Thursday, June 25, 2020

Modern Business: Monarchic Management, Communist Pay

Nongovernmental organizations in practice often combine sovereign authority with private immunity: the best of both worlds. Worse yet, unorganized forces, or those whose organization is not visible to the state, can practice direct state-like action.

--Mencius Moldbug

Democracy for the Brain-Dead

Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them.

--Michael Malice

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

George Smith: The Knowable Characteristics Argument Against the Concept of God

If a supernatural being is to be exempt from natural law, then it cannot have specific characteristics. Those characteristics would impose limits and those limits would restrict the capacities of that supernatural being. A supernatural being would be subject to the causal relationships that mark natural existence, which would disqualify it as God.

So we must somehow conceive of a nonspecific being without a specific nature, a being that is nothing individual, specifiable, particular, or definite. But that lack of characteristics is incompatible with the notion of existence itself. To be, is to be something as opposed to nothing. And to be something is to be something specific.

If God is to have any characteristics, which God must have to exist, those characteristics must be specific. But to assign definite characteristics, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

If a supernatural being is to differ in kind from natural existence, it must exist without a limited nature, which amounts to existing without any nature.

To talk intelligibly about God, we must assume that God has characteristics by which that being can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence apart from the limitations of natural law is introduced, we thereby exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to that being, because by doing that we bring our God within the realm of limitations and so within the realm of natural law.

The believer says that God transcends human understanding and is unknowable. But if one believes in God, but does not know what God is or what it is that one believes in, then that belief that God exists is a completely worthless claim and does not differ from no belief at all.

One cannot know that something exists without some knowledge of what it is that exists. To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying that being itself. A being without any qualities is one which cannot become an object to the mind, and that kind of being is virtually a non-existing thing.

If God is completely unknowable, then the concept of God is completely without content and the word God is a meaningless sound. To say that God exists, where the word God represents an unknown, a blank, is to say nothing. It's on a par with the statement that unies exist or a blark exists.

By refusing to state the content of one's belief, one exempts oneself from reason and so from serious consideration. To claim the existence of something which by nature cannot be known is to submerge oneself in hopeless contradiction.

If God cannot be known, then God cannot be known to exist. To claim that a thing is unknowable, one must first know that it exists. But in that case, one already has knowledge of it to that extent. To assert the existence of the unknowable is to claim knowledge of the unknowable, in which case it's not really unknowable after all.

When one claims that something is unknowable, if one cannot produce knowledge in support of that claim, then one's assertion is arbitrary and without merit. If one can support that claim, then one has accomplished the impossible, by having knowledge of the unknowable.

--Redacted from Atheism: The Case Against God, by George Hamilton Smith, pages 43-44.

Illusionism: Intellectual Protection Racket #37

Welcome to yet another way to tell people to just shut up about philosophical issues beyond the predictable formulaic Loser Dude remarks in social situations.

If what is real or true is merely an illusion, is the illusion itself real and true? How could that ever be detected?

What is a person doing when they assert the truth or reality of illusion?

This is similar to the idiotic rhetoric thrown around about everything being a simulation, and is equally bogus for the exact same reason: fatal self-reference error.

Again, the Magic Question is:

How does that universal claim impact its own truth?

Building My Own Ideal Worst Enemy

To get every answer right, you may have to be both a dissident and a collaborator with power.

--Gray Mirror

Sunday, June 21, 2020

Deborah Lipstadt, 1993

The press may not determine what the public thinks, but it does influence what it thinks about.

If the media pay particular attention to an issue, its importance is enhanced in the public’s eyes, and if the media ignore something, public reaction will be nil, for as Gay Talese has observed, news unreported has no impact.

The way the press told the story of Nazi antisemitism—the space allocated, the location of the news in the paper, and the editorial opinions—shaped the American reaction.

My analysis of the press is an attempt to shed light on that reaction. The press was not a neutral or passive observer—it almost never is. When we study the press, it may appear that we are studying the narrator, but we are really studying an actor. The press became part of the historical process by virtue of the role it played as conduit of information. Just by fulfilling its task, it became a catalyst.

--Deborah Lipstadt, Beyond Belief, 1993

Ivan Throne Redacted

Clown world is festered with weak and complacent churl dirt. Cattle ready for slaughter.

See the valleys of grave incompetence all around you. People, organizations, politics. They're all decaying. Lunacy has taken over. A high enough number of the incompetent in your area and the odds are quickly stacked against you.


