Though I feel as if I could write continuously on this subject for days on end, I will attempt to limit myself to a brief introduction of the issue. I will contest the logical possibility of the standard conception of the Christian god. This is a theological challenge to Christianity, as opposed to a biblical, practical, or historical challenge. I will leave the latter three—quite persuasive—issues for another time for the sake of brevity and clarity. I believe this discussion is pertinent for people of all worldviews and religious affiliations. Without further ado: the problem of evil.
The Judeo-Christian god is often described as the “3-O god”—omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. In laymen’s terms, the 3-O god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. With these characteristics in mind, we look to the world around us for evidence of a god of this nature. One surprising fact should jump out at us: evil exists. “Evil” is quite the ambiguous term, so to classify this statement, I mean things such as pain and suffering do undeniably subsist. Things that we consider dreadful are indeed present in this world. If you have not already noticed, there is a logical predicament afoot. Let us look at the stipulated facts thus far.
• god is omniscient—god knows that evil exists
• god is omnipotent—god has the power to remove evil from the world
• god is omnibenevolent—god wants to remove evil from the world
• yet, evil exists
• Logically, a being that has the properties of the 3-O god cannot exist in a world in which evil exists.
• Therefore, the Judeo-Christian does not exist
This, in short, is the logical proof that the Christian god does not exist.
Theologians have attempted several responses to the problem of evil, which have been dismissed one after another quite simply. To mention a few, some make claims such as evil is merely a means to increased goodness or there really is no evil in the world. Instead of spending time dismantling these claims, I would rather take the time to refute the most popular move theologians make in order to refute the problem of evil: an appeal to the notion of free will.
The claim is evil exists because god gave us free will. The idea behind this is god has instilled all humans with free will, and in order for this to work, humans must be able to choose between good and evil. This is the classic tale of heaven versus hell, god versus Lucifer, and so on. Are you compelled by this argument? Let us look back at the characteristics of the 3-O god to help us understand why an appeal to free will actually fails miserably. Recall that the Christian god is supposedly omnipotent. This means that god is able to do anything. (Note that some theologians stipulate that omnipotence merely means the ability to do anything except contradict logic. However, this does not change anything here, I will explain why in a moment.) So, if god is able to do anything, why can he not give us free will and eliminate evil? Indeed this is perplexing. An omnipotent god that is unable to both give humans free will and eliminate evil?—not quite omnipotence, is it? Therefore, the 3-O god certainly should be able to eliminate evil while still providing humans with the lovely and coveted freedom of the will.
At this point, some may fallaciously argue that giving free will and eliminating evil contradicts logic—and therefore, since “omnipotence” for them means “the ability to do anything except contradict logic” god cannot eliminate evil while still giving humans free will. This is absolutely false. The 3-O god could easily create a world in which free will exists, yet it is intrinsic in human nature to always pick good over evil. In this world, evil only theoretically exists, it does not exist practically. This is not a logical contradiction and this is a world where free will exists and evil does not. Therefore, this last objection does not work either.
Admittedly, in order to avoid verbosity, I have not taken the time to refute every possible argument against the problem of evil. If you think that you have an argument that may potentially work, please feel entirely free to post your objection under the comments section, and I will address your concern promptly.
5.07.2005
the problem of evil and the impossibility of the Christian god
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
I agree that the literal God in Christianity is not valid in today's world. The concepts underlying the actual words and text though I believe can be formed to indicate a more relevant existence. I still can't quite get my head around the fact that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all supposed to be the same person...except not...
Owen, you have pinpointed another very controversial aspect of Christian theology—the holy trinity. Supposedly it is a “sacred mystery” that one can not understand, and must merely accept on blind faith. This goes quite well with the apophatic theology of Dionysius the Areopagite who’s writings were discovered by Orthodoxy in the 6th century. He described a ‘negative’ theology in which we as human beings can only understand god through what god is not—a sort of ‘sacred ignorance.’ Like you have said, I do not find this sort of thinking very compelling. If we are to follow this type of reasoning (or lack thereof), we should merely classify all things that do not make sense under the category of ‘sacred ignorance’ and simply accept these things on blind faith, as opposed to working progressively towards answers that make sense.
Kyle, it is absolutely lovely to have a dedicated academic such as yourself contributing to the discussion on this site. As you have correctly assessed, controversial discussion and learning are among the top priorities here at free cognition. To respond to your question, on whether or not this logical analysis applies to all conceptions of a “god” or a “higher being” whether it is Christianity or not—the answer is most certainly no. The problem of evil is directed precisely at the common conception of the Judeo-Christian god (the 3-O god). If a Christian is willing to say that the god they believe in is merely a 2-O god (for example, only omnipotent and omnibenevolent, not omniscient—in this case the god may be said to not know about the evil) then they are able to avoid the problem of evil. However, this is a sacrifice that most theologians are not willing to make, as sacrificing any one of the ‘O qualities’ makes the higher being less “godlike”. If someone wishes to have their own very disparate conception of god, that does not even fit into the O categories, then so be it. The problem of evil is not meant to thwart all spiritual and mystical beliefs.
Interesting topic. In Philosophy 101 our prof asked a basic question...
If God could create a rock only he could lift...would he still be omnipotent? Would he still be God?
If God created everything, then he also created evil and man's potential for evil. If he did not create evil...then some how he doesn't have power over it and he is therefore, not omnipotent.
As Marx said, "...It is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists." This is exactly what you are referring to, Kyle, and you are right on.
Or, if you would rather hear it from Russell: "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted."
In sum, question everything constantly and fiercly.
We do care. Please visit again soon for more interesting discussion!
Does cold exist, no. At absolute zero all matter is inert. There is a complete absence of heat or energy. Cold does not exist it is just an absence of energy.
Does darkness exist. No Darkness is just an absence of light.
