#logical arguments

The Logical Problem of Evil

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

The problem of evil is a philosophical conundrum that seems to contradict the existence of God. The question is as follows:

How can we reconcile the existence of

suffering and evil in the world with a

supposedly omnibenevolent, omniscient,

and omnipotent God?

At first glance, these two premises seem incompatible. The most well-known presentation of this dilemma is ascribed to the ancient Greek philosopher and sage Epicurus (341–270 bce). He framed the logical problem of evil as follows:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is unable,

then he’s not all-powerful.

If he’s able to prevent evil, but unwilling,

then he’s not good.

But if he’s both willing and able,

how can evil exist?

And, if he’s neither able nor willing,

then why call him God? [or worship him?]

Epicurus is trying to point out the apparent incompatibility between the existence of evil and that of God. He’s trying to demonstrate that it’s logically impossible for both God and evil to exist. They are at loggerheads with each other. And since we know that evil and suffering exist, it must mean that God does not.

However, the premise that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God contradicts the presence of evil is unsound. A squared circle or a married bachelor is certainly a contradiction. But it’s not logically inconsistent to speak of the existence of suffering and an all-loving powerful God in the same breath. Epicurus’ implication is that if God was all-powerful and/or all-loving he would not have allowed suffering or evil to exist. So, his premise presupposes that either an all-powerful, all-loving God exists and suffering does not, or else suffering exists and God does not. But both cannot exist simultaneously.

However, this is a false assumption. Why? Because if God grants human beings free will, then the possibility of choosing good or evil does not explicitly contradict the existence of God. In fact, if the opposite were true and God were to create a world in which people didn’t have free will and always chose the good, there would be no suffering, but neither would there be any freedom. It would be a world of programmed robots, not free people.

And how would we even know what good really is if evil and suffering never existed? After all, in the Bible, God promises to eliminate evil & suffering at the end of the age! So, how can we possibly know if God has good reasons for permitting evil and suffering to exist for a time? The answer is, we do not know. Both biblically and philosophically, good and evil are not mutually exclusive but coexist temporally and ontologically. Thus, it is not illogical for both God and suffering to exist simultaneously. As philosopher William P. Alston conceded, “It is now acknowledged on (almost) all sides that the logical argument is bankrupt” (The Inductive Argument From Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition. Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 5, Philosophy of Religion [1991], pp. 29-67).

Metaphysical, logical and epistemic arguments against the existence of God

Metaphysical and logical arguments The existence of God is unverifiable and therefore meaningless According to the verificationist theory of meaning, the meaning of an utterance is determined by its conditions of verification. But God is not a being whose existence can be tested empirically. Accordingly to this theory, any statement about the existence or non-existence of God — like many…

"That's the attitude," I told her sarcastically. "Real positive way to think." 

"Please, Frank," Kink said. "This isn't my first Venusian rodeo. I've spent time with you before. It's always one horrible thing after the other." 

"You're blaming it on me? You're the one  who popped up on me. You're always the one that pops up on me. I never go looking for you, Kink. I never drag you into my things. You always drag me into yours. " 

"Maybe it's not the time to have this argument," G'Fon said. "Maybe you should wait until we're all back home where we belong and I'm far away from the both of you and most importantly I’m not in any danger of any kind."

"Fair enough," I conceded. 

 "I didn't start it," Kink said. "So if Frank is done complaining, I don't see any reason why we can't move on." 

"Fine," G'Fon said. "Then figure out a way to get us off this crazy thing."

"You want out?" Kink asked. "Fine. I'll get us out of here." She then preceded to unload with a barrage of laser fire into the far wall of the elevator. But, to our horror, the lasers did not cut through the wall. Instead they bounced right back at us. We were almost sliced into pieces, but fortunately Kink was able to ten on her forcefield and absorb most of her own laser fire. 

"Well that didn't work," G'Fon said. 

 "That's ok," Kink said. "I've got a plan b." 

"Will it get us killed?"

"Frank, has anything I've done gotten us killed?" 