You might not be interested in the incompetent.

But they're interested in you. They want to keep you weak and complacent and bring you down to their pit of utter decay.

The errors of the incompetent lead to fatal consequences. Staying in the ordinary world will lead to delusion, decay, and the death of your heart, mind, and body.

Live among weakness and stay weak. Nature doesn’t do pity. It calls for competence: the Engine of Survival.

Step Out of Clown World immediately, and go through the door into the dark world.

Equip yourself with the most dangerous tools of truth an individual can operate with.

Life is binary. Death is always one error away.

Stop sinking in the quicksand of weakness. To ensure survival, even in the darkest of times, you must drive crushing reality into the delusion bubbles that clown world has created. 

Unlock previously undiscovered and unused power within you. Unleash that power to advance your existence and climb the mountains of infinite possibility.  


Through an intense study curriculum, unlock the doors of truth in the dark world and the odds of your survival will be in your favor.

--Ivan Throne, author of The Nine Laws

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Postmodern Snapshot

Postmodernists appear to claim that their own assertions about the modern era, about how language and consciousness work and so on are true and rational. They write literary texts and protest when people misinterpret the author’s intent in their own writings, they purport to give us the real essence of what language is and how language works, and claim superiority for postmodernism compared to other views.

Everything is relative to ways of talking about things, except what the postmodernist has to say about ways of talking about things.

Postmodern analysis of knowledge is as much a single grand universal metanarrative account as any that it criticizes.

Is the truth of postmodernism objectively out there?

Postmodernists at least mimic assuming that their own assertions are true and rational.

And postmodernists have no alternatives to truth, rationality and so on that could possibly make sense of or clarify their own claims or attempted refutations of modernism and other perspectives.

And if postmodernism is not offering itself as true, rational and capable of being understood by careful interpretation of postmodernist writings, it’s not self-refuting. But there’s still no reason to accept it, since it would not be claiming to be true, rational or understandable, something that anyone ought to believe. A postmodernist could not recommend their views to others and there would be no point in communicating those views, like they constantly do.

So is postmodernism itself merely rhetoric motivated by power or merely, as Nietzsche termed it, the lust to scold other people in some moral-like way?

While passion or commitment to a specific view may induce some people to exaggerate, is that any more likely than the same things motivating people to be all the more meticulous and accurate so as not to compromise the credibility of the message they’re trying to communicate? And what about those accusations of bias themselves?

And if postmodern notions of practical rationality are radically relative to the community, if there's no basis for criticising history, then there's no basis on which you can advocate any specific purpose for dialogue or practical rationality itself, including the believing, advocating or even communicating the theories of subjectivism or relativism or reductionism or anti-realism.

Travel Precautions of the Corporate Golf Drunks

"It’s a modern dilemma for the ultra-wealthy: a yacht awaits, but how to safely reach it without exposure to the germ-ridden masses?"

Routledge's Curse of the Trendy Staffers

At least a dozen errors (of 1000+ total(!)) in the Routledge History of Philosophy are substantial & prevent me from understanding the text.

That level of mediocrity makes me wonder about corruption, not just collectivism's predictable hate-generation and incompetence over time.

WWE Will Save the World

Nothing's changed. People engage like professional wrestling fans in this struggle over Trump, as though it's actually real. They almost literally think that they're electing Trump to be dictator.

--Curtis Yarvin

Monday, June 15, 2020

Postmodernists Turn Randian

If you want to see postmodernists ape Ayn Rand, just attack one of their crony-privileged postmodernist writers.

And if you're planning a terrible crime, you and your defense attorney should start reading postmodern writers asap.

Juries will swear you're just a saintly victim of modernism.


Collectivism's Self-Exempting Barbarism

There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism.

[Editor's note: except the documents he wrote.]

--Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, 1973

Everything Changes and Remains the Same

Much of the popular cultural product which goes under the name of the postmodern in our time is actually simply a continuation of the modern. --Thomas Docherty "Postmodernist theory: Lyotard, Baudrillard and others" --Routledge History of Philosophy, Volume 8, p412

Sunday, June 14, 2020

Lush As Logician

It's funny how someone can read something on my blog, and assume I believe it. I believe a lot of it, some I don't. If you don't want to read it, don't read it.

