Difference between revisions of "The Problem of Evil"

From Smiting Shepherds
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[File:Epicurus.png|center]]
 
[[File:Epicurus.png|center]]
  
The Problem of Evil is the highest-value anti-theistic argument; it is responsible, in whole or in part, for the majority of de-converts. In its simplest form, the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god, such as the God of Abraham.
+
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil The Problem of Evil] is the highest-value anti-theistic argument; it is responsible, in whole or in part, for the majority of de-converts. In its simplest form, the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god, such as the God of Abraham. An entire branch of theology (theodicy) has been devoted to solving this problem, [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Problem_of_evil with no success].
 
 
An entire branch of theology (theodicy) has been devoted to solving this problem, [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Problem_of_evil with no success].
 
  
 
==The Argument==
 
==The Argument==
Experience has shown that discussing the Problem of Evil will [[Our Strategy|tie up any believer for an hour or more]]. In the interest of saving ‘’our’’ time, the typical conversation has been flowcharted below:
+
Experience has shown that discussing the Problem of Evil will [[Our Strategy|tie up any believer for an hour or more]]. In the interest of saving ''our'' time, the typical conversation has been flowcharted below:
 
 
 
[[File:Problem of Evil.png|center]]
 
[[File:Problem of Evil.png|center]]
 
 
Please review this image until you have fully grokked its contents. The flowchart has been optimized to fit on a single sheet of letter-size (A4) paper. I kept the background white to avoid straining your printer, at the expense of this page’s aesthetics. If you save this image, be sure to keep it in lossless PNG format, to prevent JPEG artifacts from blurring the text.  
 
Please review this image until you have fully grokked its contents. The flowchart has been optimized to fit on a single sheet of letter-size (A4) paper. I kept the background white to avoid straining your printer, at the expense of this page’s aesthetics. If you save this image, be sure to keep it in lossless PNG format, to prevent JPEG artifacts from blurring the text.  
  
 
==Resolutions==
 
==Resolutions==
The Problem of Evil has been approached from many angles, and each one has been developed in [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Problem_of_evil extreme detail]. These counter-arguments fall into two classes -- and Christians will find neither of them palatable.
+
The Problem of Evil has been approached from many angles, and each one has been developed in [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Problem_of_evil extreme detail]. These counter-arguments fall into two classes -- and Christians find neither of them palatable.
  
 
===God has Limitations===
 
===God has Limitations===
The existence evil is inconsistent with the existence of a being with all three attributes of the God of Abraham (i.e., all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving) but it is consistent with a being that only has two, or less, of these attributes. ‘’’God ‘’can’’ exist, but not “as-advertised,”’’’ because he is a “lowercase-g” god.
+
The existence evil is inconsistent with the existence of a being with all three attributes of the God of Abraham (i.e., all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving), but it ''is'' consistent with a being that only has two, or less, of these attributes. '''God ''can'' exist, but not “as-advertised,”''' because he is a “lowercase-g” god.
  
If God is limited, then he is further constrained by the Omnipotence and Omniscience Arguments, which indicates that all-knowing god lacks freewill, and is therefore not all-powerful, since he lacks the power to change his mind. This implies that god is not all-knowing and not all powerful, because the nature of omnipotence and omniscience requires the two to come as a matched set. Since God cannot be both or either, he is then neither, as illustrated in the truth table below: [1]
+
If God is limited, then he is further constrained by the [[Omnipotence and Omniscience Arguments]], which indicates that all-knowing god lacks freewill, and is therefore not all-powerful, since he lacks the power to change his mind. This implies that god is not all-knowing ''and'' not all-powerful, because the nature of omnipotence and omniscience requires the two to come as a matched set. Since God cannot be both or either, he is then neither, as illustrated in the truth table below:<ref name="Draper"> <ref>Personal conversation with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Draper_(philosopher) Paul Draper, c. September 2008.</ref>
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
Line 79: Line 75:
 
|}
 
|}
  
Type-1 gods are tragic, saintly figures who, being all-loving, genuinely want to invoke positive change, lack the means or ability to do so. While they may have great knowledge (like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra  Cassandra]) or power (like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin  Odin] preparing for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k  Ragnorök]), it may ultimately prove insufficient.
+
Type-1 gods are tragic, saintly figures who, being all-loving, genuinely want to invoke positive change, lack the means or ability to do so. While they may have great knowledge (like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra  Cassandra]) or great power (like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin  Odin] preparing for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k  Ragnorök]), these may ultimately prove insufficient.
  
