“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Harris]

Doesn't appear to -be- a point. Just an outlet for recitation. OP, how effective do you imagine any of this will be when your audience seems perfectly content to call the quran out for the ridiculous bullshit that it is, honestly?

What makes you so sure that whatever written in Quran is a nonsense? What proofs do you have to disprove anything in Quran? Perhaps Science, Philosophy, Literature, Mathematics, or what else you have to support your blind dismissal. Why are you so certain that all atheists see things in exactly similar manner as you do? What makes you feel you are above everyone else?

Islam seems to be the thing that is having the most problem with evil right now.
Je suis Charlie.

Correct! Chaos in the Muslim world is the objective of the Secular world.

Ermm...you might wanna convert your ebook to an audio-book. Or consider providing a chapter summary

Chapter summary won’t work here as this whole article is in fact a summary.

There is a function in MS Windows 7 and 8 “Speak Selected Text” that you can use to hear any written text on your screen. This function is also available in Mac OSX. If your OS lacks this feature then you can download this tool for free:

http://www.naturalreaders.com/download.php

The PoE only disproves claims of omnipotent, omni benevolent gods. It doesn't disprove a God that gives no crap, or does evil stuff too.

Unfortunately, you are wrong because if you are correct then Dr Russell and people who support PoE are wrong.

If someone argue, that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and no superlative attribute can be credited to Him because of the presence of evil then in reality, that person is indirectly trying to prove the non-existence of God.

And to serve as an interlocutor here let me first state that the concept called "evil" is added by religion to serve as anvil inside the mind of believers to clash when violations are made. It therefore is needed only for that purpose for as long as they are believers and is carved as if in stone upon the human heart of those who ascribe and are baptized to say. Following this principle the Law is known as the hearth of each and every mythology, that in more primitive mythologies can be just simple taboos.

Wow!

It is clear that evil actions are widespread, and that they are responsible for much suffering. The obvious explanation of this fact is that human beings are motivated by greed, cruelty, envy, rage, hatred, and so forth, and evil actions are the manifestations of these vices. Religion teaches how to control those strong desires for ultimate pleasure, joy, and satisfaction, which are the main reason behind every moral evil in the world.

Alright, I'll give this some attention. There's a lot wrong here, but I'll be sticking with the atheism side of things, since islam isn't really my wheelhouse.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Here's the thing: I don't think the problem of evil disproves the existence of god, and I've never met an atheist that, when pressed, would actually stick to that claim either. "The problem of evil disproves god," is a bit of shorthand, to me, whereas what it actually disproves is certain omnibenevolent conceptions of god that are prevalent within christianity. But if you want to start out with the premise that it's a commonly held atheist belief that the problem of evil disproves god then I have to say no, you're wrong; it certainly doesn't discount the possibility of an evil god, after all.

When I write something in a public domain, I always try to be careful. I have used the words “MOST atheists” and “SOME of them” especially to emphasise that not all atheists have the same opinion. However, there are people of eminence who use this argument to prove the non-existence of God like Dr Russell and quiet decent arguments they had given based on the idea that GOD IS LOVE. I have targeted specifically these people in my article.

PoE is an argument backed by the existence of sufferings that try to prove incapacities of God and indirectly rejects the existence of God. It is a sort of logical proof that if God cannot be all-powerful then He cannot be God. That is what Dr Russell and other supporter of PoE have argued.

Certain religions have problem to deal with this question. That is partly because the way those religions define God.

If you claim, God is LOVE and God loves everybody than the problem of evil really becomes an issue because there is no way to define how such a God who is LOVE can let evil go on among His created beings.

In Islam, there is no such attribute as GOD IS LOVE, affiliated with God. God in Islam is MOST LOVING (without doubt) but God’s love is conditional. It is not UNCONDITIONAL as some religions proclaim.

God bless those who contemplate over the existence of their own beings and over everything in the universe. His Love is for those who use their logic to see the unseen God through the structure and working of everything. God loves those who strive for the spreading of wisdom and justice and sacrifice their personal desires in obedience and for the pleasure of God. God does not love the evildoers, the transgressors, and those who are the followers of their selfish desires, and who disobey His commandments to spread mischief among communities.

God is just as well as severe in giving punishment.

Harris Wrote:“The Problem of EVIL” is intuitively obvious on its face and the premises of Dr Russell make the conclusion uncompromising. However, in reality, “The Problem of EVIL” is a self-contradicting argument due to the lack of rational essence in the context of atheism.

Esquilax Wrote: So, essentially the problem of evil is self refuting because... tu coque fallacy?

