I am not being idiosyncratic. You are confident that I am. But to be that confident about the matter I'd assume you knew a lot about the problem - more than me, for instance (and I'm no expert). Hence my questions. But it seems you don't. So you've decided that I am idiosyncratic in my use of the term 'problem of evil' despite knowing less about it than I do.

The two versions that are traditionally distinguished are the 'logical' and 'evidential' FYI.

@Bartricks -

So "the problem" is (dis)solved either (1) by 'not believing one & the world were created' (or 'believing that one & the world were not created') or (2) by not procreating? (The dispositions of so-called 'Creator' or 'procreated offspring' are then only relevant for creationists & natalists?) Therefore, you agree it's not a problem for everyone, or 'fundamental problem' of existence per se?

Sure thing bucko :)

I am using the problem of evil to try and show the apparent incompatibility of human procreation and moral goodness. The problem of evil implies God does not exist. It also implies, I am arguing, that those humans who procreate are, other things being equal, not good people.

A morally good, omnipotent, omniscient being might create a universe like this one but devoid of all innocent sentient life. For perhaps they just like seeing volcanoes erupt, like having beautiful viruses around, like earthquakes and so on. So, just creating a world like ours does not, in and of itself, seem like an act that is incompatible with being omnipotent, omniscient, and morally good.

But creating innocent sentient life and making it live in that world - a world of earthquakes, viruses, volcanoes and now in addition all the evils that sentient lifeforms can visit on each other - does not seem like something a morally good, omnipotent, omniscient being would do. They'd either redesign the world so that it didn't contain those evils, or they'd resist the desire to introduce innocent sentient life into it.

Do you agree with that?

I take the OP to be something like : If you think there's such a thing as a problem of evil, then the same logic should lead you to question parenthood. You know how bad things are, you know you have the capacity to prevent people from suffering in it, yet you create life anyway. I think it works, basically, if you accept a pessimistic view. It's kind of neat in that it translates the transcendent frame of the traditional PoE to an immanent one. If there's no single external agent that creates, than any relevant moral choice operates from within. Do we -as the actual agents of creation - keep life going?

I disagree with the OP - I'm no pessimist - but I think it's well-posed.

Many people think it is implausible that an omnipotent, omniscient, morally good god would create a universe like this one and then force innocent sentient creatures to live in it. I agree — Bartricks

What do you think the world should be like? No predation? No possibility of disease? Nobody would ever die, get injured? How would that work? How could a world be like that?

If you think there's such a thing as a problem of evil, then the same logic should lead you to question parenthood. — csalisbury

I think it's important to distinguish between the motivations of the two. For the theist, the whole problem bears on how a Good God can allow Evil to be. That God is Good (and all the onmis) is key to the problem. Take that away and you don't really have a problem anymore: there is evil because well, it's not like there was any supposed guarantor of Good to begin with.

That: 'there is evil in the world, why would you procreate?' - is simply a different problem. Theodicists actually have to account for the fall - that's their whole problem. If you take the fall for granted and then ask about ways of dealing with the aftermath, you're simply dealing with a different problem altogether. Not saying that it isn't a problem, or can't be constructed as one.

don't have kids, mm'kay

What do you think the world should be like? No predation? No possibility of disease? Nobody would ever die, get injured? How would that work? How could a world be like that? — Wayfarer

Yes, that's what I'd expect it to be like. Just as if you told me that in the next room there is a meal by the finest cook conceivable, I would expect it to be nice through and through, rather than a luke warm pot noodle that tastes suspiciously like it might have been made with the chef's urine. If, then, I find in that in the next room there is a luke warm pot noodle with a hint of urine about it, then I'd conclude that I am not eating food prepared by the finest chef conceivable. I admit that it could be - for there are explanations that we can come up with of why the best chef conceivable might have prepared a pot noodle using his own wee rather than prepare a proper meal. But, on the face of it, it doesn't seem reasonable to think that you're eating something prepared by the best chef conceivable given that it appears to be a pot noodle made with urine. Why? Because the best chef conceivable knows how to prepare a wonderful meal, has the power to do so, and can be expected to be motivated to do so.

