Hallquist's open letter on Evil

by bohm 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • bohm
    bohm

    Just wanted to plug Hallquists open letter on evil:

    https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-V14a2GFExHZjA4ZDQ3NDUtNGE0My00ZjEzLWI0MjYtMGI0ZDg4NDQ5NDcz&hl=en

    excerpt:

    And most people are comfortable making statements about what a loving person would do,

    what a moral person would do, what a person who genuinely cared about others would do. Consider

    an example—this time, rather than quoting an philosophy journal article, I'll just quote Wikipedia:

    [Kitty] Genovese had driven home from her job working as a bar manager late on the night of March 13, 1964.

    Arriving home at about 3:15 a.m. and parking about 100 feet (30 m) from her apartment's door, which was around the

    rear of the building, she was approached by Winston Moseley, a black business machine operator. Moseley ran after her

    and quickly overtook her, stabbing her twice in the back. Genovese screamed, "Oh my God, he stabbed me! Help me!"

    Her cry was heard by several neighbors but, on a cold night with the windows closed, only a few of them recognized the

    sound as a cry for help. When Robert Mozer, one of the neighbors, shouted at the attacker, "Let that girl alone!",

    Moseley ran away and Genovese slowly made her way toward the rear entrance of her apartment building...

    Other witnesses observed Moseley enter his car and drive away only to return ten minutes later. In his car he

    changed his hat to a wide-rimmed one to shadow his face. He systematically searched the parking lot, train station, and

    small apartment complex. Eventually he found Genovese who was lying, barely conscious, in a hallway at the back of

    the building where a locked doorway had prevented her from entering the building... he proceeded to further attack her,

    stabbing her several more times. Knife wounds in her hands suggested that she attempted to defend herself from him.

    While she lay dying, he raped her. He stole about $49 from her and left her in the hallway. The attacks spanned

    approximately half an hour.

    This case is famous because, in the aftermath of her murder, it was widely reported that

    many of Genovese's neighbors heard her cries for help but did nothing. Most people who heard this

    had the reaction that something must have been wrong with her neighbors, that city life was eroding

    people's concern for their fellows, and perhaps even that their failure to act was morally wrong.

    I’ve never heard of this reaction being treated as anything but perfectly natural. It’s the least

    remarkable thing about the case. We many worry that the case casts doubt on our assumptions about

    what people we think of as “good” would have done, but I’ve never heard anyone question our

    judgments here about what a truly good person would have done. So, if you’re confident in your

    judgments about what a good person would do in certain situations, but not confident in your

    judgments about what a loving God would do in similar situations, I must ask: why?

    Maybe you’re inclined to tell yourself (it isn’t really a question) “who am I to pass judgment

    on God?” To my ear, that sounds a little too much like saying, “Who am I to pass judgment on the

    president?” but let me suggest what I hope is a charitable interpretation: that what you mean to say

    is that you’re confident that there’s an all-powerful, morally perfect God, and therefore if something

    happens he was at the very least right to allow it to happen, so if you’re ever inclined to think

    otherwise you must be mistaken.

    If that interpretation is right, we’re just talking about another way of saying you’re ready to

    reject thoughts that initially seem right to you, if they conflict with your belief in God. It’s a

    possibility I’ve already mentioned. If that’s what you’re doing when you decide not to “pass

    judgment on God,” I’d like hear from you, because in my experience no one is ever so clear about

    the matter. On the other hand, if you think there’s more to it than that, and if so, I’d be curious to

    hear about that.

    Though I just now introduced the example of Kitty Genovese to probe at the general lack of

    confidence some people seem to have about (some of) their moral judgments, it’s also useful for

    poking at the sort of response to the problem of evil I mentioned early on in this letter: that God

    allows evil for the sake of some greater good. If you’re attracted to that sort of response, perhaps

    this is what you will want to say in response to my questions: “At first it does seem to me that an

    all-powerful, loving God wouldn’t allow some of the things I hear about on the news to happen, but

    after thinking about it very carefully I’ve come to the conclusion that He might perfectly well allow

    such things for the sake of some greater good, such as free will, or improving our souls, or perhaps

    some cause that I’m unaware of.”