Does evil exsist. I submit to you that what you call evil exsists only in the minds of men/women. God is all good. when men/women do not allow God in there hearts then there is an absence of good. Thus evil is merely an absence of God. Thus evil does not exist. God gave men/women the freewill to accept or reject Him. Those that accept Him know good. Those that reject Him know evil.
Final point in answer to the arguement "Why did God not make men/women with freewill with a predeposition to always choose good over evil?" This is in fact not freewill but altered freewill. Your arguement stands refuted
In Christ
Rob
Radlife,
I anticipated your exact argument and mentioned in my article that some theologians have attempted to use this type of assertion in order to refute the problem of evil. To quote from my original article, “…some make claims such as evil is merely a means to increased goodness or there really is no evil in the world.” You have chosen the latter route. I did not go into detail in refuting such an argument, as I was trying to be succinct. But, as promised, I will take the time now to discard this argument in depth, at your request. In short, your argument is as follows:
• god exists in all things
• evil is (by definition) the absence of god
• therefore, evil does not exist
There are two major flaws with your argument, and I am not sure which is the more compelling reason to not subscribe to this argument, I will let others decide.
Flaw one. The aim of the problem of evil is to disprove the existence of god (the 3-O god, to be precise). Thus, the goal in refuting the problem of evil is to prove the existence of god. Yet, you have assumed the existence of god in your proof for god (by stating as a premise that god exists in all things and by stating that evil is the absence of god). In doing this, you have committed the logical fallacy of begging the question two times over. Begging the question simply means that you assume that what you are trying to prove is true in your proof of that very thing. This is circular logic.
Flaw two. The claim that “evil does not exist” is a very difficult one to accept. Sure, it is true that the notion of “evil” is very ambiguous, but despite this ambiguity, I think we can be quite certain that we find things in this world that do not fall into the category of “good”—which is what the 3-O god is supposed to be. To name a few—and only a few to preserve decorum—things which we have a very hard time calling “good” include violent rape, genocide, and prolonged torture of innocent people. These things undeniably exist in the world today and have existed throughout history. If you wish to categorize these things as merely “good” things in disguise, I believe you have a serious detachment from reality. It is important that we view the world objectively. We must admit the bad just as readily as we glorify the good. There is no sense in lying to ourselves to mask reality.
Let me know if you have any further questions or objections to the problem of evil that may be slightly more persuasive, and I will be happy to explore them with you.
I don't have any enlightened comments to add. I just want to say What a marvelous discussion! I think Albert is right on!
First thing that was never addressed: What is evil?
There are basically two types of evil in this world - Natural and moral.
Natural evil is something like rain causing a mudslide that destroys a home and the people inside, or a tornado rumbling through a town, where moral evil is a being causing some sort of harm, hurt, or pain to another (Murder, rape, and a bunch of others come to mind).
"There is also a difference between being evil and inflicting evil. Just because someone inflicts evil on another person, does not make that person evil. An example of this might be when a teacher punishes a child in school for not doing his or her homework. Is that punishment a form of evil? This infliction of evil ultimately brings about good as it encourages the student to do better next time. Drawing from this example, the teacher would not be evil.
The laws of nature include things like gravity and a freezing point for water. When people jump off of a building they fall and usually hurt themselves and when water freezes people are sometimes endangered. Both of these laws of natures sometimes cause evil to befall some unlucky individual, but that’s just nature, right? How could an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God permit natural evil? An atheist would wonder why an all-powerful God wouldn’t create a world without evil."
Free will is the obvious answer and you havn't satisfied me with your rebuttle of it. This discussion is way to abstract to give it so many hard and fast rules. If a then b else c. Or if a, then b, which leads to the obvious conclusion of c. (:
There isn't a black and white, a clear cut 3 point argument like you have set up. Here we go:
Why should I try and be "good" if I had no definition and could do no evil? What would be the point? Why should I, or anyone, try to better themselves when they wouldn't be able to do evil to themselves or anyone else in the first place?
Naturual evil exists to keep our vitues from becoming non-existant. If no evil existed, what would happen to courage, fortitude, generosity, and kindness? All of these are abstract and go away when evil does not exist. How can we know what kindness is when no one can be "un-kind" to anyone else? How do we know what sour is when all we would know is sweet?
Again, free will is the answer. If I choose to shoot you, it is me who is evil, and not God. God allowed me the capacity to choose evil, but was not the cause of it. We aren't programmed and predetermined to do anything, just the capacity to do so, which is not evil.
I choose not to shoot you, and thus bring about the greater good. If I had no option to shoot you in the first place, is that good? For you yes, but how does that prove a love for a being that created you?
I could take this further, but I'll save it for later. Indeed, a very good discussion going on here. Thanks (:
Believing and choosing God comes by blind faith, just as you mentioned, Albert. We can sit and debate, and give analogies all day long, but what it comes down to is reality. I can give numerous stories of personal examples of why I believe there is a God.
"I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God that will ultimately guide and take care of me no matter what I do or do not understand about him."
I think personal testimonies would be outside the bounds of this discussion, however, if anyone would like to hear or carry the discussion that I've mentioned outside of here, email me. (Ir0nClad@hotmail.com) That is a zero.
Russ, you have raised several conventional “solutions” to the problem of evil, which I will address in turn. I thank you for raising these points as it gives me the opportunity to reveal their flaws, which I did not explicitly do in my original post. I want to begin, however, by saying that I think each alleged solution you have raised are supplanted by the notion that has already been raised by some previous responders: “evil does not exist.” I have already explained my objections to this type of claim; however, I must admit it holds more weight than any of the solutions that have been provided subsequently.
Your commentary is a bit of an eclectic objection to the problem of evil. It touches on several of the typical moves theologians make, but does not go through any of them in depth. I have tried my best to elicit the specific solutions you propose, so that I can sufficiently rebut them in an orderly fashion.
Solution One. Evil is a necessary means to good. For example, in order to have heroism, we need some sort of evil. This solution merely removes the omnipotence characteristic from the 3-O god. An omnipotent god would be able to make heroism possible without evil. So, unless you are willing to admit that god is not omnipotent, this solution does not work.
