I've been reading a lot of philosophy lately and having theological discussions. That leads to interesting trains of thought. I'd like to share one here.
I'd like to discuss the "problem of evil."
The first problem of evil is not the typical "problem of evil" most often referred to as "Epicurus' Problem of Evil." We'll get to that in a moment. The first problem of "evil" is that without a God there is no such thing as evil. Without a God life is a random accident. If that is the case then there is no moral code. Without a God we have no authority by which to measure anyone's actions. Without a God all actions are permissible as survival of the fittest. If I can beat you up and take your stuff, I'm more fit than you. Who is to call that evil? If evil exists, there must be a God.
Now, I think we can all agree that there is "evil" in the world. As we concluded above, if there is evil, there must be a God. Some say that this is contradictory believing that the existence of evil disproves God. This is where "Epicurus' Problem of Evil" comes in. It states that if there is a God, this God must be all loving and all powerful. If God is all loving then he must not be powerful enough to stop evil. If God is not all powerful, he is not God. If he is all powerful then he must not be loving enough to want to stop evil. If God is not loving then he is not God. Hence the existence of evil disproves God. But how can this be since we've already concluded that without God there can be no such thing as "evil." There must be a third option.
Let's assume for a moment that God is all powerful and all loving and stops all evil. What love is this? This is no love at all. If God acts in this manner then man is his robot, his marionette. This is not a loving God and, therefore, no God at all. What, then, are we left with? That solution can only be this: Evil exists, therefore, there is a God who is powerful enough to stop the evil and loving enough to want to stop it, but even more loving and powerful enough to restrain himself. A God that is truly all loving will let us make our own choices, some of which will lead to evil.
Many people that I know who do not serve God will say that the problem of evil is their primary reason. They believe an all powerful all loving God would put an end to evil. Because he does not, they chose not to serve him. The problem with this logic is this: the very restraint that God exercises that allows evil is the same restraint that allows them to decide they will not serve him. If God stopped all evil, that would include their prideful disdain for him. They would have no choice but to serve him. This sounds like a God they would not want to serve.
In conclusion: the so-called "problem of evil" proves that there is an all loving all powerful God who will allow you to chose not to serve him. Please choose wisely.
6 comments:
In support of Marc’s view, I’m going to share the burden of proof since he has posed the argument that “The Problem of Evil” proves the existence of God. As his argument doesn’t specifically address the Christian God, for this argument we’ll assume that God refers to an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful Personal Creator. I’ll be borrowing heavily from William Lane Craig here. If anyone is interested his website is reasonablefaith.org.
Marc was really taking on two arguments at once, I think. He pointed out that evil wouldn’t exist without God and he also pointed out the question of why there is evil in the world if God is all powerful and all good. The two arguments that I see present are moral values and duties (good/bad (evil) and right/wrong) and the problem of suffering (evil).
I think the argument regarding objective moral values and duties is the stronger of the two in proving the existence of God, so I’m going to venture into that territory. Something is objective if it’s real or true independent of anyone’s opinion about it. Something is subjective if it’s just a matter of personal opinion. Craig proposes the following argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Let’s look at premise 1. Values means that something is good or bad (evil). Duties means that something is right or wrong. Good/bad is related to worth, right/wrong is related to obligation.
Objective and subjective applies to premise 1 also. In his argument, Craig offers that in the absence of God, the atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II are not objectively wrong. There’s no external standard independent of anyone’s opinion that says, “These guys were evil!”
So, if God does not exist and naturalism rings true, and science is morally neutral, then moral values don’t really exist. Given the atheist’s view, moral values are merely illusions crafted by the human mind. Anything that humans do that is seen as “good” or “self-sacrificing” is nothing more than herd/instinct behavior that helps the species survive.
The same can be said for moral duties. If there is no objective moral standard, who is to say that anything we do is right or wrong? It’s obvious that behavior such as rape isn’t helpful to the survival of the species. However, according to Craig, within the atheist worldview a rapist is really only acting unfashionably.
