Your personal take on “The Problem of Evil?”

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

As far as the problem of moral injustice is concerned (the problem of evil is a moderately different animal), moral injustice - when viewed in light of the supposed existence of a just god - is incoherent. Viz, supposing that god could have created a world in which there is NO moral injustice (and could have done so without violating free will), there is no logical justification for god not having done so, give the other attributes commonly associated with god.

Further, if god is the source of moral justice (and he is, just ask Augustine), then the creation of lesser creatures than himself who are able to act in a morally unjust fashion is likewise incoherent.

The problem gets worse if god is posited NOT to be the source of moral justice, but simply the arbiter of it. In such a case, god becomes capricious (and, one could even argue, insanely cruel) and any moral injustice done becomes the inevitable result.

While the existence of moral injustice isn't by itself sufficiently compelling to reject the existence of the god of Abraham, it does, when viewed along side of the other problems inherent in the definition of this particular god, become highly problematic for the theist.

Boru

[jesus_wept]

My personal take on the problem of evil? I dont have a problem with it, only theists who claim a just loving god do.

[bladevalant546]

The issue of the problem of evil is not as much as with free will is the nature if god is omni-benevolent. A real omni-benevolent deity would not allow such suffering to exists. He would intervene just as any compassionate human being would. A major issue with the Christian god is primary with the fact that the promises of peace and security offered by Jesus simply is not existent. Thus a sort of cognitive dissonance is required, and justification to maintain the belief that prayer and “good” will prevail. You just have to simply look at World War II and you will see the issues of this idea of omni-benevolence. One cannot fathom how much neglect you have to perform to allow that major conflict to rage to that degree. A simple appearing and saying hey, quit being dumb would have sufficed.

So the problem of evil is not a question of interfering with free-will. It has more to do with the lack of moral guidance, with the apparent need for first hand help, instead of passive set of very vague rules. One cannot simply ignore the fact that the reality of the god of the bible does not fit into the reality of the world. So either the bible has the character of god wrong, or god has an ulterior motive that is not as noble as it appears.

[XK9_Knight]

I think many of you have been very helpful in clarifying the issue… except Benny.


What many of you were pointing towards what Esquilax made so explicate, and "the problem of evil" would appear to be just another nail in the coffin, so to speak; “the type of God I’m referring to can’t reconciled with the blatant suffering that exists?” Evil isn’t necessarily an argument against God in general but against Christian theism in particular.

How do you deal with evil or the thought of injustice when it arises?

What do you mean by "evil"?

It could be “natural evil, moral evil, pain and suffering, the philosophical problem of evil, the question as to whether ‘evil is really a thing’, objective evil,” I really wanted to leave it open to you guys as to where this goes; I had a similar problem with Benny some time ago. I’m looking to see how the rest of you interpret the issue.

And I’m not discounting your earlier response, the story you mentioned of reading the bible and seeing it as “a collection of stories” was thoughtful and concise.

No. The lack of evidence for god (any god) was sufficient. Anyone who bothers to study the evolution of human cultures outside of their own will soon see that many primitive cultures developed the same kind of stories to explain how they got there.

There really is very little difference between the Hopi myth and your precious bible nonsense.

Oh Minimalist, you’re so funny.


I knew from the second I read your name that your lack of belief was purely intellectual. Although, for my sister it wasn’t; it was very much an emotional thing, a personal thing.

If you haven’t had an experience like the one I mentioned earlier, that’s fine. My goal was to listen to those that have and understand them better in the process; to understand my sister as well.

[JesusHChrist]

My personal take on the problem of evil is, that all such "problems" are not really even necessary to disprove any god, although they can be helpful I suppose. One of my sons decided religion was bullshit loosely based on some such absurdity.

After a while though, many of us I suspect, view these arguments as secondary to the primary religious problem:

The complete lack of any compelling argument *for* the existence of the god d'jour. Every god appears to be indistinguishable from any other. Nothing more than stories in books.

Theists have had thousands of years. Every known argument torn to shreds; all sufficiently refuted. No verifiable evidence of any supernatural realms or claims. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

So, until the theist can demonstrate the object of discussion even exists, all such secondary problems are little more than intellectual penis flapping. All sizzle. No steak.

[Minimalist]

Poqanghoya and Palongawhoya were despatched to the poles of the earth to keep it rotating.

Actually the Hopi had a somewhat more advanced view than that silly "jewish" shit. At least they guessed that the earth rotated and did not sit on pillars.

Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Job 9,6

Hopi 1
Jews 0

[Michael]

I’m not asking for arguments, just honest opinions for those who are open to sharing. I noticed within “Disproving Christianity” that David’s main assertion is the argument from nonbelief; basically that it is morally abhorrent that God would send someone to hell that has never had the opportunity to know him. “God is not good, therefore he is not God,” basically. And if I can recall correctly, that there are so many moral stains on Christianity that it’s concept of God couldn’t be true (I’m paraphrasing, it was to that affect though, I’m sure).

So, McAfee seems to (for at least one reason) reject God on the basis of a perceived moral injustice. How do you the rest of you feel towards all this?

Hi Knight.

It's a big topic, but a a few quick personal reflections are....

1) Taking the last point first (on the record of those who profess to follow Christ), I don't hold God responsible for the actions of Christians. The Christian world view is that people do bad things.

2) The objection to God on the basis of a moral objection presupposes some moral standards. Personally I find it easier to understand how moral standards exist from a theistic rather than an atheistic perspective.

