[moderator’s note: Nonlin.org produced this at about the same time as his “Miracles” post. I delayed this, so that they could be discussed one at a time. I’m now publishing this one.]
[a note to nonlin – if all of your post is one block, it is hard to add a “more” break. Maybe a short introductory sentence as a first block would make that easier]
- “Problem of evil” is supposed to disprove God because,
• a) A God that is all powerful would be able to prevent evil.
• b) A God that is all knowing would know that evil happens.
• c) A God that is all loving wouldn’t want evil to happen and would take needed action to stop it.
• d) Evil happens.
• e) Since evil happens, these statements are contradictory.
• f) An all powerful, all knowing and all loving god cannot exist while evil continues.
Although short, this argument fails repeatedly:
• c) A God that is all loving wouldn’t want evil to happen, but would not necessarily take needed action to stop it due to other, higher reasons.
• d) Evil happens only in a theist universe. The true materialist would not believe in evil, hence this whole argument proposed by him/her would be meaningless and self defeating.
• e) There is no contradiction given the c. and d. counterarguments.
• f) Because there is no contradiction per e. counterargument, f. does not follow.
• g) And f. would not follow even if a. to e. were true, because the conclusion may miss some unspecified additional evidence, such as the fact that the human brain is not good enough to judge God, rendering this and many other such arguments false throughout. - How would we know ‘the good’ without ‘the evil’? We wouldn’t! Therefore Evil is inescapable as experiences are continuously normalized to include good and bad. There’s always a ‘too cold/too hot’, ‘too loud/too quiet’, ‘too much/too little death (who wished historical tyrants lived longer?)’, and so on. Whatever the range, there’s always an extreme good/bad. Cut the range in half and, what was moderate before, becomes extreme. Therefore, God tolerates the [necessary] evil to a certain extent and for a good reason, also as part of the free will deal He offered mankind. For those that say “there’s no need for this much evil”, the question is: “ok, then how much evil should there be?” In addition, the Book of Job clearly explains that it is not up to the lowly humans to second guess God. Those that did not understand this (Nazis, Communists, Eugenists, and many more) have tried to do better than God. But their dreams of evil-free societies invariably turn into nightmares full of evil.
- Evil should mean nothing to the materialist because of the determinism belief (despite the clearest experimental evidence that determinism is dead). And this is the REAL Problem of Evil. A problem only materialists should face since, according to any coherent materialist, not only were Stalin, Mao, Hitler not evil, but they also had no choice due to determinism. Yet mankind insists on calling those individuals evil and with good reasons. Seeing this dilemma, some argue for word substitution – suffering to evil – not noticing that the argument would thus go from bad to ridiculous. After all, God let Adam and Eve know ‘suffering’ will happen after the Original Sin transgression, and most people accept “no pain no gain”, hence suffering for a good reward. Others claim evil makes sense in “humanist morality”, clearly forgetting that, as determinists, they shouldn’t have the free will to do anything morally or immorally, just as stones and animals do not abide by any moral standards. Hume got this one thing right: you can’t derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’, therefore good and evil are incompatible with materialism.
- Is the concept of Evil just a human “evolutionary” adaptation? That doesn’t work because ‘ought’ was derived from ‘is’. The “original ought-is sin” is when materialists imagine the first RNA randomly happening and then, hocus-pocus, “evolution” with its ‘oughts’ takes over. The second is when we see no evil in the lion eating the gazelle alive, or the wasp turning the cockroach into a zombie food supply, the weasel killing all the chickens, peer violence, or even cannibalism, and infanticide. Yet we see evil in the human behaving like these (although infanticide against the unborn is OK – go figure). We do not need the concept of evil to avoid harm. But, aside from the mentally impaired, psychopaths, and a few hypothetical primitive cultures that supposedly do not know evil, all modern humans including the materialists know and oppose evil. Even communists are for “social justice” and fascists for the improvement of society, eugenists for the betterment of mankind and abortionists for “choice”. Not one of these stands for evil despite killing and persecution of the innocent. All these go to great length to hide, and minimize their evil deeds and often argue that – in fact – their opponents are the evil ones. “Sure, you have to break a few eggs to make omelet, right”? “But that’s not evil” is their argument.
