The "problem" of Evil...

Soul Winner

We often here this argument banded around a lot and I’ve heard it in many debates between theists and atheists. “If God exists then why is there so much evil in the world?”

When you think about this for a minute its kind of an oxymoron. Assume God doesn't exist, and that all there is in existence is nature. That means that everything that happens in nature is natural, even things we call evil or wrong. So why are some things considered evil or wrong if there is no God?

To consider something as evil or wrong, (both being defined as "The way things should not be",) then that presupposes that there is a way that things should be. Now if there is a way that things should be then doesn't that prove the existence of God?

Without God there is no way that things should be. There's just the way things are. The fact that evil itself exists proves that God must exist. If evil doesn't exist then I wish some atheists would stop using it as an argument for the non existence of God.

Make sense?

Rougies

Humans are social animals. We need society for our species to survive. Morals/ethics evolve naturally in a social structure to promote self sufficiency and survival.

hivizman

Soul Winner's line of argument is referred to as the "Argument from Morality for the Existence of God".

The obvious logical solution to this is simply to claim that "evil" doesn't exist, and that people who consider certain things to be evil or morally wrong are making an error by using a term that is empty of meaning. Or perhaps we could claim that, when someone asserts "X is evil", he or she really means "I don't like X".

The naturalistic argument for morality translates "X is evil" into "X is not conducive to the survival of the human species" - the problem with this interpretation being that, while we may be able to explain with the benefit of hindsight why people have considered certain things in the past as "evil", we can't be certain what is likely to be conducive to species survival in the future, so "evil" becomes a subjective and relative concept.

This is actually a challenge for atheists, who need to show that a humanist or naturalist morality that doesn't collapse into subjectivity and relativism is logically possible. Or we follow Nietzsche and claim that the "death of God" has taken us "beyond good and evil".

There's a nice article on Wikipedia on Theodicy, which summarises the main arguments in the past over the "problem of evil", and covers the principal "solutions".

Fanny Cradock

One could also ask, "What about the problem of good?"

Hivemind187

Soul Winner wrote: »

We often here this argument banded around a lot and I’ve heard it in many debates between theists and atheists. “If God exists then why is there so much evil in the world?”

When you think about this for a minute its kind of an oxymoron. Assume God doesn't exist, and that all there is in existence is nature. That means that everything that happens in nature is natural, even things we call evil or wrong. So why are some things considered evil or wrong if there is no God?

To consider something as evil or wrong, (both being defined as "They way things should not be",) then that presupposes that there is a way that things should be. Now if there is a way that things should be then doesn't that prove the existence of God?

Without God there is no way that things should be. There's just the way things are. The fact that evil itself exists proves that God must exist. If evil doesn't exist then I wish some atheists would stop using it as an argument for the non existence of God.

Make sense?

Not really.

The whole argument rests on two concepts

1. Objects and events have a purposeful reason for being the way they are.
2. That reason requires a supernatural entity rather than simple physical interaction with the environment it exists in.

The argument of something being "evil" is also unsafe ground for anyone to tread. How does one define "evil". Is it the absense of "good"? By that rational "Big Brother", Broccoli and my neighbours cat are all evil - from my perspective.

Evil is simply a term used to catagorise all things which a specific ethos doesnt want in its box marked "good things". Anything that is in the "good things" box is fine, everything outside of the "good things" box is anathema and must be avoided, persecuted, burned at the stake etc depending on which arbitrary rule is employed for which arbitrary crime.

Defining evil as "the way things should not be" is also useless. It requires the Platonic essence to exist, a single imaginary constant of one object or another. Like a bed. Not all beds look alike but you know a bed when you see one whether it is a double divan or a king size Sweedish. The platonic bed exists etherally to let you understand the concept of a bed by being the perfect epitome of a bed. Aristotle, the favored philosopher of Christianity pointed out that the Platonic ideal is rubbish because it is imaginary and useless. There might be a standard idea of a "bed" in everyones mind but you cant spend the day recovering from a hangover in it so whats the point?

If something is not the "way it should be" then it is either broken and requires repair or it is being viewed by someone who wants something different or sees a flaw within it. This is not a definition of evil for any measure of society, politics etc because people everywhere have very different standards of what they consider to be "right".