 
Type-2 gods are not all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-loving; they cannot truly be considered gods per se, as any and all humans also meet this criterion.  Even there were such beings with immense knowledge or power, it is unclear why anyone would want to worship them , as their literary counterparts tend to be:
 
Type-2 gods are not all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-loving; they cannot truly be considered gods per se, as any and all humans also meet this criterion.  Even there were such beings with immense knowledge or power, it is unclear why anyone would want to worship them , as their literary counterparts tend to be:
Absorbed in their private agendas and concerns; e.g.,  the Q-continuum, Morpheus, or Dr. Manhattan.
+
*'''Absorbed in their private agendas and concerns;''' e.g.,  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek) Q], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_(comics) Dream, or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Manhattan Dr. Manhattan].
Largely indifferent to human affairs; e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crom_(fictional_deity) Crom]
+
*'''Largely indifferent to human affairs;''' e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crom_(fictional_deity) Crom]
Overtly malevolent; e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu Cthulhu], or Thanos (while in possession of the Infinity Gauntlet).  
+
*'''Overtly malevolent;''' e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu Cthulhu], or [http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Thanos_(Earth-616) Thanos] (while in possession of the [http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Infinity_Gauntlet_(Item) Infinity Gauntlet]).  
Mundane. David Hasselhoff is a Type-2 god who possesses miraculous power, as indicated by the abnormally-high CPR success rates of his Baywatch pantheon. While this may seem to be a joke, be mindful that the miracles of the saints are based on less evidence than a grainy VHS tape could provide.
+
*'''Mundane.''' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdKVX45wYeQ David Hasselhoff] is a Type-2 god who possesses miraculous power, as indicated by his abnormally-high CPR success rates, as well as those of his [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXDT8Ganz8I Baywatch] pantheon. While this may seem to be a joke, be mindful that the miracles of the saints are based on less evidence than any grainy VHS tape could provide.
 
   
 
   
 
Worshiping a Type-2 god is functionally the same as having no god at all. The creation of man could have occurred through natural processes independently of a Type-2 god, who may also be the product of natural processes.
 
Worshiping a Type-2 god is functionally the same as having no god at all. The creation of man could have occurred through natural processes independently of a Type-2 god, who may also be the product of natural processes.
  
 
===Non-existence of Evil===
 
===Non-existence of Evil===
Unwilling or unable to accept the conclusions drawn by the Problem of Evil, the only recourse that Christians have is to attack the underlying assumption that the argument rests upon, i.e., to deny the existence of evil.
+
Unwilling or unable to accept the conclusions drawn by the Problem of Evil, the only recourse that Christians have is to attack the underlying assumption that the argument rests upon, and deny the existence of evil.
  
Apologists speculate that God has a divine plan, which is good; and isolated parts of this larger plan for overall good are misidentified as evil because human cannot see or grok the big picture. The concept of evil thus, does not exist, and everyone and everything is objectively good. While humans may perceive genocide (DEU 13:15), slavery (EPH 6:5; TIM 6:1), and ordering bears to maul children (2KIN 23:24) as evil, it is because humans are just unable to see the objective good in these allegedly evil acts. This is because divine morality differs from human morality, and what is "evil" for humans may not be evil for God. (According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory  Divine Command Theory] anything done by God is de facto "good," regardless of the act or its context. Therefore, the concept of evil cannot be applied to God, for any reason. Although it is wrong for man to violates any of God’s laws, God is can do so on a whim, maiming and killing innocents in natural disasters (“Acts of God”) and untimely deaths (“God’s will”). [2]
+
Apologists speculate that God has a divine plan, which is good; and isolated parts of this larger plan for overall good are misidentified as evil because human cannot see or grok the big picture. The concept of evil thus, does not exist, and everyone and everything is objectively good. While humans may perceive genocide (DEU 13:15), slavery (EPH 6:5; TIM 6:1), and ordering bears to maul children (2KIN 23:24) as evil, it is because humans are just unable to see the objective good in these allegedly evil acts. This is because divine morality differs from human morality, and what is "evil" for humans may not be evil for God. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory  Divine Command Theory] anything done by God is ''de facto'' good, regardless of its context or consequences. Therefore, the concept of evil cannot be applied to God, for any reason. Although it is wrong for man to violates any of God’s laws, God is can do so on a whim, maiming and killing innocents in natural disasters (“Acts of God”) and untimely deaths (“God’s will”).<ref name="LaVey">A. S. LaVey, ''The Satanic Bible'' (Avon, 1969).</ref>
  