I never bought into the “problem of evil” argument. It isn’t going to persuade any theist to give up theism.
This is nonsense. Humans categorize. This is just an example of such categorizing.
Also nonsense. Materialists categorize, just as do other humans. And, as far as I can tell, materialists are not all determinists.
I’m inclined to see it as a social adaptation rather than an evolutionary adaptation. That we are a social species is an evolutionary adaptation. That we categorize into good and evil is part of a social practice and varies between cultures.
Here we go again. Previously, reification of “miracle” without a coherent definition. Now the same with “evil”. Define “evil” as a noun.
That’s true, but you can tell many theists are bothered by it, and try to come to terms with it. It’s not a trivial issue.
ETA: and Nonlin comes to terms with it, by dedicating most of their OP to “you have no right to bring this up”
Perhaps you can say what “evil” is.
I might not be the best person to formulate one, but here goes;
An act of evil is a voluntary act taken by an agent or person with the intent of, or disregard for, the hurting of another being, against the moral criteria observed by that person or the community it is part of.
That’s a horrible definition, because I already wrote my own moral standards into it, but it’s better than nothing. At least, it lets us focus on moral evil.
Thanks for that and that illustrates the problem for me. You’ve had to switch to describing evil (as an adjective) acts. This use is common vernacular where “evil” equates with “very bad”, “diabolical” and so on. But can there be “evil” as a separate thing? I think evil acts can be judged on a social scale. Rather than binary good or bad, there is a scale of utterly selfish (cooking and eating babies for pleasure) through co-operative to selfless and altruistic. But evil as a noun? Meaningless!
Not seeing the problem: goodness, length, and tastyness are all nouns describing some continuous property that is commonly expressed as an adjective. Still, there can be good people, long roads and tasty foods. What’s the problem?
There’s a problem with goodness, for a start. Length can certainly be quantified but goodness?
But your word -tastiness- describes what? Is the concept a property of food or of our sense of taste?
Actually, adding -ness to evil sort of solves and also highlights the problem. At least it clarifies whether one is discussing behaviour of sentient beings and their acts or talking about a concept deriving from binary religious ideas of God and the Devil personifying good and bad/evil.
If evil acts can be judged on a social scale, then so can good acts, no?
Sorry, lost in translation. Tasty = yummy. Yes, that depends on subjective taste (just like morality).
God is both a moral being and a symbol of good, which is one of the reasons why the problem of evil is such a pickle. In arguing that He necessarily needs to allow some evil (acts), you sacrifice the latter interpretation.
ETA: nuances
That scale is neither binary nor objective but depends on the norms of the social group concerned.
ETA the social aspect is key.
I don’t understand why or how “the problem of evil” is supposed to be a problem for theology. Augustine’s theodicy is as elegant a solution one could hope for.
It seems quite foolish for an atheist to deny that if one thinks that God exists and takes the problem of evil seriously as an intellectual puzzle, then Augustinian theodicy resolves the problem of evil.
Problem of evil” is supposed to disprove God because,…
Not God, a version of God.
Careful there, Nonlin. You are getting dangerously close to moral relativism.
You wouldn’t want to go there, would you?
I rather question that evil as a real concept actually exists. Once the need to explain evil disappears, so does the justification for the Augustinian (binary) God.
What does “categorize” mean? Apples are good but pears are evil? Or is it the other way?
They better be. Hence the qualifier “coherent materialist”. But if you know otherwise, I would like to hear how a materialist can be both coherent and non-determinist.
Do ants, bees, chimps, fishes, etc have the concept of evil? You didn’t read/understand 4.
Does nonlin?
Please understand that I am not defining anything here. When I do, you will be notified. These are both lengthy and ongoing discussions involving many people as are all other topics discussed on TSZ and elsewhere.
Yes, all language is somewhat ambiguous if that’s your point.
Determinism is outdated. Simple example, radioactive decay is unpredictable thus determinism is false.
Is it not obvious that has been my main point?