Your last paragraph contains the salient truth of all of this. There is no specific way things should be, there is only what is. For which I am grateful because the way things are (time, physics, gravity, solar activity, chemical presense on earth etc etc) conspired to allow us to ask these questions.

Fanny Cradock

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Not really.

The whole argument rests on two concepts

1. Objects and events have a purposeful reason for being the way they are.
2. That reason requires a supernatural entity rather than simple physical interaction with the environment it exists in.

The argument of something being "evil" is also unsafe ground for anyone to tread. How does one define "evil". Is it the absense of "good"? By that rational "Big Brother", Broccoli and my neighbours cat are all evil - from my perspective.

Evil is simply a term used to catagorise all things which a specific ethos doesnt want in its box marked "good things". Anything that is in the "good things" box is fine, everything outside of the "good things" box is anathema and must be avoided, persecuted, burned at the stake etc depending on which arbitrary rule is employed for which arbitrary crime.

Defining evil as "the way things should not be" is also useless. It requires the Platonic essence to exist, a single imaginary constant of one object or another. Like a bed. Not all beds look alike but you know a bed when you see one whether it is a double divan or a king size Sweedish. The platonic bed exists etherally to let you understand the concept of a bed by being the perfect epitome of a bed. Aristotle, the favored philosopher of Christianity pointed out that the Platonic ideal is rubbish because it is imaginary and useless. There might be a standard idea of a "bed" in everyones mind but you cant spend the day recovering from a hangover in it so whats the point?

If something is not the "way it should be" then it is either broken and requires repair or it is being viewed by someone who wants something different or sees a flaw within it. This is not a definition of evil for any measure of society, politics etc because people everywhere have very different standards of what they consider to be "right".

Your last paragraph contains the salient truth of all of this. There is no specific way things should be, there is only what is. For which I am grateful because the way things are (time, physics, gravity, solar activity, chemical presense on earth etc etc) conspired to allow us to ask these questions.

Simply because two people may not be able to agree on whether x, y or z constitutes an act of evil says nothing about whether evil exists as an overarching reality. Do you honestly believe that evil is just a word?

Soul Winner

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Not really.

The whole argument rests on two concepts

1. Objects and events have a purposeful reason for being the way they are.
2. That reason requires a supernatural entity rather than simple physical interaction with the environment it exists in.

The argument of something being "evil" is also unsafe ground for anyone to tread. How does one define "evil". Is it the absense of "good"? By that rational "Big Brother", Broccoli and my neighbours cat are all evil - from my perspective.

Evil is simply a term used to catagorise all things which a specific ethos doesnt want in its box marked "good things". Anything that is in the "good things" box is fine, everything outside of the "good things" box is anathema and must be avoided, persecuted, burned at the stake etc depending on which arbitrary rule is employed for which arbitrary crime.

Defining evil as "the way things should not be" is also useless. It requires the Platonic essence to exist, a single imaginary constant of one object or another. Like a bed. Not all beds look alike but you know a bed when you see one whether it is a double divan or a king size Sweedish. The platonic bed exists etherally to let you understand the concept of a bed by being the perfect epitome of a bed. Aristotle, the favored philosopher of Christianity pointed out that the Platonic ideal is rubbish because it is imaginary and useless. There might be a standard idea of a "bed" in everyones mind but you cant spend the day recovering from a hangover in it so whats the point?

If something is not the "way it should be" then it is either broken and requires repair or it is being viewed by someone who wants something different or sees a flaw within it. This is not a definition of evil for any measure of society, politics etc because people everywhere have very different standards of what they consider to be "right".

Your last paragraph contains the salient truth of all of this. There is no specific way things should be, there is only what is. For which I am grateful because the way things are (time, physics, gravity, solar activity, chemical presense on earth etc etc) conspired to allow us to ask these questions.

Thanks for that, but my point was that there are some atheists who use the very existence of evil to suggest that God doesn't exist. I just wish they wouldn't because it is a flawed argument. If evil does in fact exist then God must exist. And if evil does exist then I can't think of a better definition of evil than "the way things should not be." Take wars for instance, should they exists? Should suffering exist? Should torture exist? Should rape exist? Should murder exist? God forbid if someone should rape, torture and murder your daughter and leave her battered and bruised corpse to the wolves would you simply conclude that the individual responsible is simply broken and requires repair?