If you want to assume I believe X because X was on my blog, that's your business. What can we infer about you from the same kind of fallacious reasoning? Take that and run with it.

Microsoft collectivism would say:

What conclusions would you like to jump to today?

There Is No Zeno Traversal Paradox

Zeno's Paradox already assumes it's own falsification in its antecendent, whereby the paradox is asserted, because some fraction of the A-to-B distance must already be traversed, a prior non-paradoxical necessity which begs the question of the whole paradox's viability in the first place, all in the attempt to help the conditional successfully infer a self-eliminated consequent. "must" makes it a strict implication of necessity, "If and only if..."

In other words, Zeno's Paradox assumes there is a contradiction to the "no traversals of x to y" consequent in order for it to be possible for the paradox to be stated at all.

That prior necessity to go through partial segments is impossible because it depends on the already-known success of partial segment traversing, each of which is open to the same impossibility because of further sub-segment necessities, and so on without end.

The prior smaller-segment-traversal requirement gets a free ride of non-paradoxicality in order to complete the conditional statement that expresses the paradox.

Theoretic Bigotry on Parade

"Response to Frege's work was met by indifference or hostility . . . Response to his Concept Writing book was typified by a rather caustic review by Cantor, who had not even bothered to read the book."

--Routledge History of Philosophy, Vol 9, p14.

Saturday, June 13, 2020

Foucault's Power Play

All discourse gains acceptance by expressing, fortifying and concealing the power of those who maintain it.

Except for my own discourse, which you lazy stupidass American students will accept if you don't want problems in your sociology courses.

--Michel Foucault

Multiple-relation Theory of Judgment

It's astonishing to find the multiple-relation theory of judgment in Principia Mathematica whose own program assumes that logical relations are not psychological and that their explanation requires no reference to the judging mind. --James Bogen, Routledge Hist/Phil, v9p171.

Another Philosophy Department Bites the Karmic Dust

Yarvin & Russell Recommendation: Human Smoke

Mind-Like Inference Engine Discovered Running In All Minds

It can't be called a mere system of control statements forever.

Analysis of the issue of whether there is some kind of infinite, ultimate being that is a person or sentient object has not really progressed in its radically basic core issues concerning the nature, status, authority, and justification of the system of standards for that analysis itself, as well as all other self-referring universal statements, except among a few thomistic scholars.

Any being, entity, or object using these control statements as a single, universal, unquestionable integrated cognitive system, is necessarily an ultimate mind or person.

No being can be recognized as a person in the first place, without using that system of statements to dictate the mind's behavior in that process of analysis itself. Recognition means to re-cognize.

Even quantum theorizing already assumes logical authority over the quantum domain.

Once again, as always, self-reference and criteria win the day.

Ah, the pleasures of logically God-level standards of analysis.

Weaponized Entertainment Puzzle in Reverse

The entertainment world is as much under the influence of science as anything else, in its shaping of our tastes and opinions and values and in its stupendous media technology. But even as sedate entertainment it's almost entirely confined to the juvenile. --Joseph Agassi

Science as Cover Girl

The official philosophy of science boosted by the scientific establishment, is more intolerable than commercials selling soap and cosmetics. They're as remote from the search for the secret of the universe as eroticism is from the intellectual love of God. --Joseph Agassi

The Criteria of Starting Points

Reasons are provided by the information we begin with, along with the rules that establish the connection between that information and the statement that is believed.

But on what basis do we select the information we begin with?

And how do we decide on the rules?

There wouldn't be any point in claiming some conclusion was rationally inferred if we got there on the basis of a perfect algorithm using randomly-chosen premises, or on the basis of appropriate premises in strict accordance with a ridiculous algorithm or set of rules.

As Kuhn said, The practicing scientist within normal science is someone who mindlessly, endlessly, and almost feverishly twists a Rubik's Cube to try and solve the puzzle without ever asking why one is trying to solve that puzzle instead of some other puzzle.

--Redacted from James F. Harris, Against Relativism, pages 81-82.

Friday, June 12, 2020

Quine's 37th Unrevisable Revisability Relation

Quine: The logical laws or rules, according to which the re-evaluation of statements takes place, have the same value as all the other statements in one's network of beliefs.

Revisability Principle (Q): If some recalcitrant experience occurs which causes one to regard as true, or hold on to, some statement, and if that statement and some second statement are incompatible, then that second statement must be given up, revised, or considered false.