Solution Two. Evil is a necessary counterpart to good. This solution is faulty for two reasons. First, let us assume that if something is not good, then it is evil, and if something is not evil, then it is good. In other words, something must fall into either the category “good” or the category “evil”. This does not logically exclude the possibility that everything could fall into the category of good! An omnipotent god could easily make all things good, without having anything at all evil. How could we recognize that things are good without evil things to give us a sense of reference? Surely you do not think this is beyond an omnipotent god. Mr. 3-O can take care of this with no trouble at all. Thus, this solution is fallacious. Second, “good” and “evil” are merely counterparts in the same way that “fascist” and “communist” are counterparts. If somebody is not a fascist then they are not necessarily a communist. Similarly, if something is not “good” then it is not necessarily “evil.” Something may be morally neutral. Therefore, good and evil are not logical counterparts, and it is not necessary that evil exits in order for good to exist.
Solution Three. The world is a better place with evil in it. Now I am not entirely sure if you meant to say precisely this, but I will address this issue just in case. This type of response in similar to saying that “evil does not exist” except it is slightly less compelling, because in this case you admit that evil does exist in the world, yet it is the “best” possible world nonetheless. So, for example, you would tell a starving child that despite his suffering, he should still be happy because it is “for the best.” Obviously an omnipotent god does not need to cause suffering in order to elicit the best possible world. Mr. 3-O can easily create a world in which no suffering at all occurs.
Solution Four. Evil exists because god gave us free will. This is your main argument, I think. I addressed this claim in my original article, and showed it to be one that does not sufficiently solve the problem; however, I will revisit this issue in order to further quench your thirst. If you have studied the free will controversy at all, you know that the notion of free will itself is essentially incoherent. Otherwise said, it is impossible to prove that we actually have free will in the first place. This having been said, a plea to free will fails miserably on the face of it, but I am going to plough ahead anyways, and give you even more reasons to turn your back on the free will argument. This will be a bit repetitive for those of you who carefully read the initial article, so feel free to skip ahead. An omnipotent god could give us free will and still preserve the goodness of all things. Evil is not necessary to constitute the notion of free will. Mr. 3-O can very simply give us free will and inscribe it in human nature that we are always apt to choose goodness. Note that in this situation we are still choosing goodness—we still have free will, and there is no evil. Simply because our nature is such that we always choose goodness, does not take away our supposed free will. We currently are innately born with some sort of ‘human nature’, what I am talking about is merely a variation of the current version of human nature (see ‘Good Greg’ example below). Thus, it is absolutely possible to have free will without evil. Still skeptical? Well, for those of you who are persistent in your ignoring of logic, consider the following person. Good Greg is a human being. Good Greg has never committed an evil act in his life, because it was somehow ingrained in his nature to choose to do good at every turn. Good Greg has the free will to do whatever he wants. He simply wants and chooses to do good deeds whenever he possibly can. Good Greg has free will. Good Greg would live in the exact same way if he lived in a world without evil (it is the way he is, similarly I am the way I am, and you are the way you are, and so on). Good Greg demonstrates that a world where free will and the total absence of evil can coexist. Thus, for the several reasons that we have explored, an appeal to free will does not provide a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil.
Thank you again for giving us another look at these important issues.
Kyle, it seems you are alluding to the difference between Christians/Atheists (those who claim to know that god does or does not exist) versus Agnostics who withhold judgment pending entirely convincing evidence. It seems that you are leading towards an Agnostic worldview, though, based on what you have said thus far, I would venture to guess that your belief in a godlike being tips the balance towards religiosity instead of nontheism.
This is a very important distinction you have raised. While we are looking to prove or disprove the existence of god, we must remind ourselves to remain skeptical on all fronts. Stepping outside the bounds of the 3-O god (which I am convinced is an impossibility) theoretical agnosticism is plausible. However, I think the case for practical atheism is a very strong one. Practical atheism is the default position. If somebody tells me that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my closet, my default opinion on the matter is invisible-pink-unicorn-atheism. This holds true with claims of mysterious higher beings as well, for the exact same reasons. In order to move me to practical agnosticism or practical theism I need substantial evidence or reasoning to support such a bold transformation of position.
ps. stop posting and get to work!
Only kidding, please continue to post as time permits, your comments are refreshing and enjoyable.
You are absolutely correct wookiehobbit. But that day has already come. In fact, I would sooner believe in the Greek gods and goddesses before I would believe in the Christian god.
Polytheism is way, way cooler than monotheism. If Poseidon was angry with me, I could simply go to Athena for aid. As long as you stay on the good side of at least one of the gods, then you’re most likely in good shape. A counterargument to this is that in Christianity you can perhaps try to appeal to the holy spirit if the father becomes angry with you. This is a bit strange, like making friends with one personality of a person with multiple identity disorder, but not his other personalities. For example, lets say you are friends with Bob—who has multiple identity disorder—and while you are having a nice, pleasant lunch with Bob, his evil personality, Drake, decides to take control. Drake, being the evil personality that he is, shoves his salad fork in your eye. Not that pleasant of a lunch anymore, is it? Likewise, what if you were relaxing with the holy spirit on a lovely Sunday afternoon after a riveting sermon, and suddenly the father (or the son) decided to go after you with a salad fork? Risky business, if you ask me.
The problem of evil? How about the problem of ignorance? The problem of weakness? These are 2 main reasons people believe in God. 1) Ignorance: in the sense that God is the answer to questions that remain unanswered, such as what happens after death? 2) Weakness: in the sense of psychological weakness. For those who can't handle the cruel truths of this world will find comfort in religeon.
Kyle, I am not sure what you mean. Included as one of the O's of the 3-O god is the characteristic of "omnibenevolence" which means that god is all-good. So, essentially, you can not separate this notion of goodness from the 3-O god, because it is part of the very nature of this conception of god.
