Stupidity at its finest. The word “benevolent” has a definition. It was created by humans, and humans will understand what the hell you are talking about when you say “benevolence”. It is not applicable to the God you presuppose exists.

Um, wait, this is not arational. Decartes discussed this many years ago.

There is no reason to believe that which you have no evidence for or against. You would say that, according to your ideology, I have no reason to negate the idea that I am a brain in a vat, being told everything about my existence through wires operated by an evil genius and his supercomputers.

In short, Seth’s entire premise is based on an idea that can be refuted by Occam’s Razor and Rationality.

As for “benevolence.” I could get into theology, but basically, your description of benevolence” as a HUMAN term is correct. To be a little more precise, “benevolence” is a word in the ENGLISH language. Other languages have different words that are close in meaning, but not exactly the same. “Benevolence” is highly subjective and complex. It is not an easily defined thing like the concept of a “triangle.”

At any rate, finite human beings, with a track record of making mistakes, are not in a position to determine if an omnipotent deity is “benevolent” or not. What appears to be benevolent at first might turn out to be harmful. True benevolence doesn’t necessarily preclude pain or suffering if such pain and suffering produce positive things later.

Then you’re making the word benevolence (and any other word) meaningless. If you can’t say what benevolence means when applied to god, then you can’t say what any other word means, either. You can’t say anything meaningful or definitional about god at all. Which makes him a completely meaningless concept. Which is something I would agree with, but I doubt that you would.

You’re still ignoring the salient point that an omnipotent, omniscient being could produce any “positive thing” without the added suffering. Which makes your god objectively cruel.

It seems to me that you have a lot of baggage with the “god-botherers” and are approaching discussion based upon that baggage.

OK. Some more about arationality . . . back to the first week of college. Presuppositions are sometimes arational . . . You probably assume that the physical world and that your own body exist, but you can’t PROVE it. It could ALL be a FIGMENT of your imagination. Your senses could be lying to you. There is no way to prove it, but somehow you just “know” it. The way you know that the physical world exists cannot be either proven or disproven. That “knowing” is ARATIONAL. If you deny the existence of the arational, you say that your knowledge of your own physical body and the world around you is irrational. BTW, The excluded middle is a neat trick, but you are applying rationality to arationality. (see tool example above)

As for “benevolence.” I could get into theology, but basically, your description of benevolence” as a HUMAN term is correct. To be a little more precise, “benevolence” is a word in the ENGLISH language. Other languages have different words that are close in meaning, but not exactly the same. “Benevolence” is highly subjective and complex. It is not an easily defined thing like the concept of a “triangle.”

At any rate, finite human beings, with a track record of making mistakes, are not in a position to determine if an omnipotent deity is “benevolent” or not. What appears to be benevolent at first might turn out to be harmful. True benevolence doesn’t necessarily preclude pain or suffering if such pain and suffering produce positive things later.

Chet- The “emotional” part of the pain leading so called “positive” atheism is not the pain. The emotional part is the REACTION to the pain.

What? No, you’re misunderstood, apparently. Like Harris, I too believe that, if war can be considered an ethical necessity under certain circumstances, there are also circumstances where torture as well can be an ethical certainty.

I don’t see how that can be denied. Obviously, it would be better to torture one person than to allow a city to be annihilated, if you could be certain that the one can prevent the other.

I realize, and Harris does as well, that that’s a big “if.” It’s not an impossibility, however, for the reasons that he stipulates in his essay.

And none of that, Nancy, implies that we should reject the Geneva Conventions nor any other stricture against torture.

I await Chet to explain my logical error.

The logical error is the unjustified inference that Harris thinks we should obviate the Geneva Conventions. I can imagine a circumstance in which it’s an ethical necessity to break a law, at the same time that I recognize that the law is just, and should be maintained, and transgressors of that law be punished. (Even the ones who broke the law for just reasons.)

Why can’t you?

I guess it just comes down to alignment. Lawful Good types can’t imagine a circumstance in which it would be good to break a just law. Chaotic Good types can’t imagine not being able to imagine it. Oddly enough, I think Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are, in practice, synonyms for “dog lover” and “cat person.”

I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.

Now incoherent dog-loving fool that I am, I interpret this as Sam Harris admitting that he thinks that torture is an “ethical necessity.”

I await Chet to explain my logical error.

Why the personal attack?

Do I have to tell YOU why Seth? You know all about the problem of benevolence.

But your whole thing on benevolence - you can’t do something nice to someone because somewhere, somehow something bad might occur as a result - is so absurd I have a hard time taking you seriously. I mean, how could you NOT get how ridiculous your benevolence-to-a-homeless guy argument was?

Are we clear now that you will NEVER give any money to charity because of the evil that may occur as a result of your misguided attempt at “benevolence?”

But Seth - what if your keeping all your money for yourself somehow results in something bad happening? Then what?

Clearly every single thing you do is a vector for evil Seth. What does that feel like?

This is where Harris gives the wink wink, nudge nudge approval of torture without prosecution, which if adopted by a government as explicit or understood policy, renders the Geneva conventions irrelevant. Thus your original portrayal was accurate.

Thanks. And you are so coherent. Unlike some I could name.

wink wink

:)

I address his sentence in way I’ve already told you - in the context of his entire essay, where he makes it clear that he supports all legal prohibitions on torture. Thus, neither that sentence nor any other can support an interpretation of “let’s gut the GC” because it’s that specific reasoning he repudiates.

So in other words, this sentence was a big mistake in the middle of an essay that argues exactly the opposite.

if we are unwilling to torture, we should be unwilling to wage modern war.

So what is that - a typo?

I believe Grammar already pointed out that Harris is in favor of rules against torture - except when it inevitably becomes necessary to break the law and torture anyway. He says that, right there in his essay. Or is that a weird typo too?

I am perfectly happy in allowing torture that follows principles which are homologues to those of Just War.

Since this excludes any form of torture, it’s not that huge a concession…