Likewise, if you tell me that there is a universe that has been created by an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being and that this being has also created innocent sentient beings and made them live in it, then I'd expect that universe to be a paradise in which there is no predation, no horrible diseases, no major mishaps. I wouldn't expect this place. Why? Because a being who is omnipotent, omnsiceitn and morally good can be expected to be against all the predation, diseases and injustices and to have the power and knowledge to prevent them from arising.

Importantly for my purposes, it is not the creation of a universe like ours that creates the problem. It is creating it and then making innocent sentient life live in it. That's what creates the problem. There's no problem of evil confronting someone who believes that a universe devoid of innocent sentient life is the creation of such a being. It is the thesis that this universe - a universe that contains floods and earthquakes and diseases that kill and maim innocent sentient life - that generates the problem of evil, and it does so precisely because of the introduction of innocent sentient life.

To use a much hackneyed example, swinging your fists around is not a problem until you start doing it in the close vicinity of other people.

What's the moral? The moral is that a morally good being doesn't exercise the power to create innocent sentient life in a world like this one.

Do you agree with that? — Bartricks

:chin:

The problem of evil implies God does not exist. — Bartricks

The 'PoE' implies only that an 'Omnibenevolent Omnipotent & Omniscient God' does not exist, and doesn't touch g/Gs of e.g. the Bible, Qur'an, Vedas or the like which most believers have believed in for millennia as "Almighty" yet not (always) "All Loving" or "All Good" (especially to "believers of foreign g/Gs"). A 'PoE' only addresses Pascal's 'god of the philosophers', which is only an abstract concept and not purported to exist in re.

It also implies, I am arguing, that those humans who procreate are, other things being equal, not good people. — Bartricks

This does not follow, especially for those who believe in a g/G who commands "Be fruitful and multiply". To disobey g/G's "will" or "commandments" is "sin", and to compel - through action or inaction - another to commit "sins" is "evil" vis-à-vis that g/G. No PoE obtains, or makes sense, in this context: thus, in religious terms, having children (in the right ways, of course) obeys g/G's "will" and therefore cannot be "evil".

I think this objection defeats your argument, Bartricks. You may be right, but not for the reasons you've given. Only by showing that 'procreation is immoral' independent of theological & religious considerations can, I think, the antinatal argument be established.

Yours is the 'hotel manager's theodicy'. You expect existence to be like a well-run resort, where all the guests are happy, the service is always perfect, and there's never any illness or death. And because it's not like that, you infer that 'the manager' - which is your depiction of what 'God' is supposed to be like - must be held responsible. But your post shows no insight into the problem of evil as traditionally construed (and whether you believe in it or not.)

Yours is the 'hotel manager's theodicy'. You expect existence to be like a well-run resort, where all the guests are happy, the service is always perfect, and there's never any illness or death. And because it's like that, you infer that 'the manager' - which is your depiction of what 'God' is supposed to be like - must be held responsible. But your post shows no insight into the problem of evil as traditionally construed (and whether you believe in it or not.) — Wayfarer

You are misusing terms. A 'theodicy' is an attempt to explain why God has allowed evil.

Anyway, I do not understand what point you are making. Where is the error in my reasoning?

If you go to a restaurant and you are served a luke-warm pot noodle for a main course, is it reasonable to believe that you are in a restaurant run by the best chef in the world? No, not remotely.

If you go to an art gallery and all the pictures are scribble, is it reasonable to believe you are looking at drawings by Michelangelo? no, not remotely.

If you live in a world full of diseases and earthquakes that kill and maim innocent sentient beings, is it reasonable to believe you are living in a world created by an omnipotent, omniscient, morally good person? No, not remotely.