However, if we are to accept a 2-O god, who does not have the characteristic of omnibenevolence, then the problem of evil no longer applies. A 2-O god is not thwarted by the problem of evil. If you are willing to let go of one of the O’s then you have ‘solved’ the problem.
Kyle, you say, "In the area of Biblical scholarship, omnibenevolence is not a defensible 'O' since there are ample texts that suggest God is not "all-good" as we understand." This is not a typical Christian position, this is an open-minded position from a Christian scholar. I completely agree with you, omnibenevolence is not defensible in the least. However, that does not stop many Christians from proclaiming that the Christian god is such. You are not “most Christians” made clear by the fact that you have a PhD (this is not meant as an insult or anything of the sort, the fact of the matter is that most people in general do not have a PhD, so thus you are not “most Christians” but you are also not “most people” either). Thus, your opinion most likely differs from the opinion of the average Christian on many issues, and I think this is accentuated on this issue of omnibenevolence.
The “normal” or “usual” conception of the Christian god is the 3-O god with omnibenevolence. As I said, most Christians consider god to be infinitely “good”. Omnipresence or infiniteness is an added bonus, merely reminding them that god exists in all things. The problem of evil is aimed at attacking the 3-O god with omnibenevolence, not the 3-O god with omnipresence, which you have stated is the god you subscribe to. So, in so far as you wish to swap omnipresence for omnibenevolence, you can avoid the problem of evil.
A lot of the theories here are intellectually impressive. I feel inferior in commenting, because I'm sure I do not have as much knowledge on such things as the rest of you. However, faith is something I do have. I am a firm believer in who you are referring to as the 3-O God. I've never before heard a believer, such as Kyle, say that evil does not exist. Such a claim is brave and quite a stretch. However, I agree with his theory that evil is a merely a lacking of the acceptance of God. I believe that God is fully capable of doing anything and everything He desires. This debate you have going on about God's control of free will and of a world without evil is complicated, and I'm glad to see that it is being addressed with the seriousness needed. I believe that God has given us free will, because he wanted people to worship him out of their own desire. If people did not have the choice, it would be none other than a glorified game of Sims. As I have said, I doubt my intellect compares to that of yours, but it is not my intellect that has gotten me this far in life; it is my faith in an Almighty God, Redeemer of my soul. There is a book called 'Understanding the Times' by David A. Noebel that I found very enlightening on the subject of worldviews. I strongly suggest that anyone with an intrest in these matters read it. Perhaps it can be of some assistance in your debate here. This concludes my comment. Thank-you for this, it has my mind moving again, and God bless.
You are correct in that the 4th argument is what I was aiming for.
First, God did create a world where there was no evil, this very place, and Adam was given a choice of obedience. This whole topic (barring the fact that not everyone beleives the bible in the first place) is sooo much deeper than eating a forbidden fruit, but I digress. From there, humanity was pretty much screwed after that choice, and God made up for it with Jesus. But before I get off on a tangent... back to the "will" issue.
In my opinion, free "will" is more than just having options available to you. If you provide an 8 year old kid with spinach, brocoley, or cabbage, these would all be what I would think most people consider "good" choices, as in healthy. Assuming the child knows nothing but those three choices, we have the "Good Greg" scenario. Likewise on the flip side of Good Greg living in an evil world, what if the little kid was only given those three options but he really willed for brownies, cake, or icecream?
I believe limiting someone's options , either by ignorance (not revealing ), or by giving them the option, but not letting them follow through would not be in the scope of free "will"
If the only options I had were to give you a hug, shake your hand, or give you a nice complement, that would be great, but if I also have the option to punch you and I choose to shake your hand, it makes that choice even better.
Having free will is not just about the choices we make alone, its about having the ability to choose something from all currently known, available options.
Which is more evil?
God allowing human beings to have the capacity to do every concievable "bad" thing (He could be restricing options since we dont know quite frankly), OR restricting the options such that no one would have the capacity to "will" for a greater good?
A computer program has choices. It can randomly pick by the options it is given. If programmers would write the code such that it could do anything it wanted, say have the mouse randomly go down if you pushed the mouse forward, then I would say the computer would have a free "will" because it is choosing to disobey what I want.
It's a power of wills. God wants you to follow His will, but gives you the option not to, thus evil.
I for one would go absolutely nuts and send my mouse to hell if I moved it to the left and it zigzagged to the right...
I think you get my point...
That was me ^^
"The problem of evil? How about the problem of ignorance? The problem of weakness? These are 2 main reasons people believe in God. 1) Ignorance: in the sense that God is the answer to questions that remain unanswered, such as what happens after death? 2) Weakness: in the sense of psychological weakness. For those who can't handle the cruel truths of this world will find comfort in"
I made this post in another forum and it applies to these questions I think (:
"I'm 6'0, 240 lbs, can bench 250 lbs, curl 60, run 3 miles a day, and am a downright badass. In addition to my physical abilities, I posses a degree in software engineering, know 9 different programming languages, can read a 400 page novel in under a week, and am working on my masters degree in math. I also have a woman and what I consider to be a great social life.
Now, take this little description that I made of myself and what do you think? Am I weak? Did I say that to make you somehow feel inferior so you would see it my way? What if I'm lying to you? What if I'm not? What if Albert could vouch for me? Would it change your opinion of me.. that I'm 'weak' because I believe that Jesus is God?
Just like that little description, you missed the point of my math analogy. The point was we are all taught something and then expand upon it. Would you have prefered I used a subject like history in stead? It has a few more similarities, but I was trying to convey the different point.
I find it funny that you consider people who use religion as a copout for the real 'truth.' What is it about this world that there is to find out? Do I need to be a scientist or a great philosopher and write 5 books about the meaning of it all before my opinion about Jesus can be taken seriously?
All of that aside, what is wrong with believing in something that doesn't exist, as you say? Is it because you are jealous that I am living a happier life by not being depressed about the impending doom, that is death? If it's not, then why do you feel so strongly that I break 'free' of my religious ties? So I can come join you and play in the dirt to discover the meaning of how the world was created?