Me: But that exempts incompatibility itself from revision as an ongoing network rule along with that revisability principle itself, both of which contradict the claim that the belief network is universally revisable.

And revisability itself requires non-revisable relations and objects of the analysis itself.

So Quine can't even call it a network---as well as a theory.

Collectivism's Heartbreak Hotel

Live in a commune for a month, then tell me how much you love Communism.

Harpie's Heartbreak Hotel & Seething Resentment Center

I'm So Objective About How You're So Subjective

Everything's subjective except my claim that everything's subjective.

If you deny that, then you're a bigot.

--Derrida, Wikipedia editors, Charles Manson, et. al.

Logical Relations in Principia Mathematica

It's astonishing to find the multiple-relation theory of judgement in Principia Mathematica whose very programme assumes that logical relations are not psychological and that their explanation requires no reference to the judging mind.

--James Bogen
Routledge History of Philosophy, Volume 9, page 171.

Hanfling on Philosophy

"Probably most of the philosophy studied in our universities is dead, for most of it is open to more-or-less fatal criticisms."

--Oswald Hanfling, "Logical Positivism"
Routledge History of Philosophy, Volume 9, page 193

Up In Smoke

Drop That Shallow Boozer

The entertainment world is as much under the influence of science as anything else, in its shaping of our tastes and opinions and values and in its stupendous media technology.

But even as sedate entertainment it's almost entirely confined to the juvenile. 

--Joseph Agassi

Agassi on Philosophy of Science

The official philosophy of science boosted by the scientific establishment, is more intolerable than commercials selling soap and cosmetics.

They're as remote from the search for the secret of the universe as eroticism is from the intellectual love of God.

--Joseph Agassi

Drone Zone

Listening to and monitoring good old-fashioned drone zone for transcendent mind optics and focus. Music for navigating the dark world.

Curtis Yarvin: Nothing's Changed

Nothing's changed. People engage like professional wrestling fans in this struggle over Trump, as though it's actually real. They almost literally think that they're electing Trump to be dictator.

--Curtis Yarvin

International Atheists Of Earth Admit Reason is Logos of Gospel of John

Detractors themselves admitted they would have to consult with Reason to tell them whether or not this is true.

Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Stove On Inclusive Fitness

People easily think that claiming a cause explains something is denying it exists. Talk to someone in the street, or an average physicist for that matter, about some secondary quality such as color. Are they saying that some cause explains why things have the colors they have, or denying that things have any color?

Perhaps the inclusive fitness theory is not about what causes kin altruism, and maybe it's not a denial of kin altruism. Perhaps sometimes it's claiming a cause of kin altruism and sometimes it's a denial that kin altruism exists. Shared genes cause kin altruism and are the reality underlying the illusory appearance that there is such a thing as kin altruism. Some scientists believe this about color.

But the inclusive fitness theory explains why the literature of inclusive fitness contains contradictory estimates of how much altruism there is in the world.

It might be claimed that this is a misunderstanding of the inclusive fitness theory, and that kin altruism is real at the level of individual organisms. Think of parental altruism in humans, of sibling altruism in hymenopteran workers, and so on. Hamilton said the selfishness of genes causes kin altruism.

No suggestion of universal selfishness here. And, taking the inclusive fitness theorist at their word, we adopted his causal explanation of kin altruism in section iii above. It led us to a number of surprising results. For example, that there is twice as much sibling altruism between bacterial as between human sisters; that sibling altruism in our species is as common and strong as parental altruism; that every parent bird will sacrifice its own life in order to save three of its nestlings; and so on. And the combined result of all these discoveries was, that there is in fact far more kin altruism in the world than anyone had ever supposed before the inclusive fitness theory came along. In fact it turned out that animal life is saturated with kin altruism: drips the stuff at every pore.

And yet, in the literature of the inclusive fitness theory, what do we actually find? 166 Why, more often than not, the universality of 'dog eat dog', of 'dirty tricks', of the self-interested manipulation of offspring by their parents, of parents by their offspring, of siblings by each other, of strangers by everyone; of apparent altruism revealed as hypocrisy, (even, no doubt, in those luckless hymenopteran workers who had previously been portrayed as paragons of kin altruism). There is no pretence, in this part of the literature, of admitting the reality of kin altruism and confining selfishness to the gene level. On the contrary, it is the Hobbesian war of all against all, openly installed (not for the first time) as the last word in Darwinian biology. There is not, it turns out, one atom of kin altruism in the world: it is an illusion.