What's the moral? The moral is that a morally good being doesn't exercise the power to create innocent sentient life in a world like this one. — Bartricks

Okay. So if there is a creator g/G, it's not "morally good" (perfect); and we procreators are certainly not "morally good" (perfect) all or most - barely any - of the time. What's the problem we can solve? ... living in The Most Arbitrary of All Possible Worlds aka "shit happens, Sisyphus-like 'life is just shoveling one pile after another', so get on with and over it" as we do. :death: :flower:

↪Bartricks Yours is the 'hotel manager's theodicy'. You expect existence to be like a well-run resort, where all the guests are happy, the service is always perfect, and there's never any illness or death.  — Wayfarer

:snicker:

Yours is the 'hotel manager's theodicy'. You expect existence to be like a well-run resort, where all the guests are happy, the service is always perfect, and there's never any illness or death. — Wayfarer

And no earthquakes, floods, genocide, brutal dictatorships etc. You seem to have left these out in your hotel description.

What's the moral? The moral is that a morally good being doesn't exercise the power to create innocent sentient life in a world like this one. — Bartricks

This is an interesting take on the anti-natalist position. There is one issue though: an omnipotent God has the option to bring people into the world without suffering. Humans do not. So, for your argument to work, it has to apply to non-omnipotent beings. And then we're back to the old question of whether or not existence is worse than non-existance.

What's the problem? We live in The Most Arbitrary of All Possible Worlds aka "shit happens, sisyphus-like 'life is just shoveling one pile after another', so get on and get over it" — 180 Proof

Well, there's not a problem so much as a normative conclusion that we can draw: namely, that we ought not to exercise our power to create innocent sentient life.

The 'problem' is that while many people recognise that it would be inconsistent with being good for an omnipotent, omniscient being to create a world like this one and make us live in it, they do not recognise that this implies that they, to be good, ought not to exercise their god-like power to create innocent sentient life.

Many recognise only too well the vices that an omnipotent, omniscient god would be instantiating were he to create a world like this and then make innocent sentient life live in it; but they don't recognise that they will be instantiating these same vices if they make innocent sentient life live in it.

The 'problem' is that while many people recognise that it would be inconsistent with being good for an omnipotent, omniscient being to create a world like this one and make us live in it, ... — Bartricks

As pointed out already the PoE points to what's "inconsistent" for only a relatively few philosopher-theists and doesn't trouble or persuade either secular nontheists or confessional/sectarian theists. Repeating your point, B, won't make it so.

You don't make it clear perhaps, but I re-read your OP and now I take it that you are rejecting the problem of evil in order to defend some kind of theism? — jellyfish

No, I am not arguing that the problem of evil refutes the thesis that God exists. Rather, I am arguing that the problem of evil implies it is wrong for us to procreate. I am saying that good humans who have the power to create innocent sentient life but also know that were they do to so they would be making it live in a world of evils, do not exercise that power.

As I have just said to Jellyfish, I am not arguing that the problem of evil refutes the thesis that God exists. All I am arguing is that, other things being equal, it is not reasonable to believe a good, omnipotent, omniscient being would have created a world like this one and then made innocent sentient beings live in it. And then I am arguing that, given we know full well what kind of a world this is, and given we have a god-like power to create innocent sentient life should we desire, then we would not act on that desire if we were morally good.

We're not omnipotent, but we have a god-like power to create innocent sentient life. We are not omniscient, but we know that the world is a dangerous place and that anyone we subject to living in it will suffer many evils and almost certainly create some of their own. So, we are not omnipotent, but we have enough power, and we are not omniscient, but we know enough, and given our power and given our knowledge, we would not be good if we did what we think no good god would do: if we created innocent sentient beings and suffered them to live here.

There is one issue though: an omnipotent God has the option to bring people into the world without suffering. Humans do not. So, for your argument to work, it has to apply to non-omnipotent beings. And then we're back to the old question of whether or not existence is worse than non-existance. — Echarmion

Yeah. As usual with @Bartricks's types of argument, they're based on one massive flaw, and this is it. The Problem of Evil is a question of why God brought Evil into the world - any amount of evil at all. The problem of deciding to procreate is one of whether there is too much evil in the world to outweigh the good.

God is deciding whether to put any evil at all in the world. Humans are deciding whether the evil there is outweighs the good. Two completely different matters.