It's all about perspective and what people need. Men need sex, to be physically active with someone. Women need affection and someone to talk to. Different needs... different perspective (Bet ya didnt see that analogy coming :P )
If I think ignorance is bliss, then what's it to you? Why do you feel the need to degrade people and call them 'weak' because they have come to a different conclusion on life than you have? Is that not what the religious hypocrites have been doing since the begining of time? If you could provide me with this 'truth' and show me how it can make me a better person and enjoy life more, I'm all ears. If the response is that I need to look for it myself, then my answer is I've already found it.
Perspective. If you would like a few examples of how I've come to that conclusion, then I would be more than happy to share. (: "
I really should register :X
“Do u beleive you simple die and that's it, ur done? That to me is a very depressing thought. Do u beleive you simple die and that's it, ur done? That to me is a very depressing thought.”
Here’s an even more depressing thought. The majority of people in the world will be forced to endure eternal hellfire after they die. If this is anything like the Bible describes, I would surely rather nonexistence than ceaseless suffering and torture. It is interesting that you describe a non-Christian worldview as “depressing”, because, quite contrarily, I consider very few worldviews more depressing than Christianity. Think about it. If Christianity is indeed true, then the vast majority of people that have died are currently suffering in eternal hellfire, and the vast majority that have not yet died, will soon be suffering in eternal hellfire. A very small minority of people, namely Christians, will be the select few luxuriously living in Heaven. I can think of nothing more disheartening than this type of worldview. Yet another reason that I do not understand why somebody would subscribe to this type of thinking—when you think about it carefully and sincerely, it is far too horrifying.
God created man, man created evil? That doesn't make sense. At the very least you have to say that God gave man the ability to be evil. And in doing so allowed the creation of evil. Therefore..if God can create evil by creating beings who are evil (humans who choose evil over good) can God be all good?
Free will is a sticky wicket. Even the idea that God is Omniscient and therefore knows what we are going to do before do it suggests that free will cannot exist. You could say that from the very beginning of time God has known what path each and everyone of us is going to take. And if that is so does that not mean that our choices have already been determined? If this is so...then our choice to do evil has also been determined, and God created us anyway and therefore created evil.
Or, would you argue..God knows what choices we're going to make...he's already seen it..he created man anyway..so he knowingly allowed evil by creating evil men. Can a being that allows the creation of evil be good?
Oh, and, I think towards the end of your last comment, PlaysWithSquirels, you made an appeal to what is known as Pascal's Wager. Essentially, the wager claims, there are two possibilities. (1) Christianity is true and Christians will go to heaven, or (2) Christianity is false and there is no god or afterlife. So, Pascal hastily concludes, it makes sense to pick door number one, because if you are right, you get a nice long vacation in paradise, whereas if you are wrong, nothing happens. However, if you pick door number two, and you are wrong, then you suffer eternal hellfire. So, it makes perfect sense to pick door number one, right? Wrong.
This is a very well known example of a fallacious argument. It is guilty of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma--fallaciously assuming that there are only two possibilities, namely doors one and two, as described above, when there are actually many, many more (an infinite amount). What about door number three, which behind it stands a god that awards skeptics and atheists with eternal paradise, and condemns all Christians to eternal hellfire. What about door number four, which behind it stands a god that awards all vegetarians to a life of never ending bliss, while all carnivorous people are sentenced to horrible torture. Pascal ignores the infinite possibilities, thus making his Wager completely and utterly absurd.
Here, let me use your wager against you. My religion says there are two possibilities. Either (1) Atheists are rewarded with a lot of candy after death and everyone else is tortured forever and ever, or (2) we all go poof into nonexistence. Well, what are you going to pick, huh? Come on, what will it be, the possibility of candy land or the possibility of torture? Pick!
So, as you can see, this type of "gamble" is ridiculous.
I think you are missing a key point here and that is the matter of surplus evil. There is no problem with the concept of a Judeo-Christian God and evil but there is a problem with a Judeo-Christian God and surplus evil.
Here is a slighty expanded argument.
1)God exists
2)If God exists God is omnibenevolent
3)If God exists God is omnipotent
4)God is omni benevolent
5)God is omnipotent
6)And omni benevolent being would want to eradicate evil unless the presence of that evil led to a greater good
7)An omnipotent being could do everything it wanted to do
8)God wants to eradicate surplus evil
9)God does eradicate surplus evil
10)However surplus evil exists
11)Thus 9,10 contradict
12)Thus 1, 2, or 3 do not hold
The key here is to find an act of surplus evil.
As for the defence against the problem of evil.
"humans must be able to choose between good and evil"
I think you have this slightly wrong. The idea behind the freewill defense is that God gives us free will so that we can have the choice to love him. It is out of our free will in which evil arises.
I personally take more of an eastern approach to the concept of God. It seems to me that the western approach to the justification of God comes around from a bunch of people crafting arguments to support their preconcieved notions of what God should be. It's out of these arguments trying to justify the existence of God that the problem of evil arises.
As for pascals wager I believe he had 4 choices
God Exists - You believe
Infinite payoff
God Exists - You don't believe
Infinite loss
God Doesn't exist - You believe
finite loss
God Doesn't exist - You don't believe
finite gain
"Here’s an even more depressing thought. The majority of people in the world will be forced to endure eternal hellfire after they die."
I think you are making the mistake of creating a blanket judgement on Christian beliefs. I most certainly do not subscribe to the theory that hell is fire and brimstone or that it is eternal. I'll leave that to the tele-evangelists and right wing conservitave fanaticals out there. There is a big problem with people picking and choosing what is right and wrong and taking a literallistic approach to religion. Not just Christianity but in all religions.
It's just as wrong though, as an academic, to use those falsehoods in your arguments against them.
Of course this is comming from someone who would not be considered a "Christian" by the vast majority of literalistic bible thumpers out there.