Soul Winner

hivizman wrote: »

The naturalistic argument for morality translates "X is evil" into "X is not conducive to the survival of the human species"

So do you think that the things done during the Spanish Inquisition for instance weren't really evil? They were simply not conducive to the survival of the human species? That people being hung up and tortured while priests demand the that they repent is not evil?

uncleoswald

Soul Winner wrote: »

Thanks for that, but my point was that there are some atheists who use the very existence of evil to suggest that God doesn't exist. I just wish they wouldn't because it is a flawed argument. If evil does in fact exist then God must exist.

I certainly wonder why would God have created Evil (please I don't want a debate on tha,t its been done to death and we wont agree even with a truck load of scripture) but I would never put forward it as proof that there is no god.

God forbid if someone should rape, torture and murder your daughter and leave her battered and bruised corpse to the wolves would you simply conclude that the individual responsible is simply broken and requires repair?

But isn't that a little like the Christian position? That the perpetrator could immediately afterwards see the error of his ways, renounce Satan, find God etc... and from that moment on is Heaven bound regarldess of previous actions?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

So why are some things considered evil or wrong if there is no God?

"Good" and "evil" are words that are usually defined in religious terms, especially by religious people, and are used denote actions that typically violate either unwritten social contracts, or in the religious context, that violate written religious laws, or any of the multitude of interpretations that arise from them.

In the religious context, it's quite reasonable to say that god is a necessary requirement for things to be considered "good" or "evil", but only since the common definitions of the two words require a god-related thing to start with.

It's a fallacious, circular argument that demonstrates nothing except that it's quite easy to confuse people with a little verbal dexterity.

kelly1

Soul Winner wrote: »

We often here this argument banded around a lot and I’ve heard it in many debates between theists and atheists. “If God exists then why is there so much evil in the world?”

When you think about this for a minute its kind of an oxymoron. Assume God doesn't exist, and that all there is in existence is nature. That means that everything that happens in nature is natural, even things we call evil or wrong. So why are some things considered evil or wrong if there is no God?

To consider something as evil or wrong, (both being defined as "They way things should not be",) then that presupposes that there is a way that things should be. Now if there is a way that things should be then doesn't that prove the existence of God?

Without God there is no way that things should be. There's just the way things are. The fact that evil itself exists proves that God must exist. If evil doesn't exist then I wish some atheists would stop using it as an argument for the non existence of God.

Make sense?

Leaving divine revelation aside, doesn't our conscience tell us what's good and evil? If so, where did our conscience come from?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

We often here this argument banded around a lot and I’ve heard it in many debates between theists and atheists. “If God exists then why is there so much evil in the world?”

When you think about this for a minute its kind of an oxymoron. Assume God doesn't exist, and that all there is in existence is nature. That means that everything that happens in nature is natural, even things we call evil or wrong. So why are some things considered evil or wrong if there is no God?

To consider something as evil or wrong, (both being defined as "They way things should not be",) then that presupposes that there is a way that things should be. Now if there is a way that things should be then doesn't that prove the existence of God?

Without God there is no way that things should be. There's just the way things are. The fact that evil itself exists proves that God must exist. If evil doesn't exist then I wish some atheists would stop using it as an argument for the non existence of God.

Make sense?

The God given standard of morality isn't a problem for this question, it is in fact a requirement.

The point of the "If God exists why.." question is to high light the inherent paradox of a God who has decided a standard of morality to be applied universally and a world where evil is rife. You can use religion's standard of evil for this.

The easiest way to get around this is for religion to simply say there is no such thing as evil, there is only good. things that appear evil are ultimately good for reasons we cannot see.

But since religion has already stated there is evil they have got themselves in a pickle.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

But since religion has already stated there is evil they have got themselves in a pickle.

How do you suppose that? Christianity readily accepts there is a thing called evil and proposes a solution to it. I don't see any pickle there.

Hivemind187

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Simply because two people may not be able to agree on whether x, y or z constitutes an act of evil says nothing about whether evil exists as an overarching reality. Do you honestly believe that evil is just a word?

Yes. Much like "beige" and "transubstantiation".

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How do you suppose that? Christianity readily accepts there is a thing called evil and proposes a solution to it. I don't see any pickle there.

Then you are back to the original question, If God exists why is there is so much evil in the world.

A Christian solution to the problem of evil is some what irrelevant to this original question.

