B, and person Y believes in God with property B and not A, then I think you could argue that one person's faith in a characteristic of God must be misplaced. — Devans99

I would argue that, if people describe God like a shopping-list - includes this ingredient; does not include that ingredient - then the problem lies deeper than misplaced faith.

↪Brett
I agree with you, art sends a message. — Schzophr

But is the message sent by the artist the same as the message received by the audience? :chin:

Art may often be entertaining but that doesn’t mean its intent was to be entertaining. — Brett

No, it doesn't. But it's the audience that judges art, not the artist.

If someone then comes along and looks on the work as entertaining then that’s nothing to do with the artist. — Brett

Agreed, but the same observation applies: It's the audience that judges art, not the artist.

I think you’re being a bit slippery there by saying art can be disturbing, which can be true, and using that to legitimise the word ‘entertaining’ that comes before it. — Brett

I only wanted to avoid saying that art is only entertainment.

I couldn't resist. I suggest you blame auto-correct! — Theologian

I can do better than that! :wink: Coming back on topic, I claim that my keyboard is possessed by demons. Living demons! :smile: :snicker:

Faith can be in conflict with reason: people have had and do have faith in all sorts of different Gods. Some of that faith must be misplaced. — Devans99

Must? Why? All the Gods we have ever worshipped are just names for aspects of God. All the same thing. Just different perspectives. So why must (some) faith be misplaced?