Once God has made a world with evil in it, to say he is making the same choice (to populate it with people or not) is to miss the point of the problem of Evil, because (being omnipotent) he has an option available to him which we don't - remove the evil and then populate the world. The problem of evil is asking why he didn't do that.

I like Leibniz's solution: there are some number possible worlds. None of them lack some kind of dissatisfaction, imperfection, transgression, pain, etc. This world is the best of them.

A parent has to accept that the human journey involves pain. The capabilities of a human are brought forth by stress, fear, and making mistakes.

you would not, but I'm simply saying it cannot apply to my God because the fact that he is good is part of an axiom.

Yours is the 'hotel manager's theodicy'. You expect existence to be like a well-run resort, where all the guests are happy, the service is always perfect, and there's never any illness or death.
— Wayfarer

And no earthquakes, floods, genocide, brutal dictatorships etc. You seem to have left these out in your hotel description. — Echarmion

Earthquakes, floods and so on are natural calamities. Brutal dictatorships are perpetrated by humans. The former are unfortunate, the latter are intentionally evil.

Earthquakes, floods and so on are natural calamities. Brutal dictatorships are perpetrated by humans. The former are unfortunate, the latter are intentionally evil. — Wayfarer

I'd agree with that from the standpoint of an atheistic cosmology, but in the context of the theodicy argument, I don't think this distinction holds. In a created, "designed" world, everything is intentional, and hence natural disasters are "evil".

I definitely get your point (about more or less dealing with the Existential angst of it all).

Some people choose not to have children for the same reason you posit.

If you think about it as perhaps the good outweighing the bad, that might help. For example, thinking of evil as a lack of perfection in the world might be helpful. Lack of perfection in one's abilities, problem solving, obsolescence, natural disaster so on and so forth. And from a psychological view of Being, many folks would argue that the difficult times were there for a reason -- it promoted wisdom about themselves and the world. It challenged them, and ironically, made knowledge/pride possible... .

Regarding humanistic Being, how would one know which path to take if all the 'good doors' were opened simultaneously?

Idealistically, what are some things that encompass an Utopian society? Freedom for all, comes to mind....

This world is the best of them. — frank

I thought heaven was supposed to be the thing?

Forrest (@Pfhorrest) if you get a second, could say a little about Leibniz's answer to the PoE, and what he had to say about heaven?

In a created, "designed" world, everything is intentional, and hence natural disasters are "evil". — Echarmion

Your assuming the Creators’ intentions are somehow comparable to that of a human executive - which I suppose i understandable, but, I think, mistaken nonetheless.

Let's switch domains of discourse for purposes of comparison, to Buddhism. What is the 'first truth' of Buddhism? Why, that life is dukkha, a word hard to translate but meaning unsatisfactory, suffering, sorrowful. As the remainder of the 'four noble truths' are spelled out, it becomes clear, however, that this suffering has a cause, and that there is an end to suffering, which is realised through the practice of the eightfold path.

I think it throws into relief the sense in which religions frame the 'problem of suffering' - that it is indeed intrinsic to mortal existence, but that there is a way out of it or through it, and finding that way is what constitutes salvation, deliverance, or liberation from suffering.

That said, some Gnostics believed that the Creator of this world (whom they identified with Jehovah, a demiurge or lesser deity) was indeed malicious, and that salvation could only be attained by uncompromising asceticism and rejection of the world.

But even so, the argument that because suffering exists, God must be cruel or unfair, doesn't comprehend how the problem of evil has been understood in various religions and philosophies. It's a distinctly modern and middle-class attitude towards it - as I said, the Hotel Manager theodicy. 'Hey, people are DYING here! There are droughts and pestilence. Whose in charge? I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE MANAGER!!'

What's uncontroversial is that innocent sentient life does not deserve to suffer. — Bartricks

I agree with this statement, and its truth distresses me every day, but when I ask myself if I would give up all of the extraordinary pleasures of being alive to be free from all the agony and pain life brings...

I would have to say, I'm not sorry I was born. Life is frequently a struggle, sometimes quite painful. But the exquisite joys of: a praying mantis on my pitcher plant, love, music, the joys of being in the body, achievement, learning, helping others, and vaping Cannabis--all of it makes the suffering of being human worthwhile. I choose to live.