Here the use of Tu Quoque is a twisting of a logical fact. I am not very fond of fallacy games. If you have contradictory ideas then better you expose them rather hiding behind fancy terms.

Again, you're wrong: evolution rules out the young earth, instantaneous creation conceptions of god's creation of life, but not all versions. Plenty of theists have managed to incorporate evolution into their belief, so let's not pretend this is some wholly secular idea.

If you're going to make an argument, at least try not to misrepresent every component piece of that argument.

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST.
The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

“I BECAME INCREASINGLY AWARE THAT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION WAS A POWERFULLY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MY CREATOR GOD as an explanation of the beauty and apparent design of life. ... It wasn’t long then before I became strongly and militantly atheistic.”
Richard Dawkins speaks during the National Atheist Organization's 'Reason Rally' in 2012 in Washington DC.

And yet it has been observed and tested more times than I care to recount. The fact that you dismiss out of hand the multiple resources on this that you've been given doesn't change that fact.

Dawkins is one of the most ardent defender of the Theory of Evolution. On top of that he is a well know scientist.

Once a journalist asked him,

“Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?”

That question caused a total blackout in Dawkins’ mind, he was unspeakable for about 30 seconds of the recorded time, and he was forced to request the operator to stop recording. After a while, he came up with a mumbo jumbo that signified nothing.

You are most welcome if you wish to answer the same question.

They aren't random: each mutation is set on a scaffold of those that came before, and the environment in which that mutation takes place. Those mutations that persist are the ones that gel with the previous mutations in other generations, and with the environment. That's a set of conditions, meaning the mutations aren't purely random.

Mutation is the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form, which may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.

In essence, mutation causes individual genes to be changed according to some PROBABILISTIC rule and can take many forms. For chromosomes that are binary strings, mutation occurs simply by CHANGING THE GENE AT RANDOMLY CHOSEN POSITIONS.

If you have doubt in my words then you are free to consult any specialist in the field.

Harris wrote: Secular humanism preaches that the human species came to be by reproducing successive generations in a progression of unguided evolution as an integral expression of nature, which is self-existing. Thus, random evolution is the deriving agent of the human behaviour.

Esquilax Wrote: Not random, and not unguided either; natural selection is the guide.

Wow! That is something new. Perhaps, then you also know the PROCESSES of The Natural Selection! I hope you would not refuse to share with us your valuable information on the mechanics of Natural Selection.

Just keep in mind what ONE GREAT PROFESSIONAL is saying:

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all.”
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.

First of all, evolved genes don't have to be the sole controlling agent; a sufficiently complex conscious mind could have the knowledge and intelligence to understand and think beyond the programming of their genes.

I totally agree with you here. However, the structure of mind evolved because of the information stored in the genes so what is consciousness if it is not a function of physical mind.

And I'd also argue that the problem of evil is a rational argument, in that it follows a perfectly rational progression: "some theists make X claim, Y exists in reality that contradicts X claim, therefore X claim is false." Nothing overly emotional about that.

To make the PoE a rational argument God is required to be a rational basis for objective good and evil.

Without God, which transcends human subjectivity, these terms are relative as there is no conceptual anchor. So the terms evil and good make no sense or are just ephemeral without God. Therefore, in order to make objective sense, existence of God is the necessity.

Alvin Plantinga had given a moral argument that goes like this:

1. If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore objective moral values exists (from premise 2)
4. Therefore, God exists

Page 7
God, Freedom and Evil
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1977

There is only two versions of the PoE in philosophy.

a. Intellectual and
b. Emotional

The intellectual problem of evil concerns how to give a RATIONAL EXPLANATION of the coexistence of God and evil.

The emotional problem of evil concerns how to comfort those who are suffering and how to dissolve the emotional dislike people have of a God who would permit such evil.

And when you're addressing a theistic claim, in which morality is a constructed thing that's divinely inspired, don't you think it'd make more sense to build your argument around what they believe?

Here you are trying to compare unconscious and mechanical functionality of Natural Selection with the Consciousness and Free Will of God and man. If you say that Natural Selection is some invisible conscious being that has the ability of making decisions by the use of Free Will then I do not see any logical hurdle in taking Natural Selection as a Divine Being. Unfortunately, atheists believe otherwise:

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all.”
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.

If that is how Natural Selection is working and people are the product of such a process then in this environment “MORALITY,” the significance of which is not distinctly known, is a mere empty sound. Therefore, your critique has no base for its support.

