From: matus [matus@snet.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:41 PM
To: matus@snet.net
Subject: MFD List - POST - The problem of 'Evil' (Theism)(philosophy)

(All, This is a discussion I have been having recently with a member of a
forum I frequent.  This particular paper is in response to a link the poster
produced.  The link was a paper written about 'the problem of evil' and how
it relates to arguments for or against the existence of god.  The basic
premise of 'The Problem of Evil' is that if God is omnibenevolent (all good)
and omniscience (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerfull) then why does
evil exist in the world?  The 'Evil' is usually seperated into two
catagories, moral and immoral evil (sometimes reffered to as 'natural'
evils.  Moral evils are intentional acts committed by human beings and as
usually explainable by God granting free will to humans.  Immoral or natural
evils on the other hand are references to other things, famines, disease,
accidents, disastors, etc, even when they occur to decent obedient theists
These are acts of nature and not associated with any particular persons
actions.  Typical arguments from theists for the existence of immoral evil
usually include god actively allowing these things to happen for reasons we
do not understand, that god has already created the world as good as it can
be (not typically used anymore as human scientific progress has obviously
made the world a better place for people), that after the events in the
garden of Eden all humans are sinners and thus subjected to wraths of god
(in Judeo-christian influenced theologies), and that any punishment recieved
in this mortal existence will be far outwieghed by an eternity in heaven (if
you go there that is...)  I consider the 'problem of evil' as one of the
most compelling arguments against the existence of god.  Enjoy - Mike)

"Hung up on the ' problem of evil ' are you ? here is a good link"

I would not say I am 'hung up' on it, as if I am trying really hard to
believe in god and this is preventing, in fact I consider the  'Problem of
evil' to be a good argument against the existence of God (depending on your
definition)

I suspect though, that you have not read this paper.  I would be curious to
find out what your personal thoughts on 'the problem of evil' are.  The
author of this paper basically argues that moral evil (that is, evil that is
a chosen behavior of someone, as opposed to immoral  evil, accidents,
floods, famines, etc) is explained by

"(1') A totally good God will prevent all the evil that He can unless He has
a morally sufficient reason for permitting its existence"

In other words, its the old "God Works in mysterious ways" argument.  That
is, God allows evil to exist for some reason that we must not  understand,
instead of evil exists because God does not.

This is fallacious (as I pointed out before) because it is not parsimonous
(that is, it is not the simplest explanation for observed  phenonmea) and it
does not even pass the most elemantary criteria for logical, rational, or
scientific thought.

To re-iterate,

Universe A
God exists
bad things happen, millions die
God works in mysterious ways

Universe B
God does not exist
bad things happen, millions die
These things happen for no reason

Notice that both universe A and B are indistinguishable from one another,
and that in universe A 'God' is a fanciful addition based on  nothing but an
arbitrary whim.

The author developes (as I have heard before) that either God is not able to
stop it or God is unwilling to stop moral evil.  The author  points out,
correctly, that assuming god is not 'able' to stop moral evil is
contradictory to Biblical theology (that is, passages in the  bible state
that god prefers non-evil over evil, that goad is all powerfull, and that
god is ominscient, and that evil is not an arbitrary  concept).  That leaves
only the 'unwilling' explanation, which reverts to the 'god works in
mysterious ways' argument.  Coincidentally,  god's 'mysterious ways' are
indistinguishable from doing nothing at all.

The author criticizes non-theistic objections to god based on the problem of
evil by saying...

"To talk meaningfully about morality the anti-theist must assume that an
objective foundation for morality exists. If he does not (that is,  if he is
what is sometimes called a moral subjectivist ), he must logically admit
that one foundation is as good as any other .... If, on  the other hand, he
claims that an objective foundation for ethics exists, we must press him to
give his reason for this. Can there be an  objective foundation without a
Supreme Lawgiver?"

The former part of this statement, that if morality is subjective then no
form of morality is 'better' than any other is flawed.  Merely  because
morality is a human defined concept does not make all forms of morality
equally valid (or invalid) merely because they were created  by humans,
unless your premise for rating the validity of morality is based on whether
it was created by a god or humans.  Of course, if it  created by god then it
would be an 'objective' morality, thus removing that part of the definition
from the validity of a subjective system  of morality.  In other words, The
author is saying that all systems of morality that are human generated which
are subjective are equally  valid because God did not create them, but of
course god did not create them, man did, he is presuming that which he is
trying to prove.

Are all forms of subjective morality equally valid?  In an absolute
objective sense, yes, since no objective morality exists (even though  the
author presumes there to be one) But does that make all subjective morality
worthless?  Would you consider social darwinism, nazism,  and indiscrimate
killing and murdering equally valid as pacicifism, the penal code,
Kantianism and utilitarinism?  If you were this Author  you would say yes,
simply because these were not created by god (or ingrained in the fabric of
the universe, or some other mechanism that  makes them objective)

First, this is a false dichotomy, the author is saying that either morality
is objective and valid or subjective an equally invalid.  Systems of
morality can indeed be subjective and valued differently, depending on your
definition of 'value' If your definition is, say,  how many people are
murdered, then kantiniasm is at the top, followed by utilitariansim, etc.
etc..  If your definition is, say, how many  White people are wealhty and
healthy, then Nazism is at the top, followed by social darwinism, etc. etc.

It is blatently ignorant and intellectual dishonesty for someone to assume
that all forms of subjective morality are equally valid (or  invalid, as
this author attests) This is a very post-modernesque critique and I am
surprised to hear such ramblings of nonsense from this  author.  Whats his
PHd in, dentistry?

Second, how do we know a system of morality is objective?  The author, and
you (I presume) argues that the system of morality outlined in  the bible is
objective because it is from God.  But how do we know it is from God?
Because it says it is.  Circular reasoning, fallacious  logic.  The problem
is similiar to the problem in science of knowing what 'objective reality'
is, most practicing scientists feel that we  are continually getting closer
and closer to an objective reality, but we will never know when we hit it
since it is an objective reality.  Instead our instruments, inventions, and
predictions will work better and better and return more and more accurate
results.  Similiarly,  how do we know that any system of morality is
'objectively' valid, as we are finite being living in a finite universe and
can not percieve  something that is infinite (anything that is 'objective')

So what about 'immoral evils' or 'natural evils'.  The author has this to
say...

"First, one might argue that I have made no distinction between moral and
natural evils (e.g., earthquakes, floods, famines, etc.). We must remember,
however, that for the Biblical theist there is no natural evil strictly
speaking. For him, the world itself was profoundly  affected and shaken at
the time of the fall. Ultimately, then, all "natural" evil is a result of
the antecedent moral evil of man"

So this author is saying that 30,000 children starve to death EVERY DAY
(many before they are even 1 month old) because some yutz a few thousand
years ago picked an apple from a tree?  Any reasonable person would put
someone up against a UN tribunal for such inhumane actions, even if they
claimed that 'they had to do it for reasons we do not understand and the
universe will be better off for it' see if that defense will stand up in
court or against any intelligent human being.  Yet some 90% of the world
actively supports believes and agrees to this when 'God' says it (or, more
specifically, when some yutz thinks he can explain that god isnt doing
anything not because he isnt there, nooooo, but instead because he has his
own reasons which we can not comprehend)

Basically the author of this paper is saying that if one is a biblical
theist, he can explain anything away to his hearts content so he can  still
fool himself into feeling safe and happy even though millions of people are
killed by both other people and natural disasters every  day.

Regards,

Matus

http://forums.delphiforums.com/mfdlist/messages - For comments about
articles or other topics please visit the MFDList forum

www.matus1976.com - Article archives