The Problem with the Problem of Evil

[williamryan]

I'm new to this site. I've surfed around a bit on this topic, and I've constantly run into incantations of the problem of evil. I've seen Juliod, among others, use it over and over. I hope this thread will isolate the real issues of contention and shed some light on this often misused and abused argument. I have learned much from William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga's writings on this matter, and much of what I say is from their writings.

There are two basic versions of the problem of evil: deductive and probalistic (aka inductive). The propontent of the deductive problem of evil attempts to show that the existence of Deductive looks like this:

1. If a God exists who is omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all loving),
2. and evil exists,
3. then God cannot be omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

This version of the argument has been almost completely abandoned by professional philosophers today. It lives on in its popular level form and is made immortal by producing this corpse of an argument between non-philosopher friends. Alvin Plantinga (a preeminent Christian philosopher at Notre Dame and past president of the Amer. Philosophical Assoc., which is the main association of professional philosophers) showed that this version of the problem of evil is logically untenable.

Alvin Plantinga presented a "defense" as opposed to a theodicy. A theodicy is an effort to explain why God would allow evil to exist. A defense, however, merely seeks to show that the atheist has failed to carry their case that evil is incompatible with God's existence. In other words, a sucessful defense with show that the atheist has failed to show that evil is logically incompatible with God's existence, while leaving us in the dark as to why God allows evil.

The deductive argument was destroyed because, in short, the atheist has assumed an overwhelming burden. Premises (1) and (2), above, are at not explicitly, logically inconsistent. An explicit, logically inconsistent statement would be that "God is blue, but God is not blue."

If the atheist thinks that premises (1) and (2) are implicitly inconsistent, then he or she must be assuming some hidden premise(s) that would make the inconsistency explicit. Those premises seem to be these:

(3) If God is omnipotent, then God can create any world that God desires.
(4) If God is omnibenevolent, then God prefers a world without evil over a world with evil.

Hidden premise (3) then is the view that if God is omnipotent, he could create a world that were all humans freely choose to do the right thing. This world would then be free of all moral evil: no lying, no cheating, no murder etc. So, because we can conceive of a world in which everyone freely chooses every time to do the right thing, and God is all-powerful, then God must be able to create it.

This links with hidden premise (4) because if God was powerful enough to create this type of world, then he certaintly would because he is all-loving. In other words, if God had the choice between creating a flawed, evil world like this one and creating one w/o any evil, then God would most certainly chose the latter. Otherwise, God would be evil to prefer that people experience pain and suffering when God could have given them happiness and prosperity.

In David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, he summarized this last point when he asked: "Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"

Plantinga and others object to hidden premise (3) with what he calls the free will defense. It goes like this: if it is possible that humans have complete freedom to make choices, then (3) and (4) are not necessarily true. If humans have freedom to make choices, then it is not necessarily true that God could have created another world in which no evil exists but people have complete freedom of choice. This is because God's omnipotence doesn't imply that God can do logical impossibilities like create a round triangle or make a married bachelor, or make someone freely chose to do something.

All God can really do is create a world in which a person may freely chose to act and then allow that person to make the free choice. This implies that there are possible worlds that are not feasible for God to create. Just like its not "feasible" for God to create a round triangle or a married bachelor. This does not impinge on God's omnipotence though, because God cannot be impinged for not being able to do a logical impossibility. Another example how how non-sensical this is, is for someone to say that God is not all-powerful because he cannot exist and non exist at the same time.

So, suppose that in every feasible world that God could create, free creatures sometimes choice evil. Here it is us, the creature, not God that is responsible for evil and God can do nothing to prevent their ability to choose the evil, apart from refusing to create such a world at all. Therefore it is at least possible that feasible world that God could create that contains free human beings is a world that has evil in it.

I'm about to say something that will seem crazy and you might be tempted to label be a total fundamentalist and crazy, but please keep reading past the next few sentences. As for natural evils (i.e. earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.) it is possible that these evils could result from demonic activity. Demons could have freedom just like humans and it is possible that God could not preclude natural evil w/o removing demons' free will. You might be thinking, "That is ridiculous!" and you might even think that it is a spurious, frivolous argument. But only let this thought last a few moments lest you confuse the deductive argument with the probabilistic arguments. I admit, ascribing all evil to demonic beings is improbable, but that is completely irrevelant to the deductive version of this argument. Probability only enters the calculus in the probalistic argument. All I must do here is show that such an explanation (both for the moral evil and natural evil) is merely possible.

In summary, hidden premise (3), that an omnipotent God can create any world he desires, is plainly not necessarily true. Therefore, the atheist's argument on this ground alone fails, which causes the whole argument to fail. But we can go further, what about hidden premise (4).

What about (4), the hidden premise that if God is all-loving then he would prefer a world w/o evil over a world with evil. Again, this is not necessarily true. By analogy, we allow pain and suffering to exist in a person's life to bring about some greater good. Every parent knows this. There comes a time when parents cannot protect their child from every mishap, or when the parent must discipline the child so the child matures. Similarly, God could permit suffering in our lives to build us or test us or others and to achieve some greater good. Therefore, premise (4) is also not necessarily true. And again the argument fails, this time on totally separate grounds. Notice that the atheist must show that both (3) and (4) are true, while the theist merely need show one is false.

If I may be permitted to read some of your minds, at this point you might be thinking, "Even if there is no inconsistency between God and evil, surely the existence of God is incompatible with the amount and kinds of evils that actually exist." What good, you might ask, could possibly come from a pregnant mother in the wrong part of town that is struck down by a stray bullet fired from a gang member's 9mm?

This as its own hidden premise, that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons to allow the amount and kinds of evil that exist. But again, this is not necessarily true, and all I must show is that it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason. As terrible as some things about the world are, people generally agree that life is worth living, from which we could surmise that there is much more good that evil in the world, regardless of the amount and kind of evil actually present. As for the kinds of evil, it is possible that God has some overriding reasons to permit the kinds of evil that occur.

Again, you might think that that seems pretty unlikely. But this would confuse the deductive problem with the probabilistic problem again. To refute the deductive version, the theist doesn't have to suggest a likely solution--all he or she must do is suggest a possible solution.

In summary, the atheist assumes at least two hidden premises in the deductive version of this argument. He or she must prove both of those premises for this version to be true. I have shown that both of those hidden premises can be indenpendently refuted.

Further, because it is the atheist who claims to note a contradicition w/in the theist's truth claims, it is the atheist that bears the burden of proof to show that there is no possible world in which premises (1) and (2) are true. That is an incredibly heavy burden, which the atheist ultimately cannot shoulder. The deductive version of the problem of evil is impotent.


Probabilistic Version

After the deductive argument was destroyed, most who want to use the problem of evil (POE) to show that God cannot be all loving or all powerful moved to the probabilistic argument. The inductive version admits that it is possible for the traditional God of Christianity and evil to coexist, but it is highly improbable for them to coexist. The argument looks like this:

1. If a god exists who is all loving and all powerful,
2. yet evil exists,
3. then it is highly improbable or unlikely that a god exists who is all loving or all powerful.

Let me make a few observations. Notice that even if the Christian granted this argument, this argument does not show that God does not exist. It is, however, a step along that path. At most, this argument can claim that the type of God posited by traditional Christianity does not exist. Further, this argument cannot show that God is not all loving and not all powerful; it can only show that one of this is incorrect. But this is all only the case if we grant this argument, and there are powerful reasons not to grant it.[/u]

Given that this post is way too long already, I'll be brief here, and will flesh out my comments on this version as other posts come in (if anybody actually gets this far into the novel

(1) Given the full scope of the evidence for God's existence, it is far more likely than not that God exists.

(2) Because of our finite nature, we are not in a good position to asses with a sufficient confidence that God has no morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evils that occur.

(3) Christianity entails doctrines that increase the probability that God and evil coexist

I look forward to your comments.

[theleftone]

[...] So ultimately, using Augustine's definition, we would need only define good.

Excuse me for asking, but is a definition required? Is it not sufficient for this debate to say that evil exists?

One of the questions which must be answered if any potential solution is to be provided is "How can evil exist?" To answer this question, we would need to understand the nature of evil. Therefore, a definition is required.

[Lotan]

First, I'm sorry that I "misquoted you".

I will accept your "apology" then, if it was, in fact, "made in good faith". For the record, you never "misquoted" me. You misquoted me.

Second, its unfortunate that you're getting uncivil and hostile.

I can't take responsibility for your perceptions. I was neither.

But your imput adds nothing to the discussion.

In your opinion.
And yet, at the time that I'm writing this no one on this thread has adequately defined "evil", or shown conclusively that it even exists.

Statements saying that I'm ignoring reality are imature and not made in good faith.

Well, you can never be young again, but you can be immature any time you like!
Seriously, you might have an easier time understanding if you would stop trying to imagine what you think I'm saying. I never said, ever, that you were "ignoring reality". You wrote...

Lotan, for purposes of this thread, we're assuming that evil and good are not a subjective constructs of the human mind.

...so you aren't "ignoring" reality, you are excluding the naturalistic interpretations of these concepts on purpose. You cannot prove that "evil" exists as an objective reality, so you have to load the dice by "assuming" that it really does "for purposes of this thread".

Third, perhaps you'd like to offer some arguments instead of merely conclusions...

My argument is (in part) that "evil" is a human abstraction and has no objective reality. No one has thus far refuted this, although you have attempted to render it inadmissible "for purposes of this thread".

...and ad hoc attacks on people's argumentative powers and thinking processes.

Please show that evidence for these "ad hoc attacks" exists outside of your incorrect interpretations of my earlier posts or withdraw this ad hominem.

................................................................


Now, to address the thread topic...

First of all, the "problem of evil" can't disprove the existence of god. Atheists who believe that it can are mistaken, and theists who say that atheists think that it can are making a strawman argument...

In this thread, the main issue is about the (possibility of) existence or non-existence of God based on the problem of evil.

Although williamryan alludes to this briefly in the OP I don't believe that this is the argument that he was intending to make. On the other hand, no one has contradicted otseng either.

Second, the "problem of evil" can't disprove that god is omni-this, or omni-that either. These are all unfalsifiable claims, open to the interpretation of the theists who make them. "Omnipotent" (it says "Almighty" in my bible) can be easily redefined to suit the needs of the apologist. The Christian claim that god is "all-loving" may not even be biblical but rather is dependent on one's interpretation of verses such as...

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 1John 4:8

The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made. Psalm 145:9

The LORD is righteous in all his ways and loving toward all he has made. Psalm 145:17

Now, as soon as everyone can agree on what constitutes "love" or "good" we can decide whether or not these labels apply to god. I'm not going to hold my breath.

The theist argument that God's omnipotence is constrained by logic has an ad hoc quality as well. God need not be logical. There is nothing logical about 'creation ex nihilo' or 'virgin birth' for example. Or the 'trinity'. Confronted with the "problem of evil" the apologist happily puts the constraint of logic on god where elsewhere he will not. This is what the "problem of evil" actually can do. It can highlight the absurdity of Christian claims regarding the nature of their god in the face of the reality that we all experience. For example, in the OP williamryan suggests that we might blame "demons" for natural disasters. Presumably god isn't responsible for what goes on in his universe?

Of course god is "omniscient" too, so the rationalization is that we can't know His purpose, and so what seems evil to us is really for a greater good, and so nobody is in a position to decide what constitutes evil and so it's utterly futile to argue on the basis of logic or human understanding whether god is benevolent or not. You can believe that, as a matter of faith if you like.

Further, because it is the atheist who claims to note a contradicition w/in the theist's truth claims, it is the atheist that bears the burden of proof to show that there is no possible world in which premises (1) and (2) are true. That is an incredibly heavy burden, which the atheist ultimately cannot shoulder. The deductive version of the problem of evil is impotent.

...also...

It is quite relevant on several counts. First off, in all debates, it provides a common starting point for debates. If we don't even have an agreement on the definitions of the words used in the debate question, then we'll just be going round in circles. Secondly, the PoE is primarily an atheistic argument. That is, it is the atheist that is the prosecutor. And the theists are the defendents. And it is the prosecutors job to clearly lay out what is the nature of the case, not the defendents.