The closest answer I've see to the problem is that evil is not actually evil, it serves a greater purpose as part of God's plan and is ultimately good. Therefore evil doesn't actually exist, evil is simply based on limited human perception. But then as you say Christianity readily accepts there is a thing called evil.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How do you suppose that? Christianity readily accepts there is a thing called evil and proposes a solution to it. I don't see any pickle there.

The problem of evil can be divided in two:"Moral evil" and "natural evil". The problem of moral evil has been pretty much dealt with by the idea of free will and accountability. Natural evil, on the other hand, raises other questions. Exploitation, murder, rape, infliction of harm, etc. are all abhorrent acts that bring suffering to the victim. Yet these acts are what nature encourages. God's insistence on such abhorrent acts in the animal kingdom is puzzling to me.

I have heard a few different responses, such as "original sin is retroactive" or "animals don't matter as much so it's OK", but none of them really address the issue of why God's kingdom on earth is one of relentless exploitation.

Soul Winner

uncleoswald wrote: »

...but I would never put forward it as proof that there is no god.

I know, that's why I said some atheists.

uncleoswald wrote: »

But isn't that a little like the Christian position? That the perpetrator could immediately afterwards see the error of his ways, renounce Satan, find God etc... and from that moment on is Heaven bound regarldess of previous actions?

No I don't think it is anything like that at all. Sure there are some who have done terrible things whether through selfishness, pride or whatever and have repented of them and turned to God, but how does that prove that there is no God? That's what we are talking about no?

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

"Good" and "evil" are words that are usually defined in religious terms, especially by religious people, and are used denote actions that typically violate either unwritten social contracts, or in the religious context, that violate written religious laws, or any of the multitude of interpretations that arise from them.

In the religious context, it's quite reasonable to say that god is a necessary requirement for things to be considered "good" or "evil", but only since the common definitions of the two words require a god-related thing to start with.

It's a fallacious, circular argument that demonstrates nothing except that it's quite easy to confuse people with a little verbal dexterity.

So why then do you think some atheists use the 'evil in the world' argument to support their contention that God doesn't exist?

prinz

I thought it was pretty simple, God gave us free will.... which some people have taken as freedom to do evil things. God couldn't give us free will, and programme us all to be inherently good, because that would be a contradiction.

prinz

Soul Winner wrote: »

So why then do you think some atheists use the 'evil in the world' argument to support their contention that God doesn't exist?

The same reason some atheists use the occurrence of natural disasters to support their contention that God doesn't exist. Because they have no better arguments :pac:

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

So why then do you think some atheists use the 'evil in the world' argument to support their contention that God doesn't exist?

Because religious people generally believe that their own particular deity is a "god of love". Even though this belief is immediately contradicted by the existence of what I suppose you could call "not-love", and a deity who seems quite uninterested in doing anything about it. When an atheist uses the "evil" argument, I'd imagine it's probably just him/her using one bad religious argument to show that another one is bad too.

Alternatively, it could be just atheists winding up religious people.

Personally, I think the ideas of "evil" and "good" as they're usually used by religious people, even when shorn of their religious connotations, are useless, if not actively counterproductive, for coming to any mature understanding of how the world works.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Because religious people generally believe that their own particular deity is a "god of love". Even though this belief is immediately contradicted by the existence of what I suppose you could call "not-love", and a deity who seems quite uninterested in doing anything about it. When an atheist uses the "evil" argument, I'd imagine it's probably just him/her using one bad religious argument to show that another one is bad too.

Weak.

Alternatively, it could be just atheists winding up religious people.

Weaker

Personally, I think the ideas of "evil" and "good" as they're usually used by religious people, even when shorn of their religious connotations, are useless, if not actively counterproductive, for coming to any mature understanding of how the world works.

Weakest.

"Religious" people use the word 'evil' in an argument based on the virtually universally accepted notion that some things are truly and objectively and always evil. And how, asks the argument, are you, the atheist going to deal with that fact.

That fact, I mean, that you will feel wronged when a burglar breaks into your house. Not just annoyed that your stereo has disappeared. But wronged.

for coming to any mature understanding of how the world works.

Remember these words before positing primative tribes who don't share the universal notion that eating others is an objective evil

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

A Christian solution to the problem of evil is some what irrelevant to this original question.

Wicknight, if you are debating on a Christian forum with Christians then a Christian solution is entirely relevant to the discussion.

Wicknight wrote: »

The closest answer I've see to the problem is that evil is not actually evil, it serves a greater purpose as part of God's plan and is ultimately good. Therefore evil doesn't actually exist, evil is simply based on limited human perception. But then as you say Christianity readily accepts there is a thing called evil.

Not an answer I would subscribe to. The bible categorically states that there are such things as good and evil. These two things aren't abstract concepts in Christianity.

robindch wrote: »

Because religious people generally believe that their own particular deity is a "god of love". Even though this belief is immediately contradicted by the existence of what I suppose you could call "not-love", and a deity who seems quite uninterested in doing anything about it. When an atheist uses the "evil" argument, I'd imagine it's probably just him/her using one bad religious argument to show that another one is bad too.

Alternatively, it could be just atheists winding up religious people.

Personally, I think the ideas of "evil" and "good" as they're usually used by religious people, even when shorn of their religious connotations, are useless, if not actively counterproductive, for coming to any mature understanding of how the world works.

You seem to be missing the basic message of Christianity: that God was acutely interested in doing something and did it. I'm sorry, but I really don't know how you could have missed this.

Wow! The arrogance contained in your "mature understanding of how the world works" statement is quite flabbergasting, robin. You conveniently forget that the vast majority of people throughout history have been and are religious to a greater or lesser extent. That their understanding of good and evil is grounded in something you, a minority (non)belief, just happen to find childish is quite revealing. And despite what you hearts desire may be regarding the demise of one of the worlds great evils, religion remains part of a mature understanding of the world.

mobert wrote:

The problem of evil can be divided in two:"Moral evil" and "natural evil". The problem of moral evil has been pretty much dealt with by the idea of free will and accountability. Natural evil, on the other hand, raises other questions. Exploitation, murder, rape, infliction of harm, etc. are all abhorrent acts that bring suffering to the victim. Yet these acts are what nature encourages. God's insistence on such abhorrent acts in the animal kingdom is puzzling to me.

I have heard a few different responses, such as "original sin is retroactive" or "animals don't matter as much so it's OK", but none of them really address the issue of why God's kingdom on earth is one of relentless exploitation.

I don't buy it. Rape, murder, exploitation or whatever else are all consequences of another persons choice and fit into your "moral evil" category. I suspect that while you might be morally outraged and disgusted every time you watch Blue Planet or whatever, I willing to bet that most people would draw a distinction between a lion killing and eating its prey - in this matter it doesn't have a choice - and a man choosing to rape a woman.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

The problem of evil can be divided in two:"Moral evil" and "natural evil". The problem of moral evil has been pretty much dealt with by the idea of free will and accountability. Natural evil, on the other hand, raises other questions. Exploitation, murder, rape, infliction of harm, etc. are all abhorrent acts that bring suffering to the victim. Yet these acts are what nature encourages. God's insistence on such abhorrent acts in the animal kingdom is puzzling to me.

I have heard a few different responses, such as "original sin is retroactive" or "animals don't matter as much so it's OK", but none of them really address the issue of why God's kingdom on earth is one of relentless exploitation.

Relentless exploitation mightn't be the last station to stop at when it comes to positing why nature is as we see it to be.

The nature of the sin which lies at the root of all trouble goes by the name of Pride - which, in effect, involves putting self interest above all else. There are negative and positive connotations of the word and it's the negative side we're looking at - where Pride usually indicates unrighteously or unjustifiably putting self interest above all else.

Man was placed as head of creation by God so when he fell, the sin that caused his fall infected both his nature and the nature over which he had dominion. Although animals and plants can't be said to be proud in the sense that can be said of us, self-interest-uber-alles (the symptom of sin-infection) nonetheless govern the actions of the plant/animal world.

Nature - represented in the animal and plant kingdom - reflect the nature of the God-designated head of that kingdom: man. When man fell, all things attaching to man, both within (mind and body) and without (the external to man universe) fell.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't buy it. Rape, murder, exploitation or whatever else are all consequences of another persons choice and fit into your "moral evil" category. I suspect that while you might be morally outraged and disgusted every time you watch Blue Planet or whatever, I willing to bet that most people would draw a distinction between a lion killing and eating its prey - in this matter it doesn't have a choice - and a man choosing to rape a woman.

