Most Forms of the Argument From Evil Are Incoherent
In a comment to another post StephenB noted that atheists often argue as follows: “evil exists; therefore God does not exist.” That is true. Yet, the incoherence of the argument should be immediately obvious. Let’s see why.
The argument to which Stephen alluded is an abbreviation of a more formal argument that goes like this:
Major Premise: If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being (i.e., God) existed, he would not allow evil to exist.
Minor Premise: Evil exists
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.
The problem with the argument is in the word “evil.” What does it mean? If metaphysical naturalism is true – if particles in motion are the only things that exist – then the word “evil” must necessarily have no “objective” meaning. In other words, if there is no transcendent moral lawgiver, there is no transcendent moral law. It follows that all moral choices are inherently subjective, choices that we choose because evolution has conditioned us to do so. Therefore, for the atheist, the word “evil” means “that which I personally do not prefer because evolution has conditioned me not to prefer it.”
Now, let’s reexamine the argument, but instead of using the word “evil” let us amplify it by using the definition.
Major Premise: If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being (i.e., God) existed, he would not allow that which I personally do not prefer because evolution has conditioned me not to prefer it to exist.
Minor Premise: That which I personally do not prefer because evolution has conditioned me not to prefer it exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.
The argument in this form is plainly blithering nonsense.
We see then that the atheist makes an illogical leap. His argument is true only if it is false. The word “evil” has objective meaning only if God exists. Therefore, when the atheist is making his argument from the existence of evil he is necessarily doing one of two things:
1. Arguing in the nonsensical manner I illustrated; or
2. Judging the non-existence of God using a standard that does not exist unless God in fact exists.
Either way, the argument fails.
More problematic for the theist (at least theists who believe God is omnibenevolent) is Ivan Karamazov. Readers will remember that Ivan’s argument took the following form:
Definition: We will call the “omnipotent being” God
Major Premise: If God is omnibenevolent he would not allow evil to exist.
Minor Premise: Evil exists
Conclusion: Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent.
Keep in mind the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. A valid argument is an argument in which the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Valid arguments do not necessarily result in true conclusions. They result in logical conclusions. An argument is said to be “sound” when it is valid AND its premises are true. A sound argument results in conclusions that are both logical and true.
The first argument that I set forth is not even valid. Ivan’s argument is a better argument in this sense – it is valid, meaning the conclusion at least has the virtue of following from the premises.
But is Ivan’s argument sound? That is another question altogether, the answer to which is beyond the scope of this post. Suffice at this point to say that Christians believe Ivan’s major premise is not true. They believe an omnibenevolent God might allow evil to exist in order to give the gift of free will to the beings he creates.
uncommondescent.com
.......................
tjguy December 10, 2013 at 12:58 am
Many wonder why God doesn’t put a stop to all evil.
God’s ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than ours so we never be able to fully answer this question until we get to heaven and can see things from His perspective or ask Him, but here are some further things to consider.
I agree that the fact that “evil” bothers atheists is strong evidence that God exists. JLAFan seems to be the only consistent atheist here. But his belief in nihilism does not make it true.
What if God were to wipe out everything evil in this world?
That wouldn’t work too well as there would be no humans left. I know of no one who has never caused others to suffer. No one! In fact the Bible says we are all sinners. Pride negatively effects our action, words, relationships, and motives, as does selfishness and personal desires for wealth, fame, happiness, comfort, and power.
Some of the suffering in this world comes about due to our own sin as well. For example, we get our girlfriend pregnant and wonder why God allowed it. Or we speed and cause an accident maybe even killing someone. Why didn’t God stop us from speeding or protect the other person?
At what point do you want God to intervene? Do you want Him to make it impossible to speed? Or do you want Him to allow you freedom to drive irresponsibly and then protect you and others? Do you want Him to prevent you from having premarital sex so your girlfriend doesn’t get pregnant? Or do you want Him to allow immorality and cover you so she doesn’t get pregnant? God cannot condone sin. He wants us to understand that our actions have consequences both in this world and the next.
Do you want Him to cut out your tongue so you never offend anyone – or give everyone such a thick skin that nothing you could say would offend or hurt others? But then positive encouraging complimentary words would also become meaningless because of our thick skin.
You can’t jump off a building and blame God for not saving you. But in essence, that is what most atheists want. They want to live life their own way, no matter if it is right or wrong, and they expect God to bless them. Then when He doesn’t, it’s all his fault.
God gives us free will but with it comes personal responsibility. This is as it should be. What a bunch of spoiled little brats we would be if God gave us complete freedom to live however we want to while shielding us and others from the consequences of our actions!
God’s goodness, grace, and love are magnified in the presence of evil. If there were no such thing as evil, we would not need God. Nor would we be able to understand His greatness, glory, or goodness. I don’t know if that translates as a valid reason for the existence or if that is one reason He allows it to persist, but evil does magnify God’s goodness.
When atheists wish God would not allow evil, they are in essence wishing for God’s judgment on themselves. I guess they really only wish He would do away with certain kinds of evil – natural evil(calamities, sickness, etc.) But even sickness is a judgment for original sin as is the stress of hard work. They fail to realize that there is no such thing as a totally innocent person – outside of Jesus who willingly entered our world, suffered for our sins, died in our place to eventually do away with all evil, sin, and suffering. The judgment against evil they wish for already took place on the cross and the consequences of Jesus’ victory over Satan will one day be completely realized. Evil and all sin including their sin will one day be finally and completely be judged much to their chagrin. They will realize just what they were wishing for at that time, but it will be too late. Jesus offered to take the penalty for their sin, but they rejected the offer. Freedom to choose brings responsibility for our choices.
......
kairosfocus December 10, 2013 at 1:55 am
F/N: It is time to outline the free will defense (as opposed to a theodicy). I use the summary here:
______________
As a preliminary, Dembski on the twin problem, good vs evil:
>>In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [--> as was addressed first in the linked] . . . .
The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]>>
.........
Box December 10, 2013 at 5:59 am
Rosenberg, ‘The Atheist’s guide to reality’, Ch.5:
Even correctly understood, there seem to be serious reasons to abstain from nihilism if we can. Here are three:
First, nihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. Of course, it was not permitted either. But still, don’t we want to have grounds to condemn these monsters? Nihilism seems to cut that ground out from under us.
Second, if we admit to being nihilists, then people won’t trust us. We won’t be left alone when there is loose change around. We won’t be relied on to be sure small children stay out of trouble.
Third, and worst of all, if nihilism gets any traction, society will be destroyed. We will find ourselves back in Thomas Hobbes’s famous state of nature, where “the life of man is solitary, mean, nasty, brutish and short.” Surely, we don’t want to be nihilists if we can possibly avoid it. (Or at least, we don’t want the other people around us to be nihilists.)
Scientism can’t avoid nihilism. We need to make the best of it. For our own self-respect, we need to show that nihilism doesn’t have the three problems just mentioned—no grounds to condemn Hitler, lots of reasons for other people to distrust us, and even reasons why no one should trust anyone else. We need to be convinced that these unacceptable outcomes are not ones that atheism and scientism are committed to. Such outcomes would be more than merely a public relations nightmare for scientism. They might prevent us from swallowing nihilism ourselves, and that would start unraveling scientism.
To avoid these outcomes, people have been searching for scientifically respectable justification of morality for least a century and a half. The trouble is that over the same 150 years or so, the reasons for nihilism have continued to mount. Both the failure to find an ethics that everyone can agree on and the scientific explanation of the origin and persistence of moral norms have made nihilism more and more plausible while remaining just as unappetizing.
...........
|