Atheists can and do have morality, constructed not from some secret god knowledge, but rational consideration of actions and their consequences. You don't get to strawman like this.

If “morality, constructed not from secret god knowledge” then the alternate you are left with is the Natural Selection. However, Natural Selection is not producing people by means of some conscious act. How comes insentient Natural Selection is creating sentient beings? Whether human consciousness is not the product of Natural Selection or Natural Selection is a conscious being. Natural Selection cannot be conscious and unconscious at the same time. Absurd!

Cato wrote: I was giving this a go, slogging my way through the obvious and frequent misrepresentations, when I was smacked by this:

Harris Wrote: As a side note, simply keep in mind that “The Theory of Evolution” is not open to examination, experiment, or experience. It simply cannot, as it is not an observable and testable phenomenon in the world of science.

Cato Wrote: This is so incredibly fucking stupid I had no other course of action but to stop reading.

Ok if for you evolution is an observable and testable phenomenon then simply give an obvious example of genetic mutation or an evolutionary process that clearly shows an INCREASE IN INFORMATION in the genome which is the fundamental concept on which whole Theory of Evolution has its foundation. Please avoid giving examples of variations, adaptations, or downgrading of information in the genome.
Just to remind you that Dawkins failed to answer this question and so failed to reveal an appropriate case in point.

I assume this is all trying to prove some sort of God. We have no need for the PoE, it's just another way of demonstrating ludicrous claims. All we need is, "Define your God, in what way it exists, and then demonstrate this is true."

And that's it. Until someone manages to do that, there is nothing more to be said. The rest is baseless assertions.

If this has some other point, please enlighten us.

Every existing being in the universe is a proof of the existence of Intelligent God. If you cannot see that proof with your open eyes then even if God will come in front of you, you would not be able to see Him.

“The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom.”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 171-

“They thought there would be no trial (or punishment); so they became blind and deaf; yet Allah (in mercy) turned to them; yet again many of them became blind and deaf. But Allah sees well all that they do.”
Al Maidah (5)
-Verse 71-

“Still less can their knowledge comprehend the Hereafter: Nay, they are in doubt and uncertainty thereanent; nay, they are blind thereunto!”
An Naml (27)
-Verse 66-

You're speaking about evolution as if it's just an idea that about 9 people on the atheist forum came up with to prove a point, rather than thousands upon thousands of established scientists of all different types of biology, paleontologists and so on all around the world.

If you can look at 4 – 5 billion people on earth as mere dolts because they believe in the unseen God then why should not I criticise few thousand evolutionists who believe in Evolution and Natural Selection without having hard evidence.

All right jokes aside. Simply bring an example from real life, which shows the INCREASE IN INFORMATION in genome. Please be mindful that I will reject straight away any example that exhibits variation, adaptation, or loss of information in the genome.

I've never actually given much thought to the problem of evil myself as an atheist. I think god can exist with evil, it makes no difference to me.

It sounds you are living an indifferent life.

I don't believe in any religion because everyone of them comes into being with the method of god telling 1 man, then him telling other people.

Why you are troubled with this idea? Is not your schoolteacher (one person) telling and teaching you (students) something and then you telling other people? That is a normal thing in the real world.

Social pressure, con artist tricks, word play, laughable scientific miracles, lay line type miracles.
If you actually look at all the con tricks religions use, there's other people that have been using the same tricks for secular reasons or to prove aliens or ghosts and so on.
The religions that don't use any tricks to provide evidence are religions with absolutely no evidence.

I was confused about what the thread was about by the way that's why I've edited this post a lot in just a few seconds, but I got there in the end.

Tell me, when you walk on a nice clean pathway and suddenly encountered some fresh droppings of a dog, is not it that you try to save yourselves from stepping over it, avoid staring at it more than it is necessary, and hasten to get away from it? Or you with intention step over it and without moving your eyes from it repeat what a shit, what a shit, what a shit, …

All those people (whether theists or atheists) who harm other people in due course of fulfilment of their selfish desires are no better than a piece of stinky filthy dog’s shit. To search for a shit for the sake of criticism is not a healthy exercise because in doing so you may miss all the good stuff around you.

People who misuse, concoct, and change their religions are not concerned about God because for them religion and God are only tools for the accomplishment of their selfish desires. That absolutely does not mean that the fault is in God.

Dawkins is a biologist. If he uses biology to misguide people then biology has nothing to do with that. If you feel that Dawkins is misusing biology then you should learn biology to stop him from spreading mischief among people.

If you run away from learning by blaming biology for the evil of Dawkins then that would be an evil act of yours because you prefer laziness to learning biology and let Dawkins harm people.

