“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Surgenator]

Can you sum this up in a pithy sentence or two?

Can be summed up in one word, STRAWMAN.

[Alex K]

“The Problem of EVIL” is the question that most atheists jubilantly expose to disprove the existence of God.

No. The end. Next...

[Chili]

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.

[Esquilax]

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.

“The Problem of EVIL” is the question that most atheists jubilantly expose to disprove the existence of God.

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.

In many low level debates, atheists sometime get unprecedented victory over their theist counterparts with the help of this argument.

"Unprecedented victory."

Atheist victories in theistic debates are highly precedented, in fact.

Although there are few versions of “The Problem of EVIL,” I have chosen the argument, which Dr Bruce Russell of Wayne University has developed. There is no certain criteria behind this choice because all versions give similar conclusions “there is no God.” The premises of this argument go like this:

1. If God exist He would not allow excessive unnecessary suffering
2. But there is excessive unnecessary suffering
3. So God does not exist

See, even I'd disagree with this. The conclusion simply doesn't follow from the premises.

“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.

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

While developing his premises, Dr Russell totally undermined “The Theory of Evolution.”

Atheists use “The Theory of Evolution” to show that there is no need of any god to exist.

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.

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.

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.

From atheistic perspective, humans are the product of random genetic mutations.

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.

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.

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

So here my question is:

If the evolved genes are the sole controlling agents that control all aspects of human behavioural-propensities then how “The Problem of EVIL” fits in “The Theory of Evolution” since, in reality, “The Problem of EVIL” is not a rational argument rather it is an emotional argument.

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.

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.

Oh my, is this another one of those baseless dismissal kind of deals?

“The Problem of EVIL” under the hood of “The Theory of Evolution” is a duplicitous argument. It is no more than a hypocrisy because “Natural Selection” works like a machine that does not care about GOOD or EVIL. It only cares for the fittest and terminates everything else. It is not an honest assessment of things. Morality is an artificial construct in this realm.

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?

However, atheists use “The Problem of EVIL” quiet successfully because the feeling of EVIL is the innate feature that is common in all human beings.

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.

Ugh, I'd keep going, but it's Harris.

[Cato]

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

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.

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

[Faith No More]

[Chili]

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.

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.

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

I think you are abusing the word mutation, and next you will forced to tell us that the Hackney is a mutation of the Belgium horse as we know them today. There is such a thing as selective breeding that can be done by design as seen from the outside.

Then if you consider that all sentient beings are divided in their own mind it does not take much to figure out that they can be selective on their own so they can stand out and be seen, which then is what the pecking order in herd animals is all about.

[Losty]

Dear Harris,

Why must you write such long posts blathering on and on? Why don't you believe in hide tags? Your posts freeze my phone. I can't read them. I begin reading but then every time I start imagining a kid, around 8 years old, glazed over eyes, a never ending line of drool slowly spilling from his mouth, and then I forget why I opened your thread in the first place and leave. This [hide] <---- is a hide tag. You should place one at the beginning of every post and a /hide one at the end of every post. You would be doing a great service to all of the sane people in this world.

~Losty

[Chili]

We should also not confuse mutation with adaptation that is just opposite to mutation as interior caused. The best mutation I know is where the red potato is an eye mutant of the white potato and that happened not that long ago.

[robvalue]

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.