In any discussion of the inclusive fitness theory with an adherent of it, the same extraordinary phenomenon of 'Janus faces' will be met with. On one face of thc theory, arising out of the idea that kin altruism is caused by shared genes, there is an extravagant exaggeration of the amount of kin altruism that exists; on the other, there is the idea that kin altruism is an illusion, the underlying reality of which is shared selfish genes. Any discussion of altruism with an inclusive fitness theorist is, in fact, exactly like dealing with a pair of air balloons connected by a tube, one balloon being the belief that kin altruism is an illusion, the other being the belief that kin altruism is cansed by shared genes. If a critic puts pressure on the illusion balloon - perhaps by ridiculing the selfish theory of human nature - air is forced into the causal balloon. There is then an increased production of earnest causal explanations, of why we love our children, wfty hymenopteran workers look after their sisters, etc., etc. Then, if the critic puts pressure on the causal balloon - perhaps about the weakness of sibling altruism compared with parental, or the absence of sibling altruism in bacteria - then the illusion balloon is forced to expand. There will now be an increased production of cynical scurrilities about parents manipulating their babies for their own advantage, and vice versa, and in general, about the Hobbesian bad times that are had by all.

In this way critical pressure, applied to the theory of inclusive fitness at one point, can always be easily absorbed at another point, and the theory as a whole is never endangered. A defender of the theory does need, it is true, a certain mental agility: an ability to make sudden and extreme'gestalt switches', (as the best authors in the philosophy of science now say), from a pichre in which animal life is swimming in kin altruism, to one in which there is no kin altruism at all. But this ability, it has turned out, is by no means uncommon; and it is the only one which a defender of the inclusive fitness theory needs. Given that, his theory is stable rmder any criticism whatever.

My hypothesis - that inclusive fitness theorists are just confused about kin altruism, and oscillate between denying it and trying to explain it - has at least the merit, therefore, of explaining something otherwise improbable: the Janus faced character of their theory. But it also has in its favour a historical fact which I point out in Essay VI: rhat selfish theorists have always oscillated between a version of their theory which is shocking but not true, and a version which is perhaps true, but certainly not shocking, or even interesting.

[page 168] When an inclusive fitness theorist tells us that kin altruism does not exist, then that is shocking all right; but it is not true. when, on the other hand, he only tells us that kin altruism is caused by shared genes, then that happens not io be true, (as we saw in section iii), but even if it were true, it would not be shocking, or eyen interesting. If kin altruism ls caused by shared genes, that is well - it exists, anyway; if it is caused by something entirely different, well again. who doubts that it is caused by something? Nor can its cause be of a very rare or elevated character, in view of the extreme conmonness of kin altruism which, (at least in its parental form), extends even to such low spirituality types as alligators. The fact that kin altruism has a cause does not prevent it from being sometimes an admirable thing, cither. By that overly severe rule, there would be nothing to admire anywhere; not cven in, say, The Selfish Gene [book], which presumably has its causes like everything else in nature.

--David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales, pages 166-168.

Saturday, April 25, 2020

The Future of Atheism

All other arguments besides Flew’s presumption argument are obsolete in view of Nielsen’s prior moral criterion argument in his book Ethics Without God (either edition, 1973/1984), and by implication its abstract generalization in terms of a prior truth criterion.

1 To know that God is good requires a prior standard of goodness to make that identification. Hence goodness without God is already there as a prerequisite, even to drive the discussion of the issue itself in terms of what is a good argument about goodness, whether that goodness is said to be the goodness of God or anything else.

2 To know anything to be true requires a prior standard of truth that not only does not need God but necessarily precludes God as a belief-determining factor. All arguments are based on God-precluding logical/rational rules of thinking.

These two arguments are the future of atheism, even though atheists have almost to a person not even noticed the original argument about morality, first published almost 50 years ago in the first edition of Nielsen’s 100-page book.

The only other argument essential to atheism going forward is Flew’s presumption argument which accurately concludes that the burden of proof on any kind of claim that some non-obviously-apparent being exists is on the believer, on pain of raising an infinite number of Great Pumpkin claims to equal legitimacy, and other logically fatal errors.

Thursday, April 16, 2020

The Fake Problem of Evil

THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF EVIL. It’s logically impossible. There cannot be a problem of evil whether you believe in God or not. To believe there is a problem of evil is to depend on an assumption that there isn’t one. It will also make you a miserable person.