To reiterate, a discussion about “EVIL” cannot progress far without an idea of what “EVIL” is.
There’s no shame in being a deep thinker. The point is, atheists should be bothered even more. Perhaps they should also think deeper.
This is ridiculous: “you have no right to bring this up”, and you better know it.
This is empty blather. Why not just get into something substantive?
ETA typo
Perhaps, but that’s not the point I was making: I was only saying that if one begins with the thought that God exists, then the existence of evil is not an objection or challenge.
I may be a minority (perhaps n=1) at TSZ on a related point, but I don’t think that the concept of evil ought to be conceded to theists. I don’t see any reason why one’s metaphysics (theist, atheist, etc.) should have any bearing at all on one’s use of moral vocabulary.
I have no problems with using “evil” to mean “deliberately bringing about unnecessary suffering in the pursuit of one’s egoistic desires” (or something like that). There’s no reason why atheists should balk at using this term to describe people, situations, policies, etc. that deserve our harshest moral condemnation.
I’m glad he’s picking on someone else this time.
This is a different view than Augustine’s. Also original. And a REAL problem for [deep thinking, coherent] materialists.
And you don’t know evil when you see it? And that’s the point: the REAL problem is yours.
Not at all. It’s not like good and evil are reversed. Do you know anyone that thinks infanticide is good and not killing kids is evil?
Absolutely agree!
Not just “outdated”. It’s a failed concept: http://nonlin.org/free-will
Then where is your free will coming from? It can’t possibly be pure randomness, right? At least you don’t seem entirely random. And the concept of evil? ‘Ought from is’? Bad, bad materialist.
There’s a whole recent thread on that. Categorizing is dividing the world up.
I’ll categorize that question as absurd.
Dividing apples from pears is an example of categorizing. But not everything has to be an apple or a pear, just as not everything has to be good or evil.
I don’t think “EVIL” (noun) exists and I’m prepared to defend my view. What do you mean by “EVIL”?
At some point, do you plan to defend your OP?
So nothing is evil to you? Gratuitous violence, cannibalism, infanticide…? No? Nothing?
Then solve the REAL problem of evil. Address 3. and 4.
The noun/adjective subterfuge! Common usage of “evil” acts.
Do you understand the distinction between a noun and an adjective?
So you think good and evil are just two different categories? And that evil is to good as pear is to apple?
Yes, that’s a tangent. I was just ecstatic we agreed on something.
I’m not a materialist, so I don’t really care about your points (3) and (4).
Alan and I have discussed this before. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I’ll quote an exchange we had:
Alan:
keiths:
Alan:
keiths:
Common usage, sure. What is “EVIL” (noun)?
Ask the God of the Flood, murder may be evil but with killing , it seems not so much.
Alan,
Read my comment.
The concept of “EVIL”, not bad* acts but badness personified.
*depending on social conventions as appropriate.
keiths,
JW!
I worry that you are committing yourself to a crude theory of meaning that conflates reference with reification. We can use words as nouns without positing some abstract universal quasi-thing as the referent for every abstract term. We’re not committed to the existence of some weird quasi-thing, EVIL, just by virtue of using the word “evil” to refer to specific aspects of human behavior.
Kantian Naturalist,
Maybe but I’m really just pointing out the ancient dualist idea of good and evil is kind of endemic and almost unquestioned in discussions here. I’m probably suffering from moral relativism but these are convenient social conventions – not deep truths.
Alan,
Who said anything about personification?
I meant what I wrote, and it answers your question without personifying evil:
Alan:
keiths:
I don’t doubt it.
As you use the term, perhaps. But theists seem to reify “EVIL” and so does non-lin, as far as I can tell.
I don’t think it’s a mere “convenient social convention” that mass rape as a military strategy is evil.
It may be a mere “convenient social convention” that Americans drive on the right-hand side of the road and British on the left.
But treating these as equivalent seems to really trivialize horror and trauma.
I don’t know what “deep truths” is supposed to mean (are there “shallow truths”?). I suspect this is one of those cases where, since I never had a dogmatic or authoritarian religious upbringing to reject or rebel against, I’m simply not hearing your words with the intended meaning.