"Has anything you've personally done gotten G'Fon or myself killed? No, not the two of us specifically. Not that I recall at least. But we did use to have a much larger group."

to be continued here next week

Living in the Media Age – The Concept of Logical Arguments

Question 1

What is a fallacy? A. A fallacy is a set of facts or​ assumptions, called​ premises, to support a conclusion. B. A fallacy is a deceptive argument. It is an argument in which the conclusion is not well supported by the premises. C. A fallacy is a fact or assumption used in an argument to support a conclusion. D. A fallacy is the study of the methods and principles of reasoning.

Quest…

Interested in the opioid crisis?  This blog has addressed this tragic calamity facing the nation in past postings.  This posting can list the titles (and dates) of previous postings that have highlighted this topic, but can more efficiently draw the reader’s attention to an online site in which this blogger has listed, in the form of factoids and insights, useful information concerning this epidemic. That site’s URL is https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11635&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AFhwqIF3ZhONVK8 .

         That site not only has information regarding the various types of opioids but also information regarding different related aspects of its sell and distribution including governmental reactions to the problem.  The individual bits of information are sourced so the reader can further investigate the information.

         This posting aims to add to those listings and it uses a recurring source the above site uses.  That source is Beth Macy’s book, Dopesick:  Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America.[1]  This more recent book serves as a good follow up to Sam Quinones’ book, Dreamland:  The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic.[2]  Both are “good reads” and they do an effective job at humanizing this plague on the nation.  They also portray how this drug abuse exposes the lack of a federalist mindset among Americans – a mindset that prevailed before World War II.

But before sharing the factoids and insights, a word on why this format is used is helpful. Earlier in this blog, several postings make the case that a main instructional strategy this blog supports is an approach it calls historical dialogue-to-action (HD-to-A).[3]  As its title indicates, discourse plays a central role.  Beyond that, the approach commits a teacher to spend time developing students’ abilities to utilize logical arguments in that discourse.  

In turn, the approach relies on Stephen Toulmin’s logical model of argumentation.[4]  In that model, the function of factoids (called datum statements) and insights (called warrant statements) play crucial functions in the formulation of a logical argument. Interested readers are directed to yet another former posting, “Toulmin’s Elements of a Logical Argument.”[5]  

With that context here is this posting’s list of factoids and insights – they are identified as examples of each type of statement.

Factoid:  A more recent type of opioid has been found among the public.  That is carfentanil.  Macy reports that it was originally developed as a sedative for elephants.  It is one hundred times stronger than the strong opioid, fentanyl, which, in turn, is 25 to 50 times stronger than heroin.

Factoid:  The state of West Virginia – through its burial-assistance program – was at the time of a cited report running out of funds dedicated to burying opioid victims. West Virginia is not alone in this problem; similar reports come from a variety of states from Florida to California. Generally, the epidemic moved from rural areas to urban areas.  Of special interest is the urban corridor between Baltimore and New York City.

Factoid:  Macy judges the nation’s response to the epidemic to be very slow and very impotent once it began.

Insight:  Unlike the spread of other drug consumption patterns, the opioid problem started in isolated areas such the Appalachian area or the Midwestern rust belt region. This is attributed, at least in part, to the downward trends the local economies of those areas experienced especially after the introduction of competition from low income countries from around the world.  Not only were the economies of these areas under stress, but they were already known to be politically powerless areas that lacked appropriate medical facilities to meet the crisis.

Insight:  Also adding a causal effect to an overall lack of a reaction to the epidemic was the “stigma and shame” one attaches to the resulting addiction.  People and families affected were highly reluctant to come forward and let their problem be known.

Insight:  “Because the most important thing for the morphine-hijacked brain is, always, not to experience the crushing physical and psychological pain of withdrawal:  to avoid dopesickness at any cost.  [This leads to] … many users recruit[ing] new customers. … [creating a cycle, which] too often ends in jail or prison or worse …”[6]

         These factoids and insights will be added to the online site.