There cannot be evil, much less an argument for evil, if any notion of goodness beyond merely liking something, any transpersonal or transworld goodness, is in question.

The mutual darling of believers and nonbelievers, possibly the most obvious logical mistake in the entire history of human thinking is the so-called problem of evil.

The basis of this fake problem of evil is the unjustified, unquestioned, but merely assumed existence or reality or actuality of evil.

Notice that when this issue arises in a conversation, questions are avoided or bypassed about what precisely evil means and what we must assume in order to recognize evil. That avoidance is a clue that there simply isn’t any such thing as evil in the first place, nor can there be, if any good beyond mere human liking or affinity is in question.

Only a standard of goodness that is necessarily assumed already, could possibly drive what evil means in this fake problem of evil. And that is the direct contrary of the intended conclusion of this fake problem of evil, that there IS no such standard, embodied in a being or not!

The key to that last statement is Kai Nielsen’s Prior Independent Moral Criterion Argument, one of the two new arguments for atheism which make up the Third Frontier.

As Schopenhauer said about pantheism: you don't add anything to the world by calling it God. And you don't add anything to something disliked by calling it “evil” and capitalizing the first letter of that word.

To recognize anything to be evil, bad, or negative in any sense beyond mere human dislike, requires a problem-free trans-personal standard of goodness to contrast the alleged evil to and thereby justify it’s claimed reality and give it meaning and recognizability as having a reality beyond that mere dislike.

Any claim that there is some kind of problem of evil bypasses the problem of the meaning of the word evil through this lack of up-front clarity and precision and honesty about the meaning of the word and where that meaning comes from. One must assume there is no problem of evil in order to argue that there’s a reliably identifiable problem called evil.

Evil can be recognized as evil only in the light of a contrasting already-existing problem-free transpersonal idea of goodness that gives evil its notoriety as something that has some kind of additional reality and negativity beyond humans not liking it.

Without some concept of perfect goodness or goodness per se, you don't get to add the dramatic "evil" label to the mere fact that everyone dislikes something, and get out of that anything more than the fact that everyone dislikes it. To recognize imperfections assumes the perfect is known. That idea of the perfect is the only thing that enables us to identify deviations from it. All fault-finding is based on an ideal, some concept of perfection or perfect goodness.

So the whole argument for the problem of evil, by both believers and nonbelievers, is definitionally dependent, and contradicts its own intended conclusion by implicitly using and thereby affirming some kind of trans-personal goodness (the negation of the conclusion trying to be proved: that there is no such goodness) and using that same goodness as an unstated premise to give evil its reality, so that goodness can then be denied, whether as a principle or as a being who embodies that principle.

Evil cannot inveigh against the good if its defined by that good in order to have a reality of its own in the first place.

This is something you do when you need evil so much, and have no basis for asserting it, that you're willing to steal its standard of meaning and it’s reality from the concept of ultimate perfect goodness to even get to the first step of knowing that anything is evil to begin with, so that you can deny that same ultimate perfect goodness that you used as true and valid and legitimate and problem-free, to give evil its reality in the first place.

The implicit standard that gives evil its reality is what the problem of evil argument is supposed to get rid of.

The problem of evil is not an objection to the good at all. It assumes it. The problem of evil necessarily assumes perfect goodness.

And if it’s necessary to have a transpersonal good, merely for the sake of argument or not, that dependency is already still telling to this point. What must be derived from what?

The central initial question is always: what makes something evil?

The problem of evil already assumes perfect goodness in asserting the recognizable existence of evil in the first place. We can be aware of evil only if we already have the idea of perfect goodness, only if we have within us some idea of perfect transpersonal goodness to compare with in order to identify defections from that perfect goodness and call those defections evil.

A final note on the so-called problem of evil for nonbelievers is that it implies that no one can be a good parent since they force a human being into a world that contains evil.

The emphasis or even preoccupation with the problem of evil is an indicator that someone’s not reading the atheist literature, and not simply because generally the more sophisticated atheist thinkers either realize that the so-called problem of evil is a self-contradictory goodness-dependent mistake in logic, or else at least see the futility of it as an argument that decisively proves the non-existence of God.

The only real problem of evil is the avoidance of questions about what the word evil means, what it assumes, and the standards by which it’s recognized.