    I almost understand what it’s like to think that, but when I wrote what I just wrote, I was

    putting the issue gently. I can imagine a religious believer saying the words in quotation marks

    above, but I can’t imagine someone saying very similar words only with “some of the things I hear

    about on the news” replaced by “a five-year-old girl being raped, beaten, and strangled to death.” I

    know someone is going to interject “that’s just because one is harder emotionally!” By now, though,

    I hope no one would be surprised if I asked the person saying that whether they really believe it’s

    just an emotional issue.

    Kitty Genovese case raises another important question here. Suppose you’re bold enough to

    say outright that thinking about greater goods dispel your worries about whether a loving God

    would have allowed what happened to the five-year-old girl. I suspect there are still other things

    you wouldn’t say. I suspect you wouldn’t say “It may seem like Kitty Genovese’ neighbors should

    have called for help, but it would have been OK not to out of respect for the murderer’s free will.” I

    suspect you wouldn’t say “It may seem like Kitty Genovese’ neighbors should have called for help,

    but it would have been OK not to because the murder would likely have helped improve some other

    people’s souls.” And for anyone attracted to the idea that God allows evil for reasons unknown to

    us, I suspect you don’t think our knowledge of the consequences of our actions is so weak that

    inaction is always justified. So, if I’ve just now been describing you, why do these things affect

    your judgments about God, when you give them so little weight in your judgments about humans?

  • bohm
    bohm

    bttt

  • bohm
    bohm

    well, if rising from the grave was good enough for jesus...

    bttt.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    This is a very interesting and rather intense article.

    Indeed, we as believers, are quick to pass judgment on other humans but seem to be slow to do so on God, or we try to justify God lack of activity on some basis of "greater good" or things of that matter.

    I think that for many believers, if they admit that God allows for evil to happen, without reason, then God is a horrific God, fare worse than there being NO God at all.

    Of course if there is no God then what happened to Kitty was just an everyday event in the circle of life - The stronger took what he wanted from the weaker, ie: Nature's Law in full vigor.

    Yet, as humans we KNOW this is not the way it OUGHT to be, but why? why should it not be that way?

    The stronger takes what they want, the superiour gene gets propegated, the better the chance for surivial of the human species.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Yet, as humans we KNOW this is not the way it OUGHT to be, but why? why should it not be that way?

    I think the reasons are many, diverse and obvious. First and foremost it grossly violate her autonomy, secondly rape is not something we would like others to do unto us. I think asking why "rape is bad" is missing the point; rape is so obviously bad, and the general badness of rape is something one is bound to end up with if one tries to build a moral system which is not focused on ones own interests (and even in that case, i dont think a normal person would allow rape). We can also ask "Why do we KNOW 1+1 = 3 is not the way it OUGHT to be, why should it not be that way?". I think for some questions, the answer is simply: "Because its the only way which make sence if we want to have mathematics/build a moral code".

    I will even contest that rape is something which goes against our biology; ie. I believe very few people actually could make themself rape someone.

    The stronger takes what they want, the superiour gene gets propegated, the better the chance for surivial of the human species.

    I believe the person ended up in jail (or worse), which usually happends to rapists sooner or later. I think a person with "rapist-genes" is very likely to find himself removed from the gene pool, especially if he begins to go around raping women in a very small tribe. In other words, rape is something evolution tend to select against.

    Back to the article -- i think a very relevant question the author ask is that it may very well by that God has reasons for his actions; but if we for instance assume a person who loved Kitty stood in the window and witnesses her rape without acting, it would (and should!) be our default action to require such reasons be given least we think he was a total psychopat or insane. We would not simply be happy in thinking that reasons may exist, or accept abstract unspecified reasoning along the lines of "he did not want to infring on the rapists free will" or "he wanted to show Kitty the consequences of walking home alone".

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    I think a person with "rapist-genes" is very likely to find himself removed from the gene pool, especially if he begins to go around raping women in a very small tribe. In other words, rape is something evolution tend to select against.