If you think, Prophet Mohammad was a deceiver who deceived whole of humanity then show us the truth and help whole of the humanity by exposing his lies and fabrications. Prove that about 2 billion Muslims around the world are following a deceiver and Quran is nothing more than a concoction. Whole humanity (including me) would be thankful to you.

Harris Wrote: These acts are exemplified in taking nourishment, growing, reproducing, moving and perceiving. Since these acts do not belong to the nature of bodies, for this nature is devoid of WILL, they must belong to a principle they have other than bodies. This principle is what is called ‘soul’.

I'm really confused by this statement especially.

Eating and having sex are very much the nature of bodies, castration of a human male results in low sex drive or none at all.
Drugs can reduce appetite or increase it
A human can override natural urges, like hunger and sex, but I think this is done with the brain, rather than the soul.

In terms of mathematics, your natural urge is a constant, which is devoid of your Free Will whereas fulfilment of that urge is a variable, which is very dependent on your Free Will. This way your Free Will is not constrained to the nature of your body therefore, Free Will in fact is the manipulator of all your physical actions.

If Free Will has no physical matter and it is not constrained to the nature of human body then it is a separate and independent attribute. I call it an attribute of the soul.

No need to read past "the venue of atheism" in the OP.

The word "atheist" is a position, not a moral code, not a club, not a political party, not a religion, and certainly not a "venue". All "atheist" means is "off" on god claims, nothing more.

And to use the words " In my efforts to escape exhaustive details" in the OP to follow it up with that giant wall of text is a joke. You put "exhaustive superfluous apology" yes, but those "details" were hardly facts.

FYI, Christians also make the argument that this is all a "test”. I find that pretty cruel when their, or your sky hero sit with folded hands while your loved ones die, especially kids in disease crime and war. I have yet to get a good explanation from a believer as to why it is good to "test" a child through torture or death and to have the parents suffer as well as the kid dying.

A test is what you take in high school. A test is what you take in sports to get a position on the team. A test is what you take to get a job. I hardly find human suffering a "test". An unfortunate part of nature yes, but hardly something moral if you are claiming there is a magic security guard who can stop it but does not.

You have not argued anything I have not heard from Christians or Jews. You are simply quoting a different book to make excuses for having an invisible friend.

Your response is an obvious indication that you have not read all of the post or read it absentmindedly.

My article is neither an apology nor an excuse.

bennyboy Wrote: I think you mis-typed the OP. It should read:

"The problem of evil Islam."

Je suis Charlie.

Chili Wrote: Oops, don't forget the Christian here, just itching to bomb because their Jesus won't come back.

Hmmm! Are you a PRODUCT of CROSS BREEDING between Christianity and atheism?

I think this was a pretty good defense.

Thank you for your gentle comments. However, my post is not a defence but a reminder and a call to contemplation.

This quote by Epicurus more accurately covers the PoE:
"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able not willing?
Then why call him God?"

To make the PoE a rational argument God is required to be a rational basis for objective good and evil.

Without God, which transcends human subjectivity, these terms are relative as there is no conceptual anchor. So the terms evil and good make no sense or are just ephemeral without God. Therefore, in order to make objective sense, God’s existence is necessary.

Alvin Plantinga had given a moral argument that goes like this:

1. If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore objective moral values exists (from premise 2)
4. Therefore, God exists

Page 7
God, Freedom and Evil
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1977

There is two versions of the PoE.

a. Intellectual and
b. Emotional

The intellectual problem of evil concerns how to give a RATIONAL EXPLANATION of the COEXISTENCE of God and evil.

The emotional problem of evil concerns how to comfort those who are suffering and how to dissolve the emotional dislike people have of a God who would permit such evil.

And I would like to state that quoting the Quran is not viable, as anyone can write a book and call it holy. You cannot support your religious idea by quoting a book that founded your religion.

If you or I would write a book and then call it a holy scripture then for sure everyone would laugh at us.

However, Quran has about two billion followers. All these followers are living sentient beings. They are people from every nation and every walk of life. A large number of these people have memorized Quran word by word and dot by dot. Most of these memorizers do not even know Arabic as a language yet they memorise Quran in Arabic. In fact, Quran is the only scripture and only literature in the world, which has the largest number of memorizers. No one in the world was able to corrupt Quran and it is the only scripture, which sustained in its original form since it first revealed more than 1400 year ago. Another fact that Quran is unchanged that if there were discrepancies in Quran then no one would be able to memorise it by heart.