The best reason I can think of for not having children right now is global warming.

There is one issue though: an omnipotent God has the option to bring people into the world without suffering. Humans do not. So, for your argument to work, it has to apply to non-omnipotent beings. And then we're back to the old question of whether or not existence is worse than non-existance. — Echarmion

Yes, I accept that an omnipotent, omniscient being has more options than we do, for they have the option of either changing the world so as to make it a safe place for innocent sentient creatures to live in, or keep the world as it is and desist from creating innocent sentient creatures. So they have two options where preserving their own goodness is concerned, whereas we have only one. But still, we do still have that option. That is, if we lack the power to make the world a place free from evil, then we should exercise our power not to introduce innocent sentient life into it. After all, that is a way of preventing many evils from occurring.

Forrest (@Pfhorrest) if you get a second, could say a little about Leibniz's answer to the PoE, and what he had to say about heaven? — frank

I actually don't remember anything in Leibniz specifically about heaven, and some quick Googling to try to jog my memory mostly finds people asking similar questions (how does heaven fit into his solution to the PoE because it seems like it shouldn't) and commenting on how Leibniz' metaphysics isn't really trying to mesh perfectly with Christian doctrine, plus one paywalled article I can't read on Leibniz' view of purgatory, so it's possible that Leibniz never really said much about heaven per se and that's why I don't remember anything about it. Given his identification of souls with monads and the location of monads in the actual world, it seems like any kind of afterlife besides a rather naturalistic sense of reincarnation wouldn't be very compatible with his metaphysics.

As for his solution to the Problem of Evil, it seems to me like you mostly covered it. Leibniz thought that God could only create a universe that was logically possible (rather, that only certain combinations of things are "compossible" in the same universe, and all God can do is pick which such combination of things to make actual), and that God being all good would necessarily have created only the best of all of those possible worlds, so the actual universe that exists must necessarily be the best of all possible worlds, and whatever evils may still exist in it could only be done away with by instead actualizing a different possible world with different and still greater evils. Personally I don't find it very convincing, just kind of an abstraction of the usual free will type of theodicy ("God did the best he could, any better is logically impossible").

Plus, yeah, it seems to suggest that there can't be any kind of heaven that's better than this world.

As to the actual topic of this thread, I more or less agree with the thesis of the OP, and that's basically the reason why I don't have kids. I can't conscience bringing new life into the world when I can't be reasonably sure it would be a good life. I advise most other people to make the same choice, and I would have advised my parents to do the same. Basically only rich people should be having kids, and not even all of them. Which is not to say that everyone else should be prohibited from it, because while creating new life is risky (for that life) it's not guaranteed harm; nor is that at all to disparage the poor at all (of which I'm a part myself, hence my decision). Rather, it's an abject tragedy that this has to be advisable for so many people. Following that advice en masse would do something to ameliorate that tragedy for future generations though, much like the Black Death in Europe, as tragic as it was, did much to elevate the socioeconomic status of the survivors. To wit: if we poor don't make more poor people (by breeding), the rich who depend on us will eventually have nobody to depend on and will have to fend for themselves, and those future generations will be forced to be more egalitarian.

I do think that humans in general should continue to procreate though, even if we were all on hard times; it's just because of the fact that there's really no danger of us not having enough kids at this point in history that I can advocate for most people to not have kids. The reason I would advocate for humans in general to keep procreating even if life sucked for everyone right now is the same reason I advocate that individuals having hard times don't just kill themselves and end the suffering now: because it can get better. I have hopes that humanity can create a future world that is not so full of suffering as this one always has been, and in order for that to be worth doing, someone needs to be alive in the future in order to enjoy it.

None of this contradicts the Problem of Evil at all because God is supposedly omnipotent and so, if (he existed and) he wanted to create some beings to enjoy life, he could just create a world that was entirely enjoyable and had no suffering in it, and wouldn't have to just create life amidst suffering and hope that things got better eventually, like we do.