Now, on to premise 2. It’s relatively easy to prove that moral values and duties do exist. With very few exceptions, there’s an overall global view that the death camps of the Nazi’s were not only wrong, not only evil, they were abominations! Craig gives the example that Nazi scientist Dr. Mengele isolated and confined a newborn baby and its mother and bound her breasts so she could not feed the infant. His goal was to weigh the baby on a daily basis and see how long it would take to starve to death. Any of us would consider it practically impossible to find one person that would not recoil from such an act and exclaim how vile and evil it was. On the good side, we’d be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn’t agree that love, generosity and self-sacrifice are good. Not just “nice” or “polite” behaviors, but good as in something that objectively exists regardless of our opinion. Again, this is a global view, not just a few isolated cultures going against the grain.
Now, since we’ve proved premise 1 and premise 2 to be true, it follows that our conclusion is true: God exists. We cannot be objectively morally good without God.
Hello Marc, You write such great arguments. It brings me back to my college level logic classes. With that said, you can prove anything is "correct" if you use the correct logic. My thoughts on the subject are this, Why cant I be a nice, caring and decent person, just because I feel that I want to be? I feel that if I do nice things and be a good person just so that I am rewarded by being able to meet and stay with "God" how sincere are my actions? I am not doing it for you, I am doing it for me. That is very selfish.
To comment on your argument that states "God" must exist because there is evil, who is to say it is a Christian God,or Buduha or any other deity?
Just commenting on the overall arguments, not preaching or trying to cause trouble.
Hi, Sarah!
I hope you don't mind if I tackle a few of the points you made:
You CAN be a nice caring and decent person because you feel that you want to be. That's entirely your choice and it's completely subjective - based on your own thoughts, feeling and opinions. Without an objective standard for us to refer to, there's nothing to say that any of that is good or bad in an overall sense that applies to everyone.
As for the concept of being selfish in your quest to do nice things to please God, I'm assuming that you're referring to the Christian God. In that case, you've got the theology a little mixed up. For a Christian, being nice, caring and decent is an expression of gratitude to God since the salvation of the believer is completely due to God's grace and mercy. There is no amount of niceness, caring, or decency that a believer can do to impress God.
As for your final point, there is a fantastic amount of real evidence using modern methods that supports the Christian God's existence. Buddha wasn't a deity and no other deity including Allah has the real evidence the Christian God can claim. However, I don't want to hijack Marc's thread here, so I'll wait for him to address that issue in another post and jump in then.
Nice to meet you!
Two things. (a) What if we live in a polytheistic universe? (b) What if good and evil are defined as what is good or evil based on affect, for example, the continuance of genetic material or the survival of a political system. This latter option does not require any transcendent universe or being for good and evil to exist.
Wonderful presentation! I heartily agree.
As you said, the fact that God tolerates evil is a sign of his love. What people fail to realize or refuse to accept is that WE are evil, made evident by our actions, actions allowed by a God who a...llows us to make choices. If God were to eliminate evil, as so many wish He would, that would mean eliminating us, something most people wish He wouldn't!
A professor at the seminary (Jack Davis) said something in regard to this topic that I will never forget: As you said above, people often argue, "If there really is a loving God, why is there so much evil in the world?" The more pertinent question is "If we are so evil, so capable of atrocity, why is there so much good in the world?" Good is the result of only one thing: God's restraint of humanity, those who recognize him AND those who do not. Praise God for being SO GOOD!
Ok Thom, I'll bite (months and months later).
A polytheistic universe would have two possible realities: A) multiple gods who agree and disagree with one another or B) multiple gods who never disagree with each other.
Now, if premise A is reality then in any disagreement one must be right and one god must be wrong. If a god is wrong, then one cannot call that being a god as, according to the "problem of evil," the god they are attempting to disprove is perfect. If any one god is always right, then that entity is the one true god. However, if no one god is always right then there are no gods and, therefore, no polytheistic universe.
Now, if premise B is reality and there are many gods who always agree, one could say that they were of like mind. Perhaps, in that scenario they are not multiple gods, but rather one god in multiple persons. One god in multiple persons and multiple gods of one mind seems to have no discernable difference to me. Particularly considering the fact that, as Troy pointed out, this argument is not necessarily for the Christian God, but rather for god as an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful Personal Creator.
Your second suggestion appears to assume a lack of absolute truth which (based on other logical arguments known, but not recorded here) assumes an atheistic universe. The "Problem of Evil" does not depend upon one's perspective, rather on an understanding that certain things are good and other things are evil. In essence your inquiry is an attempt to set up a straw man rather than logically refute my thesis.
(Take that! :) )
Post a Comment