So, then the question arises, “what is a Christian?” I indeed could consider someone who does not believe in hell a Christian (see “Why I Am Not A Christian” by Bertrand Russell). However, you saying that I am ‘making a mistake with a blanket judgment’ is slightly off the mark, if you read his post. I was referring to his question, which was something to the effect “Don’t you think becoming nonexistent after death is worse than eternal hellfire?”
Yes, in Pascal's Wager there are four supposed outcomes. But, only two possibilities as to if there is a god or not (Christian god or no god). See my above comment for a detailed description of the Wager.
Your new, notion of “surplus evil” is merely superfluous. Surplus evil, evil, whatever you want to call it, your ‘new’ version of the problem of evil is merely a restating of the initial one. Tacking on the word ‘surplus’ does not change anything, nor does it avoid any possible critiques or anything like that. The same critiques meagerly hold (“evil does not exist”) and the same critiques assuredly fail (free will appeals, and so on).
<~Took no offense, but still have a few questions. (This is not in an angry tone, but really asking these questions)
Why are you mad? What argument was used that was so offensive that it has your blood boiling and stressed out?
If neither of us know what is going to happen after we die, why would you consider it weak of me to dedicate my life to helping others find what I beleive is the right thing to do? Have you even been on the other side of the fense? Do you know how hard it is?
I had a bunch more to say, but I figured stop here.
Again, you never answered the original questions posted (which were not all rhetorical), but rather just posted a rant, for which a reason isn't apparent (to me at least).
Werd...
BLEH, I re-read your post, but I still don't understand why it made you mad?
So we choose to build upon something that someone else has already established. So do you, why be all upset about it?
Albert,
I've not read the other comments regarding your essay, so forgive me if this point has already been made.
The problem with your thesis, or rather your 'proof', is that you have separated the notion of "good" from the notion of "God"; this runs directly counter to any notion of Christian "goodness". Here's what I mean:
Stanley Fish has said that the toughest thing about teaching Milton to undergraduates is this: it's not that God is Good, it's that Good is God. 'Good' is, for a Christian, a concept that cannot be understood apart from God.
An example: if God were to strike you down on the street tomorrow afternoon, and bring upon you a terrible and painful and long death, that would be good.
Too: remember that what defines Satan is not that he is "evil" in some human, or logical, way, but rather that he opposes God. He is "The Great Opposer". Thus, "evil" is defined negatively, as 'what is against God'.
To continue the example: were Satan to try and save you on the street tomorrow afternoon, while God were striking you down, he would still be "evil" and God would still be "good", regardless of how you perceived things (which would likely be the direct opposite).
So: whatever God does is good. Period. This is the defining logic of any Christian conception of God. Hence, "evil" does not exist because of sin, or because of human weakness, etc., and it does not create any logical contradictions, either; "evil" is merely that which opposes God.
Oh, and by the way: I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic. This isn't my position, and I'm not offended or anything like that. These points simply needed to be made.
Take care,
A. J. Patrick Liszkiewicz
Albert,
I've extended my comments a bit further on my blog. I'd welcome any thoughts you, or anyone else, might have.
(again, not in an angry tone, just stating a rebuttal :X)
I'm uncomfortable with you calling me weak, even though it was just a generalization and thus me being in the category, when I am not.
How do you know that I believe without support? Are we talking about support as in the laws of physics and other hard facts that can be proven, or are we talking support as in, who are we listening to, to get us started? If so, I would contend (rather convincingly I might add) that as much as we have achieved in terms of science comes closer to proving that God does exist. Before I totally get off on a bunny trail, back to the discussion.
What makes you think that I follow the herd-morality? What do you think that herd-morality is? I would be considered VERY liberal in terms of current church and christian values - but you can't know that becuase you don't know me. So why are you passing judgement when you claim to be objective?
I agree that we should question what we have been taught, and continue to question what we believe in so that we can further convince ourselves or move on from certain issues. Not that I consider myself part of the "herd-morality," which I don't even think our definitions of that would match, but even so, how do you KNOW it to be false?
Again, you don't know anything about ANY of us, yet you throw a generalization around (which is part of the problem with internet blogs such as these) and group us all together. The discussion started off as objective, with nothing but logic, and you made it personal, which can't be done because you don't know any of us personally.
You say that truth is not among the "herd" mentality, and then move on to an example. You havn't provided us with the real truth, you've just thrown a generalization of what you believe to NOT be true, which isn't objective or raises any questions.
You then go on to compare religion as it is now to slavery - and as such, I agree with you. Religion as it is now is bad and needs to go away. Again, sounding like a broken record, I'm uncomfortable with the personal nature and assumptions of your posts when you are doing nothing but making generalizations. If you knew me, how I acted, and what I really believed, and then specifically came to me and said look, this, this, and this makes you look like a fool, then I wouldn't be upset at all because you are challenging me to come up to a higher level of understanding or strengthen my faith as it is (devils advocate, which was nicely said by albert).
My beliefs aren't built on imaginary assumptions, as you insinuated from your post. You state that yours is based on logical conclusions, but you state none, and in stead continue plowing through on what you've already said. I thought that people of faith had to take it as blind no matter where you start from since God can neither be proven or disproven. What is the "true ground" or the real foundation that you talk about?
Perhaps if we had a few examples, from the "ocean of lies, mistaken assumptions, crippling self-imposed limitations, and mindless subservience to another man's idealogy founded on invisible toothpicks" we could discuss them much like this topic started off. However, I think that we should start a new thread for those (:
All of this posting looks like I'm trying to have the last word, but I just feel like throwing a different side out from what people bring up :X
(again, not in an angry tone, just stating a rebuttal :X)
I'm uncomfortable with you calling me weak, even though it was just a generalization and thus me being in the category, when I am not.
How do you know that I believe without support? Are we talking about support as in the laws of physics and other hard facts that can be proven, or are we talking support as in, who are we listening to, to get us started? If so, I would contend (rather convincingly I might add) that as much as we have achieved in terms of science comes closer to proving that God does exist. Before I totally get off on a bunny trail, back to the discussion.