[1] Beth Macy, Dopesick:  Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America (New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2018).  In terms of Macy’s book, this posting is not the first time this blog has cast an eye on it. For example, the posting, “More Information on Opioid Crisis,” was posted on July 23, 2019.  See Robert Gutierrez, “More Information on Opioid Crisis,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, July 23, 2013, accessed February 13, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019/07/more-information-on-opioid-crisis.html .

[2] Sam Quinones, Dreamland:  The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic (New York, NY:  Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015).

[3] Robert Gutierrez, “Turning to Action – A Model,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, March 5, 2019, accessed February 13, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019/03/turning-to-action-model.html .

[4] Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (London: Cambridge University Press, 1969).

[5] Robert Gutierrez, “Toulmin’s Elements of a Logical Argument,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, August 22, 2017, accessed February 13, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2017/08/toulmins-elements-of-logical-argument.html .

[Note:  This posting is a continuation of a report on the development of a civics unit of study. This unit is directing students to formulate informed positions on the opioid epidemic.  Presently, this development, in real time, is to share a set of insights (generalizations or principles) and factoids that help describe and explain this epidemic.]

Before sharing insights and factoids associated with the opioid epidemic, a word on the assignment the reader was given in the last posting. That posting listed the American states according to how many opioid prescriptions, per 100 residents, were issued in 2012. The assignment was to hypothesize how the information suggest a cause and effect relationship relevant to the abuse of opioids.

         Since the problem, especially early in the development of the epidemic, was over-prescribing the drug, one could hypothesize that in a conservative environment, one that shies away from regulating business activities, over-prescription would be more probable since there would be a reluctance for local government to regulate the selling of this product.

         To test this hypothesis in an off-hand way, the writer checked which of the top 15 states – those that prescribed the drug most readily – voted for the conservative/Republican candidate and those that voted for the liberal/Democratic candidate in the 2016 presidential election.  He also checked the same for the lowest 15 states.  This at best is an informal way to test this hypothetical relationship.

While in terms of number of states voting one way or another is heavily skewed toward Republican candidates (most states are sparsely populated and agricultural – a conservative political landscape), a definite bias probably would indicate that this suggested hypothesis is true.  So, is there such a definite bias?

Of the top 15 listed states, 14 voted for the conservative/Republican candidate and only one voted for the liberal/Democratic candidate.  Of the bottom 15 states, 11 voted for the liberal/Democratic candidate and 4 voted for the conservative/Republican candidate.  Without doing a sophisticated, statistical analysis, this seems like a definite bias.  

But it should be remembered, 2012 was relatively early in the history of this epidemic and states have become more attuned to the problem including the “Trump state,” Florida, which has been noted for its clamping down on prescribing opioids with regulations and prohibiting clinics from prescribing them.

To return to the basic aim of this posting; that is to explain the function of two curricular components useful in developing a unit of study.  The first is the role insights play and the second is the role factoids play. Insights are generalizations or principles; that is, they identify or highlight some relationship between or among factors.

For example, if one states hot weather causes people to be irritable, then the weather is one factor and dispositional behavior is the other.  If the weather is characterized as being “hot” (say the temperature is over 90 degrees Fahrenheit), that causes or is correlated to people generally behaving in irritable (disposed to being upset) ways.  In turn, such statements can generally be tested to see if they are true.

In terms of using generalizations or principles in argumentation or debate, they can be used to function as warrant statements that justify some observation with some conclusion.  That is the function Stephen Toulmin[1] ascribes these terms in formulating a reasonable argument.  In this simple example, one can argue that since Johnny was playing baseball out in the hot sun, therefore he was bound to get angry when he was called out on a close play.

This might not be a good argument, but it illustrates the role of generalizations and principles play in argumentation. So, if the aim of a unit of instruction is for students to build arguments, insights are useful if not necessary.  Further, as just shown, factual statements are also useful for they provide statements of observation.  They, in turn, serve as the “since” or “whereas” statements (“since Johnny was playing baseball”) in an argument.

