Saturday, January 5, 2008

The Problem of Evil

Here is an argument against you atheists, which is surprising given the title. I'm sure you're all well aware of it. It was first formulated by Epicurus, and although it has undergone certain changes or amendments, it's basic form is this:

  • God exists.
  • God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
  • Evil exists.

These are the three premises that the atheist balances on. Let us ignore how one comes to define "evil," as some Christian apologists would do (and as I did). I think there is a better way for Christians to respond to this argument. But let us not get ahead of ourselves.

If God is all-good, He would not want evil to exist. If God is all-powerful, He would be able to destory all evil. If God is all-knowing, He would know that evil exists. Yet, evil exists. Why? You could suggest God was unable to prevent evil from existing, although He knew it existed and wanted to destroy it. You could suggest God didn't know about evil, even though He has the power and would be willing to destroy it if only He knew. Or, you could suggest that God simply wanted evil to exist, but that would imply He is not all-good. And if any of these instances are the case, then all three premises cannot be true.

Alas, many Christians are not discerning Christians. Those who are, however, would be able to say, "Isn't it probable that God, being all-good, would allow evil to exist for some all-good purpose?" Yes, in my mind, that is very probable. And that is one reason I never bought the "problem of evil" argument and remained in the Christian title.

That is, until recently I discovered a rebuttal for the Christian's response. Let us go back to the attributes, or character, of God: God is generally understood as all-wise, an off-shoot from His all-knowingness. If that is the case, then the Christian is left with a problem.

If God allowed evil to exist for some morally good purpose, it must be questioned whether God is truly all-wise and/or all-powerful. Why? Because, if He wanted some morally good purpose to be the result of evil existing, why not go about it in some other way? Surely an all-wise God would be able to think of a way to do it. And surely an all-powerful God would be able to perform another way.

"Nuh, uh," says the Christian. "'His ways are not your ways, and His thoughts are not your thoughts.'" Possibly, quite possible that would solve the problem. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, I referred to a verse in the Bible that means that God doesn't do thinks like we do, and He doesn't think like we do. So even though we would think God should have done it another way, He didn't because He doesn't do things the way we would.

But the Christian forgets that pesky attribute of "all-good." An all-good God, under no circumstances whatsoever, would want any form of evil to exist. If He did, He wouldn't be all-good by definition. And because He would be wise enough and powerful enough to make whatever it is He wanted made without the existence of evil, we can only conclude that He isn't all-wise, or all-powerful, or all-good, or all-knowing, or He simply doesn't exist. I have voted for the latter, because a god who is not omni-et. al. is not God.

8 comments:

vjack said...

Hey there! Welcome to the atheist blogosphere. I just wanted to come by and mention that a great way to boost your readership is to add your blog to the Atheist Blogroll at http://tinyurl.com/22mq6s

Existentialist said...

Thanks, Vjack!

Rhology said...

Hi there,

Part of the mistake of this rebuttal is forgetting that God is the definition of goodness; without God there is no goodness or badness. There is no oughtness. There just is.

I'm amazed that the problem of evil has the legs it does.
Anyway, think it over. If you can't give an objective basis for good and bad out of your own worldview, you have no justification for making such judgments as what you are making here.

Peace,
Rhology

Existentialist said...

Hey Rhology,

It is very interesting that you and I should speak to each other, considering I used to read Begger's All (I was a reformed Christian). I think this will be a great discussion, if you are willing to pursue it further with me. Granted, I'm not experienced in this kind of stuff, and who knows, maybe you'll show me the hollowness of my arguments.

1. May I ask you what your thoughts are on this question: Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because He commands something?

Because I think that if what you say is true, that God is the definition of goodness, then you are no better off than I am, for whatever God does would be good. This means if God were to lie (although I know He neither does lie and cannot lie, according to the Bible), it wouldn't be a sin, and if that is the case, then lying is just as good as it is bad. Does that make sense?

2. Could you explain why morals must be rooted in God? I think it's a great statement, but what reasoning would you provide for it? It could be just as easily said, "Without God, there is goodness and badness."