What makes you think that I follow the herd-morality? What do you think that herd-morality is? I would be considered VERY liberal in terms of current church and christian values - but you can't know that becuase you don't know me. So why are you passing judgement when you claim to be objective?
I agree that we should question what we have been taught, and continue to question what we believe in so that we can further convince ourselves or move on from certain issues. Not that I consider myself part of the "herd-morality," which I don't even think our definitions of that would match, but even so, how do you KNOW it to be false?
Again, you don't know anything about ANY of us, yet you throw a generalization around (which is part of the problem with internet blogs such as these) and group us all together. The discussion started off as objective, with nothing but logic, and you made it personal, which can't be done because you don't know any of us personally.
You say that truth is not among the "herd" mentality, and then move on to an example. You havn't provided us with the real truth, you've just thrown a generalization of what you believe to NOT be true, which isn't objective or raises any questions.
You then go on to compare religion as it is now to slavery - and as such, I agree with you. Religion as it is now is bad and needs to go away. Again, sounding like a broken record, I'm uncomfortable with the personal nature and assumptions of your posts when you are doing nothing but making generalizations. If you knew me, how I acted, and what I really believed, and then specifically came to me and said look, this, this, and this makes you look like a fool, then I wouldn't be upset at all because you are challenging me to come up to a higher level of understanding or strengthen my faith as it is (devils advocate, which was nicely said by albert).
My beliefs aren't built on imaginary assumptions, as you insinuated from your post. You state that yours is based on logical conclusions, but you state none, and in stead continue plowing through on what you've already said. I thought that people of faith had to take it as blind no matter where you start from since God can neither be proven or disproven. What is the "true ground" or the real foundation that you talk about?
Perhaps if we had a few examples, from the "ocean of lies, mistaken assumptions, crippling self-imposed limitations, and mindless subservience to another man's idealogy founded on invisible toothpicks" we could discuss them much like this topic started off. However, I think that we should start a new thread for those (:
All of this posting looks like I'm trying to have the last word, but I just feel like throwing a different side out from what people bring up :X
God is a bit like Darth Vader. One minute he's building people-things, then the next it's like what's with that, man?
yeah.
I say we start a new religion with WAY cooler stories than Greek, Christian and Norse combined!
I'll start! One day, Landorf made a huge piece of crap somewhere in the universe and that's what we call Earth.
You'll like this, wookiehobbit: invisible pink unicorn.
I believe everyone is missing the key points to everyones blog comments. People are saying "what if this" "what if that" that "this isnt true" and "that is true". Honestly noone knows for sure what the heck they are talking about. Here we are with all of these religions in the world today. You have Muslum, Christianity, Catholics, a whole lot of religions. In the Christian bible there were prophets. But look at any other bible or theory, you have your prophets, you gods, and basically what other people made up of. We are all born and raised with our beliefs. If everyone in here has stated either what kind of food they like, everyone would probably have different kinds of food they like. Some might like the same kind, lets say pizza , therefore catagorizing you into a group that likes pizza. Then you have your group that absolutely despises pizza. It is like that in Religion. You have your groups that believe in god and jesus, you have other groups believing in budda, and you have your groups believing there is no god, and other groups with different beliefs.
As to getting to a point, we all have our different beliefs to what we understand things and to what we believe in. This is not a wrong thing, but it isn't a right thing as well. Its not a wrong thing because it is voicing on what you think, of what you believe in. It is also a wrong thing just for the fact because you basically want proof that there is an existance of some god, or of some being, or just to simply prove that there is no such thing.
Another point is the thought of god or by other peoples standards, gods. We are all alive, through thousands of years humanity has existed. We are born, grow up, either accomplish something or at least do something for someone, then we die. When usually we are living, we think of unusual things. But how through all of these years, has either one or more groups, keep to their gods and not change them or their stories to their gods? I mean this is the modern age now, and we could all enhance our gods to where we could actually get other people to believe in them, but why not? Because I think there is a god, but the people throughout the history had a different image of him, and described him as something else. For some of you that believe in god, noone knows what he looks like. So therefore people make generalizations on what he looks like. Now for those who dont believe in god, think of it this way. What is the thing that is considered to be inside of our body? Its our soul, our conscious, or however you spell it. When you do something, you either get a sense that is right or wrong. Why is this? I believe when you do something right, god shines down upon you, even though you might regret making the right choice, god is shining down on you. Now when you make a bad choice, satan is laughing cause he knows he's winning over you, and thats why you feel either bad, or in a sense good cause in a way you want to be bad, either case, the devil is winning over you. My main point to this....is how everyone in the world...especially when there has been no contact and then you find someone to get into contact....believe in the same concept? Like with the indians, they believe in the great spirit. Christians believe in god and Jesus. They say the mind is complexed and noone can be exactly the same. But then why do we have our gods? I believe we have ONE god cause when he sends down his angels to talk to people, people assume they are gods of a different kind. This is what I think and what I believe to be the best possibility.
My last key issue is on how people are saying that they dont believe in god, where are we going to go? I do not know where I am going to go. May it be heaven or may it be hell, but me myself as an individual believe there are such places. How else can we explain the demons and the angels in our lives? How else can we explain the miracles? How else can we explain the miraculous things that happen in our lives that seem to be the impossible? I do not know what people will think of this comment, but this is what I believe in, and noone else can make me think different.
okay wasnt my last comment...but now here is my last comment for now
but about the whole thing about if there is a god...and that the majority of people will suffer in hell for all eternity? well people wont have to suffer in hell for all eternity if they were only true to god and actually ask for forgiveness, and to actually forgive those who have sinned against you. In this i believe you are wrong, but yet right. See the people in majority will suffer in hell for all eternity because they dont ask for forgiveness, and because of our sins, how can we go to heaven? we have to ask for forgiveness to be allowed to go to heaven, and actually mean what we say. This is all i have to say for now.