    I'm not sure about that. There are some arguments for "rape genes" (so called) as an evolutionary reproductive strategy in humans. We see this sort of behavior in some species of animals.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Rape was something of the "spoils of war" for as long as humans viewed "taking what we can" as a way of life, in short, for a very, very long time.

    It may be something "left over" from those far less enlightened times.

    I don't think that whole " It's bad because I wouldn't want it to happen to me" is a valid reason for seeing rape, or any other horrific act, as bad, since we know that this whole notion of "not fair" is subjective through out history.

    People that wouldn't want to be conquered and raped themselves, certianly did it with great frequency through out history.

    But, back to this part:

    i think a very relevant question the author ask is that it may very well by that God has reasons for his actions; but if we for instance assume a person who loved Kitty stood in the window and witnesses her rape without acting, it would (and should!) be our default action to require such reasons be given least we think he was a total psychopat or insane. We would not simply be happy in thinking that reasons may exist, or accept abstract unspecified reasoning along the lines of "he did not want to infring on the rapists free will" or
    "he wanted to show Kitty the consequences of walking home alone".

    I am not sure how we can truly judge God, IF such a being truly exists.

    But, going back to my point of using OURSELVES as some sort of barometer, then yes, we try to find a reason behind God's "inactivity" when something bad happens, even more so when we believe that God COULD have done something, of course that something is obviously doing what we think is right ( which in the case of rape can range from getting caught to have his penis explode in his pants, to be struck dead at the mere thought of raping someone).

  • tec
    tec

    One sin is not better or worse than another sin. In our opinion, yes... rape is much worse than lying... or even lying about rape. I agree. But both come from the same place inside of us that is absent of light... love... life. We have all sinned. For those of you who don't like it when I say this, then ask yourself if you have never done wrong to another person, because that is what I mean. Lied? Taught a lie? Ignored someone in need - homeless or hungry or abused or sad? Hurt someone - physically or emotionally?

    If you have never done wrong to any other human on this planet - through action or apathy, then none of this or the following applies to you. I have done many of these things, however. I AM a sinner. I know it.

    God could just get rid of all those who sin (though to what degree of sin do you think would be fair?). But unless we change, then the same things will continue to happen. Our sins would lead to worse sins, and consequences of those sins would lead to worse consequences, etc, etc. Lets take the ark for example, and perhaps there is a moral that we overlook in that story. God got rid of all the wicked people... the whole world except for a handful. But wickedness came back, because sin was still in us... at the very least, things that cause people to sin were still in the world.

    So for the world to change, WE have to change. We have to at least be willing to change to start... and willing to admit that this world is as screwed up as it is, because of things WE have done, or allowed to be done.

    Perhaps to God that rapist is no worse than the people who did nothing to stop him or help the girl. Even in our eyes, that seems so. And perhaps those people are no worse than the people who walk by the homeless beggar and do nothing to help him? Or someone else in need. And perhaps those people are no worse than the hard working people who know that people are starving in other parts of the world, and yet they feel justified in spending 40 000 on a second new vehicle - because they work hard and deserve it?

    Perhaps to God, we are just all sinners?

    Yet He gave us One to look upon and put our faith in, to redeem us from our sins.

    So per the article: God could have stopped that guy from raping the girl. Getting rid of him (or perhaps he would do it again). But then also all the other rapists. Murderers. Thieves (this often leads to someone getting hurt, other than just monetarily). Killers. Abusers of all sorts. Liars. Those who turn away from those in need. Etc, etc, etc...

    He will one day... at least He will weed these things out of His kingdom so that they no longer hurt those who belong to Him (think the rapist being kept away from the rape victim here). But not at the expense of even one who would come to Him. He won't lose an innocent, so to speak... and truly, I can't imagine that those who belong to Him would want even one innocent to be lost, just to shorten the time. They trust Him. So for the world to still exist as it does, and for all of us to still be here, then there must still be those who would still come to Him, but haven't yet done so.