3. Please don't forget that I am not your average atheist. I am an existentialist, which means, among other things, that although I recognize there are no morals, I rebel against that fact by asserting my own morals. If you wanted a little information to read up on my understanding of existential ethics, you could try reading Jean-Paul Sartre's, "Existentialism is a Humanism."

4. What do you mean by, "I'm amazed that the problem of evil has the legs it does?"

5. As for your "think it over" argument, I invite you to participate in my next blog entry, entitled, "Which?" I'd be interested to see how you answer it, and it would help me better understand my worldview.

It was a pleasure talking with you,
-Existentialist

Rhology said...

Hi Existentialist,

You used to read BeggarsAll, eh?
How long ago?
Have you considered writing a "this is how I got where I am" post? Not that you HAVE to, of course! I'm just saying I'd be interested in knowing that.

Your questions are definitely worth reflecting on, so let's dive into them together. I would suggest that you consider limiting your consumption of poorly-thought-out blogs like many out there, such as Atheist Experience or Debunking Christianity. ChooseDoubt is better than those, but not much. Of course, the RRS is yet worse... it's hard to find thoughtful atheistic blogs out there. I guess this one might qualify, though I don't read it a ton.
Anyway...

Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because He commands something?

He commands what is in accord with His nature. He is the very definition of good.

for whatever God does would be good.

Right. He is the standard by which we measure "good" and "bad". On atheism there is no such standard.

This means if God were to lie (although I know He neither does lie and cannot lie, according to the Bible), it wouldn't be a sin

Such things can be asked in language but cannot be reflected in reality. Much like a square circle.
Discussing such first principles like this is fraught with a few problems, like this one.

Could you explain why morals must be rooted in God?

I'm not saying they MUST be. I'm saying that any moral that is anything more than the human or collection of humans saying "I like" and "I don't like" would have to appeal to a standard greater than those humans.
So the way I try to state it is: Atheism lacks any objective basis for morality.
I'd add that, given naturalistic evolution and that humans evolved from non-moral matter (ie, rocks), there is no reason in the slightest to think that morals are important or exist. This is the logical conclusion of atheism. A man is a monkey is a carrot is a collection of amino acids is a vat of chemicals is elements.
On Christianity, God gave the breath of life to living things and made man in His image. On atheism, man is made in the image of... oops.
Summary: if you want to make any moral statement beyond "I like that" or "I don't like that", you're going beyond what the atheistic worldview can support or account for.
And honestly, man can't live like that. Either he will live inconsistently with what he says he believes (and thus actually live like he thinks there's a Grand Right and a Grand Wrong) or he'll go down to despair and despondency. Sartre did both: the former in signing his name to a document condemning the French gov't's actions in Algeria, the latter when he said that the best option was suicide.

It could be just as easily said, "Without God, there is goodness and badness."

It could be SAID, yes. But could it be defended and justified?
How could that be justified?
Here's what I mean.

I rebel against that fact by asserting my own morals.

That's fine... for you.
But your morals stop at you. My own personal preferences may well include the moral mandate to kill you painfully. What can you say to that beyond "I'll try to stop you"?
Is it wrong?

What do you mean by, "I'm amazed that the problem of evil has the legs it does?"

B/c it's been shown over and over again to be flawed in its very question and almost always fatally undercuts the position of the critic mentioning it.

I look fwd to discussing more with you.

Peace to you,
Rhology

Existentialist said...

Rhology,

You used to read BeggarsAll, eh?

Not as much as I did Alpha&Omega Ministries, SFPulpit, or Justin Taylor's blog, but I did get around from time to time.

How long ago?

Last time I read it was probably October, but that's just because I got so caught up with school that I didn't have time to read any blogs.

Have you considered writing a "this is how I got where I am" post?

I was planning on getting around to it sometime, but as of right now, no time.

Which, sadly, is the reason I won't be responding to you right now. I did read your response, but I seriously need to get history homework finished that was actually due yesterday.

Existentialist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhology said...

Totally understood; I'm swamped as well and my blogging has to suffer.

I've got a subscription so I'll check in now and then. Talk to you soon!