‘’’If a priest attempts to use this line of reasoning, by all means, ‘’let them’’.’’’ This is golden opportunity; be sure to draw as large of an audience as you can, because they ‘’will’’ say something that will compromise their credibility. Arguing this viewpoint is a ‘’de facto’’ endorsement of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism moral relativism] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism moral nihilism]. The case for biblically-approved moral relativism is strong, based on how God keeps changing his rules. To deny the existence of evil is to defend every form of physical, mental, financial, sexual, social, political, and economic abuse; this will place the clergyman in the bewildering situation of painting themselves into ‘’every’’ corner, ‘’all at once’’.  
+
'''If a priest attempts to use this line of reasoning, by all means, ''let them''.''' This is golden opportunity; be sure to draw as large of an audience as you can, because they ''will'' say something that will compromise their credibility. Arguing this viewpoint is a ‘’de facto’’ endorsement of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism moral relativism] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism moral nihilism]. The case for biblically-approved moral relativism is strong, based on how God keeps changing his rules. To deny the existence of evil is to defend every form of physical, mental, financial, sexual, social, political, and economic abuse; this will place the clergyman in the bewildering situation of painting themselves into ''every'' corner, ''all at once.''
  
  “If there is a God, his plan is very similar to someone not having a plan.” ― Eddie Izzard
+
{{Quotebox|
 +
  width=25%
 +
|align=right
 +
|quote=If there is a God, his plan is very similar to someone not having a plan.
 +
|source=Eddie Izzard
 +
|}}
  
While some apologists, like Gottfried Leibniz, argued that humans are not able to judge the good or evil since mankind’s limited experience prevents them from judging the overall state of the universe.  However, this is a non-sequitur, since our limited experience can tell us that evil can and does exist on a local level (e.g., selling heroin to schoolkids). Additionally, ‘’’God explicitly admited to creating evil (ISA 45:7)’’’; and feeling horrified by any of God’s conduct in the Old Testament implies that ‘’morality exists outside of God.’’ 
+
While some apologists, like Gottfried Leibniz, argued that humans are not able to judge the good or evil since mankind’s limited experience prevents them from judging the overall state of the universe.  However, this is a non-sequitur, since our limited experience can tell us that evil can and does exist on a local level (e.g., selling heroin to schoolkids). Additionally, '''God explicitly admited to creating evil (ISA 45:7)'''; and feeling horrified by any of God’s conduct in the Old Testament implies that ''morality exists outside of God.''
  
Experienced apologists (i.e., those who’ve touched this metaphorical stove before) reframe the Problem of Evil as "the Problem of the Absence of Good." However, this is fruitless, as an all-knowing, all-powerpowerful, all-loving god would still be prompted to intervene. This is compounded by the fact that there are situations where ‘’good can exist without evil.’’ Buying toys for grandkids is good, and not buying them toys when they have a playroom full of them is not evil. Evil is unnecessary to understand good. Grandkids know that having toys is good, even without having the experience of not having toys. [3] A person who doesn’t rape and murder isn’t considered to be virtuous; those are baseline expectations.
+
Experienced apologists (i.e., those who’ve touched this metaphorical stove before) re-frame the Problem of Evil as "the Problem of the Absence of Good." However, this is fruitless, as an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god would still be prompted to intervene. This is compounded by the fact that there are situations where ''good can exist without evil.'' Buying toys for grandkids is good, and not buying them toys when they have a playroom full of them is not evil. Evil is unnecessary to understand good. Grandkids know that having toys is good, even without having the experience of not having toys.<ref name="Stenger"></ref>V. J. Stenger, ''God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist'' (Prometheus Books, 2008)<ref> A person who doesn’t rape and murder isn’t considered to be virtuous; those are baseline expectations.
  
Bibliography
 
  
[1] Personal conversation with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Draper_(philosopher) Paul Draper].
+
[2] A. LaVey, The Satanic Bible.
[2] A. LaVey, The Satanic Bible.
 
[3] V. Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis.
 

Revision as of 20:34, 22 April 2017

Epicurus.png

The Problem of Evil is the highest-value anti-theistic argument; it is responsible, in whole or in part, for the majority of de-converts. In its simplest form, the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god, such as the God of Abraham. An entire branch of theology (theodicy) has been devoted to solving this problem, with no success.

The Argument

Experience has shown that discussing the Problem of Evil will tie up any believer for an hour or more. In the interest of saving our time, the typical conversation has been flowcharted below:

Problem of Evil.png

Please review this image until you have fully grokked its contents. The flowchart has been optimized to fit on a single sheet of letter-size (A4) paper. I kept the background white to avoid straining your printer, at the expense of this page’s aesthetics. If you save this image, be sure to keep it in lossless PNG format, to prevent JPEG artifacts from blurring the text.

Resolutions

The Problem of Evil has been approached from many angles, and each one has been developed in extreme detail. These counter-arguments fall into two classes -- and Christians find neither of them palatable.

