Scientific Morality and the Problem of Evil

[dianaiad]

In a very recent thread, the following was written by Divine Insight:

So the scientific morality is far more realistic. It doesn't even recognize that there are evil people. It simply recognized mental illness and that people who do bad things are simply driven to do them because of mental problems.

I was struck by it, a sort of 'throw away' comment in a post addressing something very different. Anything I wanted to say had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which it was found.

So...new thread.

Subject to the definition of 'evil,' of course, which I define as any action done for selfish, immoral or unethical reasons, to deliberately cause harm, no matter how slight. Natural phenomena are not evil; they simply exist. Actions which may seem evil in the eyes of an observer may not be evil, depending on the knowledge of the actor, his motive and his ultimate purpose.

If someone disagrees with the above definition, please provide yours before engaging in this thread so that we will all know what we are talking about.

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

............is there really no evil?

Are all so-called evil acts the result of mental illness, so that the doers of evil cannot be blamed or held accountable?

[higgy1911]

I think morality is the code we choose to live by, and to judge others by. However we do not all use the same code and so there is moral conflict.

There is no objective code. It's necessary for there to be a subject which has a code. Just because morality does not exist in the same way for everyone doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is not diminished by being an abstract construction of intellect.

I think it's right or wrong to do things and act accordingly, other people disagree and act differently. Such is life. I try to be tolerant of other peoples different morals but my own morality values protecting people from harm more than tolerance of others morality so sometimes that's the course of action I pursue. Saying something is right or wrong is just a description of where it falls on my moral compass. Doesn't need to be universal to be meaningful.

[squint]

For the record and from the christian/Biblical narrative, evil is a power. (see Hab. 2:9 for a citing) From the Bible perspective God created all powers. So IF evil is a power THEN God did create evil. There is no way to logically escape this conclusion without falling into polytheism (multiple Ccreators.)

Scientific morality? Ha! There is no such animal. Non religious based governmental systems long ago switched over and adopted ethics based legal systems to deal with subjects of morality, which are not viewed in terms of religious morality, but on self interested (what's best for YOU is best for ALL) formats. This has little if anything to do with science other than perhaps behavioral science. And even in ethics based systems judges give credence to the 'spirit of the laws.'

As a christian I am in favor of ethics based legal/governmental systems because I do not want to be subjected to religious/christian/Islamic (or whatever religion) flavored READ: BIASED/FLAWED systems and prefer good old fashioned logic/reason and ethics to be employed in favor of everyone unless and/or until I would be able to scientifically prove it was God Himself dishing out the rules of the game.

Science has no moral code. Nor would I expect it to have a moral code. And if it claimed to have a moral code derived scientifically I would be an extreme skeptic.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 52 by squint]

For the record and from the christian/Biblical narrative, evil is a power. (see Hab. 2:9 for a citing) From the Bible perspective God created all powers. So IF evil is a power THEN God did create evil. There is no way to logically escape this conclusion without falling into polytheism (multiple Ccreators.)

Can you explain how hab 2:9 explains that God created evil?

If you mean that God is responsible then I probably agree but I don't agree that God created evil.

[atheist buddy]

In a very recent thread, the following was written by Divine Insight:

So the scientific morality is far more realistic. It doesn't even recognize that there are evil people. It simply recognized mental illness and that people who do bad things are simply driven to do them because of mental problems.

I was struck by it, a sort of 'throw away' comment in a post addressing something very different. Anything I wanted to say had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which it was found.

So...new thread.

Subject to the definition of 'evil,' of course, which I define as any action done for selfish, immoral or unethical reasons, to deliberately cause harm, no matter how slight. Natural phenomena are not evil; they simply exist. Actions which may seem evil in the eyes of an observer may not be evil, depending on the knowledge of the actor, his motive and his ultimate purpose.

If someone disagrees with the above definition, please provide yours before engaging in this thread so that we will all know what we are talking about.

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

............is there really no evil?

Are all so-called evil acts the result of mental illness, so that the doers of evil cannot be blamed or held accountable?

It doesn't really change the problem of evil.

If evil exists, then God is either powerless to prevent it and therefore not omnipotent, or doesn't want ot prevent it, and is therefore evil.


If we say evil is a form of mental illness, then the true statement I just wrote can be represented like this:

If mental illness exists, then God is either powerless to prevent it and therefore not omnipotent, or doesn't want to prevent it, and is therefore MENTALLY ILL.


In other words, if we want to define evil as mental illness, the true dichotomy of god as "powerless v evil", is simply amended to "powerless v mentally ill".

Your God is a psychopath.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 52 by squint]

For the record and from the christian/Biblical narrative, evil is a power. (see Hab. 2:9 for a citing) From the Bible perspective God created all powers. So IF evil is a power THEN God did create evil. There is no way to logically escape this conclusion without falling into polytheism (multiple Ccreators.)

Can you explain how hab 2:9 explains that God created evil?

If you mean that God is responsible then I probably agree but I don't agree that God created evil.

1) God created everything which exists
2) Evil exists
3) God created evil





1) Everything which exists is part of God's plan
2) Evil exists
3) Evil is part of God's plan.





1) Everything which exists, exists because God specifically wanted it to exist
2) Evil exists
3) God specifically wanted evil to exist





I could write that syllogism in 18 different ways. The fact remains that omnipotence + existence of evil = God is evil

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 55 by atheist buddy]

Yes but evil isn't created. Suppose God made something to only say swear words. Then that thing would not be any more evil than a wind tunnel that for some strange reason made a sound that sounded like a swear word.

Or to be more sensible is an earthquake evil to you? Is natural phenomena evil to you?

God is responsible in that he knew some beings would make evil choice with their free will but that doesn't mean God is evil. This is just like in reality where society does let criminals out of jail and those in charge are responsible for that decision but they are not charged with any crimes that a person may commit later.

Can you reconcile your desire to make God evil with a common sense argument?

[instantc]

I could write that syllogism in 18 different ways. The fact remains that omnipotence + existence of evil = God is evil

This does not necessarily follow from any of your above arguments. Even if God knowingly created the world in such a way that there would be evil, it does not follow that God is evil. Perhaps the evil is a necessary sacrifice, so to say, for there to be anything meaningful at all. We simply cannot know this, as we don't have other worlds with less evil to compare with.

[squint]

[Replying to post 53 by Wootah]

See Col. 1:16 showing that God created all things including powers. Evil is a power.

Therefore God created evil.

[atheist buddy]

I could write that syllogism in 18 different ways. The fact remains that omnipotence + existence of evil = God is evil

This does not necessarily follow from any of your above arguments. Even if God knowingly created the world in such a way that there would be evil, it does not follow that God is evil. Perhaps the evil is a necessary sacrifice, so to say, for there to be anything meaningful at all. We simply cannot know this, as we don't have other worlds with less evil to compare with.

Necessary sacrifices are the province of creators with limited powers who are forced to make compromises.

If God is omnipotent, and if evil is undesirable to him, then he could accomplish whatever he wanted WITHOUT introducing evil.

If evil exists, it's because God desires it to be there. Either that or God is not omnipotent - God would have preferred for evil not to exist, but he had no choice but to introduce it for the sake of some other goal, because he has limited options.

It's such a simple concept. Why can people not grasp it?


If God would prefer for evil not to be there, but the only way he knows how to accomplish his goals is by compromising and introducing this evil which he preferred wasn't there, but, hey, what can he do.... THEN HE'S NOT OMNIPOTENT.

If on the other hand he is omnipotent, then whatever it is he wishes to accomplish, he can do so without making compromises, and without introducing evil if he would prefer not to.

[instantc]

I could write that syllogism in 18 different ways. The fact remains that omnipotence + existence of evil = God is evil

This does not necessarily follow from any of your above arguments. Even if God knowingly created the world in such a way that there would be evil, it does not follow that God is evil. Perhaps the evil is a necessary sacrifice, so to say, for there to be anything meaningful at all. We simply cannot know this, as we don't have other worlds with less evil to compare with.

Necessary sacrifices are the province of creators with limited powers who are forced to make compromises.

If God is omnipotent, and if evil is undesirable to him, then he could accomplish whatever he wanted WITHOUT introducing evil.

That depends on what you mean by omnipotence. Most would accept that even an omnipotent being cannot do the logically impossible. Since compelling someone to freely do anything already involves a logical contradiction, it could be that it is not feasible for God to achieve a meaningful world without any evil in it.