Your right. Maybe there is no heaven and hell, maybe we aren't even alive, maybe swiss cheese isn't swiss cheese. But look at it from this point of view. We are alive. We have thoughts. We think, we eat, we solve, we conquer, we help, we do every single thing we are able to do with our limits. But you got to consider, why would we have these thoughts and these feelings? Is it all for nothing? Or do we actually have purpose? Think about that...
“I think, therefore I am” is a fallacious argument. It is circular logic. Descartes assumes “I” in the premise, which is what he is trying to prove. This is also known as begging the question.
• “I” think
• therefore, “I” am
While Descartes was a revolutionary thinker in many ways, he was widely unsuccessful in his attempts at logical proofs. This is not to say that he did not have significant and important influence on other thinkers; however, it is to say that we can not use his erroneous arguments as evidence of any fundamental truths.
We do not know why or how we live. there is a saying "How do you know we exist. Maybe we don't exist?" We could have known someone and just forget about them sure. Then that means in your mind they don't 'exist' anymore. You do not know who anyone exists until you actually meet the person. And honestly we could disappear tomorrow, and we wouldn't know, but would that really matter since it is all for nothing then? We are pondering over what is reality and what is illusion, or just mere thought. But yet how can you explain our history? How can you explain our heros and of all of our great battles, and of the timeline that we live in? Noone can really tell anything about anything really. Just like they kept saying that chocolate was bad for you, then they say its good for you, then bad again, then say that dark chocolate is good for you, and other chocolate is bad. See we keep making assumptions over the possibilities. What you have said is a possibility, what I have said is a possibility, what basically everyone here has said has been a possibility or one of their theorys. We do not know, therefore we will never know until we either do disappear, or until we do die and go somewhere. Or it depends, some of you might actually find god in your life and finally know he is real. Thats all i have to say for now.
Yeah but see Plays with squirrels, you can actually doubt that you have a consciousness. Look at all of those cold blooded killers out there. They kill little children like as if they were killing dummys, and with no problems with it either, some even take it as a profession. and not only that, what if we were a dream? what if we were someone elses dream but yet we can still feel pain and emotions? maybe that is why sometimes we dont know why but at times we are happy, sad, mad, depressed, or just silly when we wake up. or sometimes when we have dreams ourselves when they are so real. whos to say we are not dreaming ourselves? we do not know therefore we can not clearly state that it is doubtful or that it is plain to see. At least this is what I think.
Who knows, that may be the case, it may not. But just for the fact is, if we are just conciousness, then we still exist for we exist in either someone elses mind, for by the fact that we are just zeros and ones for the computer.
A fair request, PlaysWithSquirels. I will work on another post which deals with a similar subject matter. It is absolutely lovely to see such sincere, honest, and open discussion about an interesting and controversial topic.
Where in the Bible does it say God is "omni-benevolent"? Surely this flies in the face of half of the OT and much of the NT. Why, indeed, did God "forsake" Jesus while he was nailed to the cross?
Of course you can just use the easy answer and say "he works in mysterious ways", but I don't remember reading anywhere that he ever claims to be "omni-benevolent" like you say. If you could provide a quote, I'd appreciate it. :)
Berriz says, Owen, you have pinpointed another very controversial aspect of Christian theology—the holy trinity. Supposedly it is a “sacred mystery” that one can not understand, and must merely accept on blind faith.”
Actually, Jesus told his disciples that they were all his brothers, sisters and mothers. What does that mean? If God the Father = Jesus = the Holy Spirit, and brothers = sisters = mothers = Jesus, what are we, then?
I think part of what Jesus was trying to do was tell the world exactly what’s going on in this thread. He went out of his way to challenge the religious leadership of his time. I think that’s one of the things I love about this guy: he was a rebel. He drank. He partied. He told the leadership where to stick it. And he did it all to teach us how to live.
Now I’m preaching. Bad Andrew! No biscuit!
At any rate, in my opinion, the answer behind the “sacred mystery” lies in our relationship with God. In Eastern thought, we are all extensions of God, and are “discovering ourselves” as God. This goes in line with Jesus comparing himself to his disciples. As he is the Son of God, so are we all Sons and Daughters of God. Equal to Jesus. The concept of the Trinity can only be resolved if you accept the Eastern way of thinking, that we are all an ‘atom’ of God, as it were.
This, of course, flies in the face of the concept of a traditional Judeo-Christian God, which is where I think this post was going before I had to open my fat yap.
As for dropping one of the “O”s (a 2-O God vice a 3-O God), would it be benevolent to not interfere with the affairs of man? If God kept on trying to save us from our own follies, would we ever learn anything? There’s that old cliché about “teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.” What if that’s God’s idea of “benevolence?”
radlife said, “God gave men/women the freewill to accept or reject Him.” Therein is the point. Free will. God gave us free will to make decisions. Basing again off of Eastern thought, we have this “free will” to learn more about who we are and how we are a part of Him (or Her or IT depending on your point of view). When we choose to not search for Him and keep him from our hearts, and thusly perform evil in some way; it is God’s hope we learn from the consequence of our actions. Experience is an excellent teacher, and it is for that reason that God does not interfere or stop “evil.” I think it would be a greater evil if God interfered so that we did not learn and grow.
But now we no longer have a Judeo-Christian God, in the classic sense. Imagine that. Is this where we were going? I could’ve missed something. I see we’ve delved into the nature of existence… ;-)
Finally, as my time is now limited (doh), a quote from Dave: “Where in the Bible does it say God is "omni-benevolent"? Surely this flies in the face of half of the OT and much of the NT. Why, indeed, did God "forsake" Jesus while he was nailed to the cross?” Answer: John 3:16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son… etc. I don’t remember the rest of it. I’m going to hell. And let’s remember that the Bible is only God-inspired. God Himself didn’t sit down in front of Microsoft Word XP and start typing. Man wrote it, inspired by God (and what Jesus said). And then, in his quest for power and control over the minds of men (and women), threw his own slant into it.
Post a Comment