    Perhaps because I see God through Christ alone, I know that His time will be based on love, on mercy, and on justice. It will be right. We only see just a glimpse of the picture if we're lucky... (most of the time we forget what our own history has taught us about ourselves)... but God has seen humanity through the ages and from one end of the planet to the other. He alone knows what is right. We just think we know.

    Peace,

    Tammy

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    I am not sure how we can truly judge God, IF such a being truly exists.

    Indeed, we only know how we would act in a given situation based on what we ourselves know (and that is a limited knowledge).

    We judge the actions of others that are like ourselves (competent human beings) based on what we know they know or think they know (and even in this case, that knowledge can be flawed.)

    But a God that is supposed to be omniscient?

    Even among humans, a difference in knowledge will lead to a different set of actions.

    If two men see a robbery in progress, and they vary from each other in knowledge, it is reasonable to surmise that they will act differently.

    The first man might know that he can easily wrestle the armed robber to the ground and defuse the robber's threat.

    The second might know the same, but he also knows that the robber has a bomb belt and would choose to self detonate if he is physically restrained.

    If we asked the two men what they would do ahead of the action, they would likely give us different answers.

    The first man would choose to take action, and the second would not.

    If we lacked knowledge about the bomb belt ourselves, we might judge the first man as good, but the second one as evil (or at least indifferent to injustice).

    My point is that we cannot know how an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being should act without being all these things ourselves.

    In my country, the justice system demands that we be judged by a jury of our peers.

    But how could we pretend to judge the actions of a being that is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? We are not a "peer" to anything like that. We are at a different level.

    My 4 year old son is not my peer. He lacks my knowledge. His judgement of my actions is not going to be based on a level of knowledge that I have. Therefore, he might judge my not letting him do something that gives him pleasure as being "bad." He doesn't know what I know.

  • bohm
    bohm

    BTS: Rape is a viable strategy in some circumstances [as a mean to propagate ones genes], yes. So is cannibalism. But both (i would argue) are very inefficient strategies under normal circumstances. This has nothing to do with how moral the actions are ofcourse. A very (immoral!) evolutionary consideration could be this:

    • It is generally beneficial (for me) to try to prevent rape because
      • it make more suitable mates avaliable to me,
      • and in the case of women closely related to me, it is beneficial to prevent their rape because i would expect a random rapist to be a bad father, increasing the chances my genes are lost
      • tit-for-tat: rape hurt, you earn favors when you prevent rape.
    • Because of the above, it is generally harmfull (for me) to rape other people because I am properly going to dine outside the cave if i go around raping women. With the lions. Who will properly dine on me.
    • It is generally not very advantageous to me to successfully rape women because the children are generally not very likely to survive without a father to care for them.

    Psac, we can agree that with or without God, rape is bad, period? And in the case of Kitty, the minimally acceptable thing to do for an onlooker would be to somehow try to prevent the rape by eg. calling the police? In other words, it would be entirely unexcuseable for any onlooker not to try to prevent the rape when the person can do so without being put in harms way?

    tec:

    One sin is not better or worse than another sin. In our opinion, yes... rape is much worse than lying...

    but it is! i mean certainly if god do not understand the two are very different in badness, he must certainly have a very poor sence of moral! The only people who have a hard time making such judgements are psychopats or people who do not understand the actions.

    God could just get rid of all those who sin (though to what degree of sin do you think would be fair?)

    but its not an either/or situation. Could could simply have prevented the rape, as would we do. Furthermore, none of your reasons would remotely apply to a human -- for instance if I witnessed the rape, and later said i did not do anything because of a reason along the line of "what other sins should i then prevent?", i would have missed the point of morals and right and wrong entirely!

    Perhaps to God that rapist is no worse than the people who did nothing to stop him or help the girl.

    In my oppinion, the obvious conclusion is that God is no better than the people who did nothing to stop him or help the girl. Everything else require special pleading. What if i said: "I do not think the rapist is any worse than the girl, because she is a sinner to because she lie". There is an endless amount of problems to such reasoning.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit