The Problem of Evil

*I edited this post a lot, to make my point clearer. But here's my original post*

I think it's a good argument against the Abrahamic God.

But I have a problem with this argument. first off, as we know, good and evil are subjective. Unless you belong to a religion. Secondly, life is a test according to the Abrahamic. I myself think that this is a poor argument against the problem of evil. But it still holds signifigance. Sure, when you see an amputee trying to walk, or an old man suffering from cancer, it really makes one doubt the existance of a loving God. However, this argument is pointless. If said God existed, you would have no reason to complain, since he's omnipotent and can do whatever he damn well pleases.

Instead of complaining about the concept of God, do what you are capable of. It's a shame that such unfortunate people exist, but why not just help them while you can? These people could have been created by God so that other, more able people would come to their aid. This is why Abrahamic religions say that life is a test.

I think good and evil are also subjective criteria when applied to religion too. For example (and sticking to your preferred "guinea pig" religion of Christianity), Jesus cast away many evil spirits from people. Yet today, even Christians regard medicine as overcoming something thought of as evil in biblical times. For some reason the casting out of evil spirits and application of medicine are unrelated today.

Secondly, I'm defining the amoral nature of the world (inc flood, famine and other natural disaster) as evil by Christian standards that promote a loving and compassionate God. The innocence of children (as defined by scripture) holds no bar to the alarming infant mortality rates in some places in the world.

Finally, who's complaining? You are - about the argument from evil! Sure, everyone should do what they are capable of, but how does that address the argument from evil at all? Talking about the omnipotence of God just brings up a whole load of new issues without explaining any of them. 

I'd suggest you don't knock yourself out too much in trying to rationalise an argument from evil though. To me, it seems to be one of those "acceptance though faith" things. As Elraptor mentioned, it is a compelling reason for disbelief!

I think good and evil are also subjective criteria when applied to religion too. For example (and sticking to your preferred "guinea pig" religion of Christianity), Jesus cast away many evil spirits from people. Yet today, even Christians regard medicine as overcoming something thought of as evil in biblical times. For some reason the casting out of evil spirits and application of medicine are unrelated today.

Secondly, I'm defining the amoral nature of the world (inc flood, famine and other natural disaster) as evil by Christian standards that promote a loving and compassionate God. The innocence of children (as defined by scripture) holds no bar to the alarming infant mortality rates in some places in the world.

Finally, who's complaining? You are - about the argument from evil! Sure, everyone should do what they are capable of, but how does that address the argument from evil at all? Talking about the omnipotence of God just brings up a whole load of new issues without explaining any of them. 

I'd suggest you don't knock yourself out too much in trying to rationalise an argument from evil though. To me, it seems to be one of those "acceptance though faith" things. As Elraptor mentioned, it is a compelling reason for disbelief!

 

RationalAtheist

Don't get me wrong. I would use Islam as a guinea pig too. But Christianity is the norm for discussion here, that's why I chose it. Actually, forget about my "guinea pig". I'll just talk from a deistic perspective here.

You're right. I did pull the "God is omnipotent" here. I guess my point that people shouldn't complain is a bit contradictory here. My argument is that God made these horrible things happen, so we could learn from them. For example, maybe God created people inflicted with HIV so that would be grateful of our better health and help those people. Unless that's a bad thing. But then again, I could be missing something here.

No, I like debating. Keep it up folks! :P

Don't get me wrong. I would use Islam as a guinea pig too. But Christianity is the norm for discussion here, that's why I chose it. Actually, forget about my "guinea pig". I'll just talk from a deistic perspective here.

You're right. I did pull the "God is omnipotent" here. I guess my point that people shouldn't complain is a bit contradictory here. My argument is that God made these horrible things happen, so we could learn from them. For example, maybe God created people inflicted with HIV so that would be grateful of our better health and help those people. Unless that's a bad thing. But then again, I could be missing something here.

No, I like debating. Keep it up folks! :P

ghoklebutter

I was only having a dig with my guinea pig! Does Deism value moral judgements though? I thought the notion of an uncaring or disinterested god answers your question by definition.

What can you learn from natural disasters? Not to live close to the sea, close to tectonic plates, in flood plains, etc? If God created illness, why are we able to cure most of them now? I guess you could argue that Aids was created to enforce values of fidelity on societies, but the nature of the disease and the precautions and treatments available for it evidence against that view. 

Lesson-teaching arguments like that end up with a Deist God seeming to be evil by my standards. If God were to be thought of as teaching us a lesson, even I know the carrot has proven to be far better than the stick in changing human minds.

The best theodicy that exists is without a doubt Irenaen theodicy, which basically says that humans were made in the likeness of God, and can only grow closer in this likeness by becoming morally driven autonomous beings. Of course, morality can only exist in the paradigm of suffering.

However, what this theodicy fails to do is reconcile the barbarity, and suffering in nature. One can accept the premise that suffering ought to be present in the universe, but what is indeed harder to swallow is the notion that the existing levels of pain in the animal kingdom, which completely excludes human nature ought to exist at all. Surely an Abrahamic God as described in the Holy texts could not create a system of nature so violently red in tooth and claw.

Hmm, sorry Ghokle but I don't find that to be a very convincing theodicy at all. It's actually a bit egomaniacal to think "Oh God created this amputee on the street especially for me so that I could stuff a ten dollar note into his begging cup and prove how awesome I am".

Now I've said before that I don't really like the problem of evil as an argument against God but with that being said I don't think there are any sound theodicies and I thoroughly reject the "but if objective moral values exist then God must exist" argument. You don't have to be a moral realist to claim that the universe is evil. Basically for all intents and purposes the argument from evil is a good, convincing reason for non-belief but I just have something against it. Not sure what tbh.

Tooltime (I think it was him) said something very interesting in one of youtube videos about the problem of evil. Basically he said that the existence of freewill in heaven makes all the suffering etc that takes place on earth unneccessary. If God could create a perfect place where everyone has freewill and yet no sin occurs (as a Christian must hold if they believe in heaven) then the fact that he created this world that is very much imperfect shows that he is not omnibenevolent.

Eh, okay that was a pretty bad explanation. Just watch the video instead.

But I have a problem with this argument. first off, as we know, good and evil are subjective. Unless you belong to a religion. Secondly, life is a test according to the Abrahamic. I myself think that this is a poor argument against the problem of evil. But it still holds signifigance. Sure, when you see an amputee trying to walk, or an old man suffering from cancer, it really makes one doubt the existance of a loving God. However, this argument is pointless. If said God existed, you would have no reason to complain, since he's omnipotent and can do whatever he damn well pleases.

ghoklebutter

Well as you know that there is no evidence for the abrahimic god so when we see people with such horrible suffering it makes it very improbable that the abrahimic god actually exists. We are trying to establish whether god actually exists or not and looking at the random suffering it seems very unlikely that there is an omnipotent god with such a merciless and unfair character.

Secondly even if the existence of this god gets established even then you cant trust this monstorous god. If he treats us so miserably in this world, what is the guarantee that he is going to let us have eternal bliss after death?

The early humans regularly got eaten alive by merciless animals, would you ever leave your child alone in the jungle to be eaten by lions? Because that's exactly what god did with early humans...

Think about it again, would you spill burning liquid on the face of your new born child so he will have to deal with ugliness for the rest of his life? You know it's just a test you are giving him...That's exactly what god does whenever an ugly person is born. Upon knowing what you did with him as a child would your son ever trust you again his whole life?

It's like an ant trying to convince a human to stay completely still. It's impossible! ghoklebutter

Instead of complaining about the concept of God, do what you are capable of. It's a shame that such unfortunate people exist, but why not just help them while you can? These people could have been created by God so that other, more able people would come to their aid. This is why Abrahamic religions say that life is a test.ghoklebutter

But why does god never interfere when suffering goes way out of hand? He tested someone, they failed so why let them continue to do bad things? There have been cases in my country where a woman got kidnapped, got locked up in a basement and for months they continued to be raped by several different people. 

And why is there one life only? Everyone should have to go through all kinds of tests if you can really call it fair like a rich person should have to go through a life full of poverty before he should be deemed fit for paradise. The poor and ugly should also be given a life of luck.

God made people suffer horribly but on top of that he leaves them totally confused whether he actually exists or not and whether there will be something better after death or not. That for me is as creul as it gets. I'l finish with a quote,

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
-- Richard Dawkins

The best theodicy that exists is without a doubt Irenaen theodicy, which basically says that humans were made in the likeness of God, and can only grow closer in this likeness by becoming morally driven autonomous beings. Of course, morality can only exist in the paradigm of suffering.MetalGear_Ninty

Huh, that's a new one on me. I've never heard of it before.

There's a problem though. If you say that moral behaviour brings people closer to the likeness of God and that morality necessarily involves the presence of suffering then God, being the ideal of morality towards which humans can approach, must also have suffering present around him. That just doesn't make a lick of sense though.

However, what this theodicy fails to do is reconcile the barbarity, and suffering in nature. One can accept the premise that suffering ought to be present in the universe, but what is indeed harder to swallow is the notion that the existing levels of pain in the animal kingdom, which completely excludes human nature ought to exist at all. Surely an Abrahamic God as described in the Holy texts could not create a system of nature so violently red in tooth and claw.

MetalGear_Ninty

Yeah this is the bigger problem which most theodicies largely miss. I think the only one I've heard which actually addresses this barbarity is the fundamentalist Christian view where sin corrupted a world where lions used to be vegetarians and there was no death and turned it into what it is today.

Those are all good points, frankly. My point is that God may have created such atrocities as challenges for us humans. And as for the people who suffer, they are extra repsonsibilities for other humans. That's the way I see it.

as for the people who suffer, they are extra repsonsibilities for other humans.ghoklebutter

Again that's a completely egomaniacal view.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]as for the people who suffer, they are extra repsonsibilities for other humans.domatron23

Again that's a completely egomaniacal view.

Of course there are a lot of egotistical people who take care of the unfortunate to prove how "awesome" they are. :P But the right intention, as in helping people for the sake of humanity, is what I'm talking about. Maybe that's egomaniacal as well. 

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

The best theodicy that exists is without a doubt Irenaen theodicy, which basically says that humans were made in the likeness of God, and can only grow closer in this likeness by becoming morally driven autonomous beings. Of course, morality can only exist in the paradigm of suffering.domatron23

Huh, that's a new one on me. I've never heard of it before.

There's a problem though. If you say that moral behaviour brings people closer to the likeness of God and that morality necessarily involves the presence of suffering then God, being the ideal of morality towards which humans can approach, must also have suffering present around him. That just doesn't make a lick of sense though.

PS. Yeah, that theodicy you mentioned in your second paragraph is pretty silly IMO; surely it's not fair for all the cute little animals to suffer because some nasty humans ate some forbidden fruit.:P

One thing I've always found kind of funny is that the places in which there is greater suffering and an absence of modern luxuries also tend to be the places in which religious belief plays a stronger part in people's everyday lives.  I often kind of wonder whether the people who readily bring up the problem of evil are not suffering in at least some sense from a form of elitism, where they look at the poor, downtrodden masses and tell them that they are evidence of the nonexistence of God, when the poor, downtrodden masses themselves do not seem to see any lack of God in their own positions in life at all.

Of course, one could retort that the poor, downtrodden masses also tend to be stupid and uneducated, and perhaps also have a need to find some sort of meaning and validation for their miserable existence that might give them hope for the future.

At the end of the day, I obviously do not find any contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God.  But at the same time, I will readily admit that the problem of evil certainly does pose a strong response to the assertion that there is any sort of sense or semblance of purpose to the universe.  I think it is an argument that I believe betrays a patent and unhealthy intellectual incuriosity in theists who disregard it utterly and do not even seem to recognize the fact that it both demands and deserves an answer from anyone who wishes to remain credible in their assertion that there is a God who loves his creation.

(Having already responded to the problem at least twice here before, I kind of don't feel like having that exact same discussion again, though. :P)

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]as for the people who suffer, they are extra repsonsibilities for other humans.ghoklebutter

Again that's a completely egomaniacal view.

Of course there are a lot of egotistical people who take care of the unfortunate to prove how "awesome" they are. :P But the right intention, as in helping people for the sake of humanity, is what I'm talking about. Maybe that's egomaniacal as well. 

You've misunderstod what I meant which is probably due to me doing a rubbish job of explaining myself. I meant simply that the suffering of a human being (say the amputee that God creates) is more important than the opportunity to prove how awesome you are. A view where God creates another human being and torments him so that you might have the opportunity to help him puts far too much importance on the your righteousness over the importance of the amputee himself and is for that reason egomaniacal.

But I have a problem with this argument. first off, as we know, good and evil are subjective. Unless you belong to a religion. Secondly, life is a test according to the Abrahamic. I myself think that this is a poor argument against the problem of evil. But it still holds signifigance. Sure, when you see an amputee trying to walk, or an old man suffering from cancer, it really makes one doubt the existance of a loving God. However, this argument is pointless. If said God existed, you would have no reason to complain, since he's omnipotent and can do whatever he damn well pleases.

Instead of complaining about the concept of God, do what you are capable of. It's a shame that such unfortunate people exist, but why not just help them while you can? These people could have been created by God so that other, more able people would come to their aid. This is why Abrahamic religions say that life is a test.

ghoklebutter

@ Ghoklebutter,

I just thought I'd re-post your original post "as was" when people started responding to it, rather than in its changed form as it now appears at the top of the thread  (some 5 hours of editing later).

I don't know about others here, but personally I think it very poor form to change your questions to look better in light of the answers you received. (Or for any reason you'd care to offer, for that matter!)  It seems sneaky and disingenuous to me. I must remember to quote you unceasingly from now on!

I often kind of wonder whether the people who readily bring up the problem of evil are not suffering in at least some sense from a form of elitism, where they look at the poor, downtrodden masses and tell them that they are evidence of the nonexistence of God, when the poor, downtrodden masses themselves do not seem to see any lack of God in their own positions in life at all.

GabuEx

And when I suffer I realise just how much worse it is for those who are much worse than me. I dont think it's possible to realise that if you yourself never suffered in life.

Education is the fundamental difference here I think, without education it's almost impossible to shake off the beliefs that your parents instilled in you as a child.

@ Ghoklebutter,

I just thought I'd re-post your original post "as was" when people started responding to it, rather than in its changed form as it now appears at the top of the thread  (some 5 hours of editing later).

I don't know about others here, but personally I think it very poor form to change your questions to look better in light of the answers you received. (Or for any reason you'd care to offer, for that matter!)  It seems sneaky and disingenuous to me. I must remember to quote you unceasingly from now on!

 

RationalAtheist

I wanted to make my point clearer. What I ommitted doesn't really add to the discussion. For example, the section about complaining to God wasn't very necessary. I changed it much later because I was busy doing other things. But if you think I'm trying to decieve people, quote me all you want.  

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

But I have a problem with this argument. first off, as we know, good and evil are subjective. Unless you belong to a religion. Secondly, life is a test according to the Abrahamic. I myself think that this is a poor argument against the problem of evil. But it still holds signifigance. Sure, when you see an amputee trying to walk, or an old man suffering from cancer, it really makes one doubt the existance of a loving God. However, this argument is pointless. If said God existed, you would have no reason to complain, since he's omnipotent and can do whatever he damn well pleases.

Instead of complaining about the concept of God, do what you are capable of. It's a shame that such unfortunate people exist, but why not just help them while you can? These people could have been created by God so that other, more able people would come to their aid. This is why Abrahamic religions say that life is a test.

ghoklebutter

@ Ghoklebutter,

I just thought I'd re-post your original post "as was" when people started responding to it, rather than in its changed form as it now appears at the top of the thread  (some 5 hours of editing later).

I don't know about others here, but personally I think it very poor form to change your questions to look better in light of the answers you received. (Or for any reason you'd care to offer, for that matter!)  It seems sneaky and disingenuous to me. I must remember to quote you unceasingly from now on!

I only edited it because of it's length, nothing else. I'll edit it again, though.

What was wrong with it's length?Gambler_3

I like my posts to be short when starting a topic. But I mainly wanted to make my point clearer.

Or maybe they have suffered enough themselves to realise that there is no god which cares for them? You know it's not just the poor and beraved who are capable of extreme suffering...

Gambler_3

I never claimed that it was; however, it is nonetheless the case that the worse off someone is in life, the more statistically likely they are to have a belief in God.  It just strikes me as kind of odd, really, that the people whom the problem of evil implies ought to see the least evidence for God in the world actually tend to see the most.  The people who are the least likely to believe in God are those who are very well-off and very well-educated.

And when I suffer I realise just how much worse it is for those who are much worse than me. I dont think it's possible to realise that if you yourself never suffered in life.

Gambler_3

And yet, as I have noted, the people who are much worse than you are also statistically more likely to believe in God.

Education is the fundamental difference here I think, without education it's almost impossible to shake off the beliefs that your parents instilled in you as a child.

Gambler_3

Certainly, although there is not a direct one-to-one correlation between more educationn and less religiosity.  Although well-educated people believe in God at lesser rates than poorly-educated people, the percentage of the highest educated individuals who are religious is nonetheless most certainly not zero.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]What was wrong with it's length?ghoklebutter

I like my posts to be short when starting a topic. But I mainly wanted to make my point clearer.

Please stop changing your posts after people have responded to them. You've done it again! It makes the thread entirely unreadable. Are you having a laugh? Shall I all change my answers now?

You are making a mockery of discussion forums here and offer wibble-ridden excuses (I did it because I was busy doing something else? Clearer? Less space?) while seeming entirely unapologetic about it.

So please, again, stop editing your posts after responses have been made.

Please.

Stop.

Please. 

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]What was wrong with it's length?RationalAtheist

I like my posts to be short when starting a topic. But I mainly wanted to make my point clearer.

Please stop changing your posts after people have responded to them. You've done it again! It makes the thread entirely unreadable. Are you having a laugh? Shall I all change my answers now?

You are making a mockery of discussion forums here and offer wibble-ridden excuses (I did it because I was busy doing something else? Clearer? Less space?) while seeming entirely unapologetic about it.

So please, again, stop editing your posts after responses have been made.

Please.

Stop.

Please. 

I really deserve a facepalm right now. Oh well, I should probably just leave. >_>

I really deserve a facepalm right now. Oh well, I should probably just leave. >_>

ghoklebutter

Lawks - please don't do that! It is great to have you around.

But if you've modified your thoughts, add them as a new response or new post. It only makes the thread more interesting. Its not like we'll run out of space here.

Is that OK? I hope I haven't scared you off with a bit of netiquette.

Lawks - please don't do that! It is great to have you around.

But if you've modified your thoughts, add them as a new response or new post. It only makes the thread more interesting. Its not like we'll run out of space here.

Is that OK? I hope I haven't scared you off with a bit of netiquette.

 

RationalAtheist

I was going to leave, seeing that I made myself look like a fool. But I had a change of heart.

Back on topic: what do you think about the problem of evil in general?

I was going to leave, seeing that I made myself look like a fool. But I had a change of heart.

Back on topic: what do you think about the problem of evil in general?

ghoklebutter

Well, seeing as you're staying....

I see evil only as a descriptor of badness. But I only know what's bad through my own views - gained from my environment and instincts for survival. For example, I think public gun ownership is a bad idea and promotes bad things. That's because I live in the UK, where we have always restricted gun ownership and I don't fancy getting shot. You, or people from other countries (i.e. Swizerland, Israel, Somalia) may well believe that public gun ownership is good, since that's what their culture has become accustomed to.

What is considered good today and good hundreds of years ago are quite different, so I see no reason to stick to religious classifications for good and evil. If people's views distort as a result of their environment, or by instinctive defects, then they act upon those negative impulses, they might well be viewed by the majority as evil.

That's the best I could come up with at this late hour. Are you thinking of evil in a different way?

And yet, as I have noted, the people who are much worse than you are also statistically more likely to believe in God.

GabuEx

It just strikes me as kind of odd, really, that the people whom the problem of evil implies ought to see the least evidence for God in the world actually tend to see the most.GabuEx

And these people almost never get to interact with non-religious people, you just simply cant shake off your indoctrination like that. These people dont have internet and cant afford to buy any books. If they have a question they will ask someone with authority like a scholar and you know the scholars twisted and biased explanation will never be able to get cracked by the uneducated mind of the poor person.

Child indoctrination is a very serious thing, dont undermine it's power. As long as you firmly believe that god exists then the problem of evil is not going to help since "you just have to accept what god has ordained for you" or you can hate god but still there IS god.

Look at steven hawkings, he has had such a miserable life but yet he is an atheist.

When muhammad started preaching islam, at first it were mostly the poor and the slaves who accepted him. As you also said in your first post, the poor need religion more than the rich which is one of several reasons why the poor are more likely to believe...

Don't worry about it all ghoklebutter. Like I said before having fun and interesting conversations is more important than forum ettiquette and you bring interest by the spadeful.domatron23

He made it worse by actually defending it.

Well yes but I think he was rightly called on the editing thing cuz that is just wrong.

He made it worse by actually defending it.

Gambler_3

Well didn't know that editing the OP to clarify my point would cause such an uproar. But I digress. Sorry for all that.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Don't worry about it all ghoklebutter. Like I said before having fun and interesting conversations is more important than forum ettiquette and you bring interest by the spadeful.Gambler_3

He made it worse by actually defending it.

Fair enough. I suppose the best bits of advice for everyone is to give criticism constructively and to take it gracefully and not be offended. Gambler_3 a while back me and MG_N gave you a smack on the back of the hand for being a bit abrasive. You took it on board and then everyone got on with it all. That's ideally how these things should work out.

One thing I've always found kind of funny is that the places in which there is greater suffering and an absence of modern luxuries also tend to be the places in which religious belief plays a stronger part in people's everyday lives. I often kind of wonder whether the people who readily bring up the problem of evil are not suffering in at least some sense from a form of elitism, where they look at the poor, downtrodden masses and tell them that they are evidence of the nonexistence of God, when the poor, downtrodden masses themselves do not seem to see any lack of God in their own positions in life at all.

Of course, one could retort that the poor, downtrodden masses also tend to be stupid and uneducated, and perhaps also have a need to find some sort of meaning and validation for their miserable existence that might give them hope for the future.

At the end of the day, I obviously do not find any contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God. But at the same time, I will readily admit that the problem of evil certainly does pose a strong response to the assertion that there is any sort of sense or semblance of purpose to the universe. I think it is an argument that I believe betrays a patent and unhealthy intellectual incuriosity in theists who disregard it utterly and do not even seem to recognize the fact that it both demands and deserves an answer from anyone who wishes to remain credible in their assertion that there is a God who loves his creation.

(Having already responded to the problem at least twice here before, I kind of don't feel like having that exact same discussion again, though. :P)

GabuEx

Their is nothing noble about them maintaining their faith, they are mere victims of circumstance. Communism thrives in poverty; fascism thrives in poverty; and God thrives in poverty too. You may call this elitism, but I call it truth.