I think all these facts, alongside what is written in Quran, make a difference. These facts are more than enough to justify any optimistic claim about Quran.

To get serious here, I think the PoE problem really only makes sense if you see God as a construction of man.

Agreed!

A God with a relationship with man, a contract with man, and a promise to do good by man can be revealed a fraud pretty easily, since there is so much evil in the world,

This question is the consequence of a thought that “GOD IS LOVE” rather than GOD IS LOVING.

But, is evil a criteria of fraud? Does that follow all doctors are fraud, since there are so many deaths in the world. Is the whole of nature a fraud, since it puts an end to every single being in the universe?

Bring something sensible.

much of it directed toward perfect innocents (female Muslims, starving infants, etc.)

Practical wisdom truly can be known through Experience and that requires TRIAL and SUFFERING. Only first-hand awareness of the world's pain enables us to comprehend fully the options for good and ill in the situations we face, to judge correctly, what action is called for to perform it. Sin, cannot be understood in the abstract.

Please spend time in some Muslim community to have a practical and first-hand knowledge about the status of woman and infant in Islam. Secular media selectively picks and makes popular the black sheep to diverge your intellect away from the truth.

But what about an actual, universe-creating God?

Please forgive me if I have misunderstood this question.

It sounds as if universe has created God rather God has created universe.

If so then it is equivalent of saying:

“Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create self from nothing.”
Hawking

But it is a straight contradiction. To say universe will create itself is a logical nonsense. If I say, X creates Y I am assuming the existence of X to explain the existence of Y but if I say X creates X (the universe creates itself) I am assuming the existence of universe to explain its existence, which is utterly absurd.

What would good and bad be then?

Well! If there were no God there were no good and no bad. Universe without having positive and negative forces makes no sense. The balance of the universe is hidden in the ratio and proportion of negative and positive forces. Likewise, meaning in the intellectual life of human is due to the presence of both the good and the evil.

Given that there must be evil, then what would be the role of an all-good God?

If you claim, God is LOVE and God loves everybody than the problem of evil really becomes an issue because there is no way to define how such a loving God can let evil go on among His created beings.

In Islam, there is no such attribute as GOD IS LOVE, affiliated with God. God in Islam is MOST LOVING (without doubt) but God’s love is conditional. It is not UNCONDITIONAL as some religions proclaim.

The presence of Evil and Good in fact provides a meaning to sentient beings. Without Evil, there is no value for good. Pleasure is meaningless without the sense of pain.

Presumably, it would be to promote the greatest possible good, and the least possible evil. And not only might that not lend great import to Aunt Effel's skin cancer, it might not even involve the survival of humanity.

On the contrary, humanity would face greatest miseries if individuals keep on coming in the world and there would be no end to them, which is against the structure and working of nature. Indeed the purpose of human life is to promote greatest possible good. This is not only a purpose but also an obligation because man has the highest level of intellect among all created beings, which let him use everything to pursue the end for which he is created.

There are then two issues: is a God that must allow evil really all-powerful?

When there was nothing, there was God. When there would be nothing, there would be God. We (THE CONSCIOUSNESS BEINGS) exist because All-Powerful God exist. Because we exist, therefore everything else exist.

Existence of Evil cannot be a flaw in God’s Wisdom as God is the creator of everything including the Evil.

Because we detest evil, therefore it is our perspective that we look at evil as a weakness in God. Because we like pleasures and satisfactions, therefore, we try to justify and rationalise all our un-natural acts by blaming and cursing everything (including God) which we think is the cause of our dissatisfaction.

What you think how much can a person enjoy in his infinitesimal life. Do you think the purpose of minuscule human life is the achievement of highest pleasures and satisfactions? Do you think if there would be no Evil in the world then your endeavours for the Good would have perfect values? Can you achieve the sense of pleasure without having sense of pain?

Your attack over of God’s abilities is nothing but a self-deception.

No, not in the sense that “God could make a stone that even He couldn't lift."

If the question whether “God could make a stone that even He couldn't lift" is a puzzle for someone than more puzzling question is:

How God has created everything Ex Nihilo?

But it may be that existence requires a balancing act between positive and negative forces, and that the good of God is in being around to separate them, thus allowing existence rather than a lack of it.

This is where you are mistaken. On the contrary, humanity would face greatest miseries if individuals keep on coming in the world and there would be no end to them. This is against the structure and working of nature.

Please read the article once again with patience and with an open mind. There I have covered almost all the points of your concern.

Law of nature says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Do not get surprised if I say that behind the sufferings of African babies are hidden great benefits of the secular west.