As for insights, here is an initial list taken from previous postings that described some aspect of the opioid epidemic:

·        The beginning stages of an opioid addiction is noted by patients continuing to consume the drug beyond what a doctor prescribes to either minimize pain or to induce euphoric feelings.  This is chemically enhanced since the body builds up a tolerance – meaning the patient must consume more to induce the desired results and/or prevent withdrawal symptoms.[2]

·        Several written accounts claim that among the general population there has been widespread preference for a “pill” solution for medical concerns over behavioral alterations to daily routines such as exercise, change of diet, and efforts to reduce stress.[3]

·        Due to the extensive amount of reported cases of chronic pain among Americans in the late 1990s (c. 100 million), drug companies and the federal government were motivated to incentivize – to “push” – opioid drug prescriptions.[4]

·        Correlated to the increase of opioid prescriptions, there has been significant more people being admitted to medical facilities for drug abuse treatments and more deaths caused by opioid overdoses.  It furthers indicates that initially legitimate – usually clinical – prescribing of the drug has led to or diverted to an illegal distribution system which in turn has meant more misuse, addiction, and death.[5]

·        Due to their popularity, this increase has encouraged producers to increase the strength or potency of prescribed opioids such as with oxycodone (under the brand names OxyContin or Percocet) and hydrocodone (under the brand name Vicodin).[6]

And here are several factoids that can enrich a lesson on opioids and can, therefore, be used as datum statements (i.e., “since” statements):

·        A significant number of Americans reported in the late 1990s (circa 100 million or just under a third of the population) as suffering chronic pain.[7]

·        In the twenty years, from 1991 to 2011, prescriptions for pain (painkillers) tripled in the US.  The reported numbers were 76 million per year in 1991 and 219 million in 2011.  That number increased to 289 million opioid prescriptions in 2016. [8]

·        Strengthened opioids – more potent than morphine – were in 2002 only prescribed to one of every six drug users.  That number jumped to one of every three drug users by 2012.[9]

The next posting will continue reporting relevant insights and factoids that can prove to be useful either in developing a unit of study over the opioid epidemic/crisis or assisting students in formulating a related argument.  The topic will refocus on the demographic factors of this epidemic.

[1] Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (London, England: Cambridge University Press, 1969).

[2] Jacqueline Howard, “Why Opioid Overdose Deaths Seem to Happen in Spurts,” CNN, February 8, 2017, accessed July 2, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/health/opioids-overdose-deaths-epidemic-explainer/ .

[3] Teresa Carr, Too Many Meds?  America’s Love Affair with Prescription Medication, Consumer Reports, August 3, 2017, accessed July 30, 2018, https://www.consumerreports.org/prescription-drugs/too-many-meds-americas-love-affair-with-prescription-medication/ AND Jennifer Markert, “Pills for Everything:  The Power of American Pharmacy,” June 2, 2018, accessed July 30, 2018, https://curiousmatic.com/pills-for-everything-the-power-of-american-pharmacy/ AND Victoria Bekiempis, April 9, 2012, accessed July 30, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/09/america-prescription-drug-addiction .

[4] “America’s Opioid Epidemic Is Worsening,” The Economist, March 6, 2017, accessed July 19, 2018, https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/03/06/americas-opioid-epidemic-is-worsening .

[5] G. Caleb Alexander, Stefan P. Kruszewski, and Daniel W. Webster, “Rethinking Opioid Prescribing to Protect Patient Safety and Public Health,” Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), vol. 308, 1865-1866, see http://www.addictioneducation.co.uk/21.01.2013PsycInfo%20VCrawford[3].pdf , accessed August 3, 2018.

[6] For example, “Oxycodone Abuse,” DrugAbuse.com, n. d., accessed July 30, 2018, https://drugabuse.com/library/oxycodone-abuse/ .

[7] “America’s Opioid Epidemic Is Worsening,” The Economist.

[8] “Facing Addiction in America,” U. S. Surgeon General (SurgeonGeneral.com), 2016, site page no longer posted, see https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/executive-summary .