It's my understanding that the "premises (1) and (2)" that williamryan is referring to here are these from the OP...

"1. If a God exists who is omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all loving),
2. and evil exists,"

On that basis I will continue...

When williamryan says "...it is the atheist who claims to note a contradicition w/in the theist's truth claims, it is the atheist that bears the burden of proof to show that there is no possible world in which premises (1) and (2) are true. That is an incredibly heavy burden, which the atheist ultimately cannot shoulder." he is absolutely right. Of course I could say that the universe is ruled by giant robotic gummy bears and the burden of proof to refute my claim would be equally onerous. This is why, as I have already said, the "problem of evil" can't disprove the existence of god.
The "contradicition w/in the theist's truth claims" is entirely dependent on the theist's beliefs regarding those claims, which no one can contradict.
The atheist in this case can be expected only to demonstrate the inherent absurdity in the theist's claims, as they are unfalsifiable by logic.

Otseng's argument fails simply because the atheist's role in the "problem of evil" is not that of a prosecutor. The atheist makes no charge or positive claim, but only cross-examines the theist on their testimony; 1. a God exists who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and 2. evil exists. It is hardly the job of the atheist to define the theists own terms for them! No atheist even believes in those things. Nice try, I guess...



We're over 100 posts into this thread and no satisfactory definition of "evil" has been offered, nor is one likely to be. According to tselem, theists have been at it since the time of Augustine. I suspect that an objective definition of the nature of god would be even more problematic.

Earlier I wrote here...

Please forgive my boldness here, but I have the distinct impression that at least one of the reasons that you started this forum was to allow the claims of Christianity to be tested objectively (I am willing to be corrected on this if I am mistaken).

...to which otseng replied...

It was one the reasons, and it remains so.

Yet, as williamryan said earlier "...for purposes of this thread, we're assuming that evil and good are not a subjective constructs of the human mind."

It has been suggested to "add a specific forum for debating Christian theology. It would be an open forum for all, but focused on theology rather than arguments for/against the Christian faith."

One of the big differences between them is that the "TD&D" subforum would assume that the Bible can be accepted as a reference without debate, whereas the "C&A" subforum would be the place to question the authority of the Bible.

Since the "problem of evil" isn't an argument "for/against the Christian faith" and since it is dependent on the assumption that the bible is correct about the existence of "god" and "evil" the proper place for this thread, according to these guidelines is in the TD&D forum. If the theists in this debate would like to admit that "evil" is no more of a reality than "cute" or "funky" then that is a different matter.

[The Happy Humanist]

Good: That which maximizes pleasure and/or minimizes pain for the greatest possible number of individuals.

I disgree with this a bit too Eg. Someone might push drugs onto another believing that it's right because it would make the person happy, but is that right?

You have to consider that my moral code exists within a humanistic framework, which entails what I call the Four Virtues: Courage, Wisdom, Compassion, Integrity. This would come under Wisdom: Know as much as possible the consequences of your actions.

This is one minor disadvantage of a non-theistic moral code: it's a little more complicated than just handing someone a tablet with ten rules on them. We actually have to do some thinking. But the results are worth the effort.

[The Happy Humanist]

touche'. But I think this conundrum could be overcome by simply stating that the set of "entities unconstrained by logic" is null. In this way, your negation can be applied to the set (a necessarily logical construct), rather than the entitity itself.

Hm, seems that if there is any statement (doesn't matter for a single or a set) about anything which nothing logical could be said about turns out to be illogical by the very definition.

You cannot even say "it is it" (a tautology, logically true by a virtue of its form) without being illogical. And when you are illogical, nothing logical can be said about you.

Including your final sentence. (Checkmate!)

Can we let this detour die now?

[harvey1]

The theist argument that God's omnipotence is constrained by logic has an ad hoc quality as well. God need not be logical. There is nothing logical about 'creation ex nihilo' or 'virgin birth' for example. Or the 'trinity'. Confronted with the "problem of evil" the apologist happily puts the constraint of logic on god where elsewhere he will not. This is what the "problem of evil" actually can do. It can highlight the absurdity of Christian claims regarding the nature of their god in the face of the reality that we all experience.

Lotan, I think you are committing the equivocation fallacy. There are multiple ways in which the term "logic" is used. In this case, it seems to me that you are equivocating on two uses of the term logic. The first term is:

1. A system of reasoning; SYN: logical system, system of logic

And, the second is:

2. Reasoned and reasonable judgment;

Notice that when talking about your criticism of Christianity about virgin births, and William's demons, you are using the second definition of logic. When talking about omnipotence, proponents of omnipotence are referring to the first definition. The ex nihilo creation and Trinity doctrine actually refer to two other definitions of logic;

3. The branch of philosophy that analyzes inference. 4. The principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation

One might argue that ex nihilo creation and the Trinity make improper inferences (e.g., violation of the law of the excluded middle: "A is B or A is not B"), or one might argue that there's fallacious reasoning required to believe these beliefs (e.g., the fallacy of composition).

Since the "problem of evil" isn't an argument "for/against the Christian faith" and since it is dependent on the assumption that the bible is correct about the existence of "god" and "evil" the proper place for this thread, according to these guidelines is in the TD&D forum.

Well, technically this debate should be in the philosophy subforum since theism is a philosophy, and we are talking whether an argument against this philosophy is valid. However, since the context of the argument is whether the Christian God exists as defined in the Bible, then this should be permissable to discuss the philosophical issues in this forum. I suppose the TD&D forum could be justified if more attention were given to my argument, namely that we should consider the possibility that the Christian God is not an omnipotent God. In that case, that would be a TD&D issue since the main focus is to discuss what a better biblical interpretation would be.

[Lotan]

Lotan, you should know better than to commit this equivocation fallacy. There are multiple ways in which the term "logic" is used.

That certainly wasn't my intention. It is my understanding that theists have to use a different kind of logic to say that god can create something from nothing than they use to say that god can't make a round triangle (or whatever). Both are "logical" impossibilities, so why do theists claim one yet deny the other? Even if their system of "logic" is internal to Christianity it should still remain consistent.

[harvey1]

That certainly wasn't my intention. It is my understanding that theists have to use a different kind of logic to say that god can create something from nothing than they use to say that god can't make a round triangle (or whatever). Both are "logical" impossibilities, so why do theists claim one yet deny the other? Even if their system of "logic" is internal to Christianity it should still remain consistent.

Sorry about the "you should know better than this" bit. I editted that immediately after I realized that this might sound rude. In any case, ex nihilo creation isn't a logical contradiction since there is something (i.e., God) to bring matter/energy into existence. This is true even with Vilenkin's tunneling universe proposal since all there is are laws of physics, and as a result of the laws there's a universe.

[scorpia]

You have to consider that my moral code exists within a humanistic framework, which entails what I call the Four Virtues: Courage, Wisdom, Compassion, Integrity. This would come under Wisdom: Know as much as possible the consequences of your actions.

Just pointing out exceptions

This is one minor disadvantage of a non-theistic moral code: it's a little more complicated than just handing someone a tablet with ten rules on them. We actually have to do some thinking. But the results are worth the effort.

I think that's what Jesus was trying to tell everyone :p

[scorpia]

It never existed in the first place. It is a human conception, like the idea of evil itself.

There is no good or evil, only power!! :p

Seriously, you can simply substitute the word with "wrongness" or "suffering" instead of going on about it. Plus this is not putting into consideration the other types of non-Christians who might use this argument that aren't atheists.

And Juliod, please, do not say; "other Christians say that God is this form of omnipotence" it must be the Christian belief", that's like saying "everyone says the moon is made of green cheese therefore it's fact that it's made of green cheese"

[The Happy Humanist]

Just pointing out exceptions

In your world, perhaps its an exception. In mine, it is consistent, given the Four Virtues.

I think that's what Jesus was trying to tell everyone :p

Yes. And Confucious and Lao-Tze and Plato before him.