3) I don't believe God would damn people to hell without the having sufficient knowledge. But I believe the vast majority of people do know God's will; it's the voice of the conscience, or 'the law written on their hearts' as St. Paul talks of the gentiles having.

4) The problem of evil is often framed in such a way that it assumes God's primary responsibility is to make sure we're always happy. But I think the Judeo-Christian world-view would see that as the equivalent to a parent just wanting their child to be happy regardless of how they are living. Rather, I would say that God wants us to love and be loveable. So I would challenge the very foundation of the 'Epicurean dilemma'.

That's just four very quick thoughts on a very large topic.

On hell specifically, I find this three minute from Tom Wright thoughtful ....

http://youtu.be/vggzqXzEvZ0

[Esquilax]

Evil isn’t necessarily an argument against God in general but against Christian theism in particular.

Funnily enough, I even think you're overstressing the case here too, because there are some varieties of christian theism that are perfectly at home with the idea of the genocidal, old testament god being morally good because he is god. Some do define good as god, and so they have no trouble reconciling every action god takes within the moral framework that christianity espouses. Now, that raises a whole host of other problems that are worse, from a secular perspective, than the problem of evil, but I doubt the kind of person who'll truly believe that god is good independent of thought and deed would be willing to properly consider them.

1) Taking the last point first (on the record of those who profess to follow Christ), I don't hold God responsible for the actions of Christians. The Christian world view is that people do bad things.

You don't have to: if one can prevent an act of harm to another, without any cost to yourself or either of the other parties concerned, is it a moral good to prevent that harm? Say, you witness a stabbing, and your options are either to provide immediate aid to the victim and call an ambulance, or keep walking: which is the more moral action? And is one of those actions actually immoral?

Chances are, you answered that providing aid is moral, and that ignoring the situation is an immoral act: why wouldn't you, after all? God is capable of helping everyone who has ever been stabbed, and he never has. Therefore, based solely on his own actions, god acts immorally. And that's just in terms of the things he could have helped with and didn't. I don't even need to go into the old testament. Besides, of the bad acts that christians perform, many of them were performed in god's name, and in some cases purportedly under his direct instruction; who are you to tell those people that they were wrong, and how do you know they were?

2) The objection to God on the basis of a moral objection presupposes some moral standards. Personally I find it easier to understand how moral standards exist from a theistic rather than an atheistic perspective.

It's not our fault you haven't bothered to look into the evolution of morality. That stuff is out there, and the concept itself is extremely simple to grasp; our survival niche is cooperation and group building. Moral standards derive from this as a mechanism for keeping the group afloat. Simple, though not perfect, and aided in no small measure by our nature as biological entities with predictable responses to external stimuli.

As to what's "easier" to understand... yes, "big man done it by magic" is probably very easy to understand, especially if you don't know how he did it, and don't care to know. But magic is just an excuse, it can be used to justify anything, making it effectively useless, and some of us have higher expectations for our justifications of things than just the claim itself, absent any kind of explanation or method.

3) I don't believe God would damn people to hell without the having sufficient knowledge. But I believe the vast majority of people do know God's will; it's the voice of the conscience, or 'the law written on their hearts' as St. Paul talks of the gentiles having.

I think you're smart enough to see how that is begging the question.

4) The problem of evil is often framed in such a way that it assumes God's primary responsibility is to make sure we're always happy. But I think the Judeo-Christian world-view would see that as the equivalent to a parent just wanting their child to be happy regardless of how they are living. Rather, I would say that God wants us to love and be loveable. So I would challenge the very foundation of the 'Epicurean dilemma'.

Is it, or is it not moral to prevent a murder, if you are in no danger? If it is, then god is already falling short of even the most basic of moral considerations. Why should we expect less of the perfect universe creator than we would a normal person?

[Michael]

I think you're smart enough to see how that is begging the question.

It certainly looks like I'm begging the question doesn't it :-)

But let me say just a little more about that. Let’s leave God out of this for a moment. I believe the conscience exists and that it tells me good from bad. To me that is a ‘properly basic belief’. It is not grounded in anything, but is the ground for other beliefs I have. I take it as axiomatic. Or to put it another way I presuppose that my conscience does know right from wrong. Though that belief is basic (i.e. ungrounded) I find that it helps to make sense of my life. Though I can’t prove it, I trust it. So I wouldn't for example take the opposite presupposition, that everything my conscience tells me is good is actually bad, and then act on that reversed assumption.

Other people seem also to report a sense of conscience. So though I can only validate my own conscience through my life experiences, it seems reasonable to assume that other people can do likewise. To put it another way, I don’t think I'm the only one who has a conscience.

Where God fits in for me is that ‘the God hypothesis’ is one that joins a lot of dots for me; it makes sense of my life, from the sense of the numinous (a deeply intuitive sense of what many people have called ‘god’), to the sense that some things really are right or wrong, and to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” So ‘God’, in some respects, is the framework, the paradigm that connects lots of individual bits and pieces of knowledge and experience for me. I could be wrong, but I take the risk of trusting in this God that I think there is. So I believe that God is the fount of my conscience because that simply makes most sense to me. It’s inductive, if you like, answering the question “what is the best model that fits all the data I have?” It’s subjective, it’s intuitive at least in part, it’s not without risk, but I'm still convinced that's is a good reason for me to believe in my God. I trust God with my life.

[ShaMan]

I don't have a problem with evil. "Evil" changes with the direction of the wind. We make it up as we go along, and I've chosen not to play the game.