God has Limitations

The existence evil is inconsistent with the existence of a being with all three attributes of the God of Abraham (i.e., all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving), but it is consistent with a being that only has two, or less, of these attributes. God can exist, but not “as-advertised,” because he is a “lowercase-g” god.

If God is limited, then he is further constrained by the Omnipotence and Omniscience Arguments, which indicates that all-knowing god lacks freewill, and is therefore not all-powerful, since he lacks the power to change his mind. This implies that god is not all-knowing and not all-powerful, because the nature of omnipotence and omniscience requires the two to come as a matched set. Since God cannot be both or either, he is then neither, as illustrated in the truth table below:Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag

All Possible Gods
All-knowing? All-powerful? All-loving? Possible? Why?
True True True NO The Problem of Evil demonstrates that one or more of the three propositions must be false.
True True False NO The Omniscience Paradox demonstrates that an all-knowing God lacks the ability to change His mind, and is therefore, not all-powerful.
True False True NO An all-powerful God would have the power to make Himself all-knowing.
True False False NO An all-powerful God would have the power to make Himself all-knowing.
False True True NO An all-knowing God would know how to make Himself all-powerful.
False True False NO An all-knowing God would know how to make Himself all-powerful.
False False True YES Type-1 God
False False False YES Type-2 God

Type-1 gods are tragic, saintly figures who, being all-loving, genuinely want to invoke positive change, lack the means or ability to do so. While they may have great knowledge (like Cassandra) or great power (like Odin preparing for Ragnorök), these may ultimately prove insufficient.

Type-2 gods are not all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-loving; they cannot truly be considered gods per se, as any and all humans also meet this criterion. Even there were such beings with immense knowledge or power, it is unclear why anyone would want to worship them , as their literary counterparts tend to be:

Worshiping a Type-2 god is functionally the same as having no god at all. The creation of man could have occurred through natural processes independently of a Type-2 god, who may also be the product of natural processes.

Non-existence of Evil

Unwilling or unable to accept the conclusions drawn by the Problem of Evil, the only recourse that Christians have is to attack the underlying assumption that the argument rests upon, and deny the existence of evil.

Apologists speculate that God has a divine plan, which is good; and isolated parts of this larger plan for overall good are misidentified as evil because human cannot see or grok the big picture. The concept of evil thus, does not exist, and everyone and everything is objectively good. While humans may perceive genocide (DEU 13:15), slavery (EPH 6:5; TIM 6:1), and ordering bears to maul children (2KIN 23:24) as evil, it is because humans are just unable to see the objective good in these allegedly evil acts. This is because divine morality differs from human morality, and what is "evil" for humans may not be evil for God. According to Divine Command Theory anything done by God is de facto good, regardless of its context or consequences. Therefore, the concept of evil cannot be applied to God, for any reason. Although it is wrong for man to violates any of God’s laws, God is can do so on a whim, maiming and killing innocents in natural disasters (“Acts of God”) and untimely deaths (“God’s will”).[1]

If a priest attempts to use this line of reasoning, by all means, let them. This is golden opportunity; be sure to draw as large of an audience as you can, because they will say something that will compromise their credibility. Arguing this viewpoint is a ‘’de facto’’ endorsement of moral relativism or moral nihilism. The case for biblically-approved moral relativism is strong, based on how God keeps changing his rules. To deny the existence of evil is to defend every form of physical, mental, financial, sexual, social, political, and economic abuse; this will place the clergyman in the bewildering situation of painting themselves into every corner, all at once.

If there is a God, his plan is very similar to someone not having a plan.
—Eddie Izzard

While some apologists, like Gottfried Leibniz, argued that humans are not able to judge the good or evil since mankind’s limited experience prevents them from judging the overall state of the universe. However, this is a non-sequitur, since our limited experience can tell us that evil can and does exist on a local level (e.g., selling heroin to schoolkids). Additionally, God explicitly admited to creating evil (ISA 45:7); and feeling horrified by any of God’s conduct in the Old Testament implies that morality exists outside of God.

Experienced apologists (i.e., those who’ve touched this metaphorical stove before) re-frame the Problem of Evil as "the Problem of the Absence of Good." However, this is fruitless, as an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god would still be prompted to intervene. This is compounded by the fact that there are situations where good can exist without evil. Buying toys for grandkids is good, and not buying them toys when they have a playroom full of them is not evil. Evil is unnecessary to understand good. Grandkids know that having toys is good, even without having the experience of not having toys.[2]V. J. Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Prometheus Books, 2008)<ref> A person who doesn’t rape and murder isn’t considered to be virtuous; those are baseline expectations.


[2] A. LaVey, The Satanic Bible.
  1. A. S. LaVey, The Satanic Bible (Avon, 1969).
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Stenger