I never said I was morally outraged or disgusted by watching Blue Planet. Nor did I imply anything of the sort. In fact, the very reason I am not outraged is because I am so conditioned to it. I see such acts as "normal" when they occur in nature. But that's beside the point. The problem of natural evil exists because murder, rape, and killing are all an integral part of nature, which conflicts with the idea of nature being the creation of a benevolent God.

Morbert

Nature - represented in the animal and plant kingdom - reflect the nature of the God-designated head of that kingdom: man (formerly)

This line of thought seems to work when it comes to creationists. But if we accept evolution, then we must accept the billions of years of natural history that was around before man. Horrible acts we done to animals that, while not as sophisticated or advanced as humans, were still capable of fear and suffering.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Wicknight, if you are debating on a Christian forum with Christians then a Christian solution is entirely relevant to the discussion.

Ok let me put it another way. Solutions from anyone to the problem of evil are irrelevant to the issue at hand, that being if God exists and is good why does evil exist. How we overcome evil is a different issue to why evil exists at all.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You conveniently forget that the vast majority of people throughout history have been and are religious to a greater or lesser extent.

The vast majority of people throughout history have had poor understanding of sociology, psychology and biology.

"Good" and "evil", while still used in a general sense, are concepts that are a bit passed their sell by date and really don't help in modern understanding of human emotions and behaviour.

But all that is some what OT.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Religious" people use the word 'evil' in an argument based on the virtually universally accepted notion that some things are truly and objectively and always evil.

Religious people use the word evil to describe evil things. Brilliant, glad that is cleared up :pac:

antiskeptic wrote: »

And how, asks the argument, are you, the atheist going to deal with that fact.

I would imagine that most deal with it by saying the same thing as Robin, that concepts such as "evil" while sounding good are in fact so undefined and abstract as to have little bearing on the real world.

You get this a lot in the tabloids, where "evil" killer John Doe beat his wife to death because he is evil. Great, now why did he actually do it?

Saying something is evil sounds wonderful but gives pretty much zero insight into why some really does something, why John Doe actually killed his wife, the often complex psychology neurological and physiological reasons he did what he did.

Saying something or someone is evil really doesn't increase our understanding in any significant sense.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I would imagine that most deal with it by saying the same thing as Robin, that concepts such as "evil" while sounding good are in fact so undefined and abstract as to have little bearing on the real world.

When the world and his brother consider the rape of a child an evil act - not abstract, not undefined - just evil, then such "deal with it's" won't suffice.

You get this a lot in the tabloids, where "evil" killer John Doe beat his wife to death because he is evil. Great, now why did he actually do it?

Saying something is evil sounds wonderful but gives pretty much zero insight into why some really does something, why John Doe actually killed his wife, the often complex psychology neurological and physiological reasons he did what he did.

Your assuming that the complexity of the (supposed) mechanics of evil render the recognition of evil equally complex. This is not so: the world and his brother have decided that the rape of a child is an evil act - without reference to theories about what the mechanics of evil might actually be.

When the world and his brother say the world is round, arguments denying same need do a lot better than posit "perhaps there's more to this than meets the eye". There are factors involved in peoples acts which render the tabloid headlines void but criminal justice systems, for all their taking into account psychological disturbance, upbringing, poverty and the like, for all their aiming to rehabilitate, include a significant punishment element in their sentencing. A nod to the objectivity of evil.

MatthewVII

The existence of evil isn't denied by atheists, nor does the word "evil" imply an objective gold standard laid out by an omnipotent being.

To a theist, evil is anything which goes against what they perceive as God's will. This is a subjective take on a seemingly objective standard. Hence some Christians view tattoos, smoking etc as evil and some don't, taking different messages from the same standard.

To an atheist, evil is a subjective take on a subjective standard. Things which are viewed as evils by society are constantly changing (eg slavery, women's rights, gay rights etc) and changing social attitudes combined with personal ethical reflection. However, considering that social attitudes towards many ethical issues (eg murder, rape) are considered established evils, this does bring in an element of objectivity.

So atheists can use the term evil. Evil doesn't need a standard to be set by anyone else besides society in which we live. My opinion (and probably many atheists) is that society-defined "evil" is a more robust and accurate concept since it takes social change and thought into account, changing with society and evolving to become stronger, more inclusive, and fairer.

A theist can use the term evil, but as alluded to in previous posts, this is hard to reconcile with the concept of an all-loving god, perfect in his benevolence, without any shred of hate etc.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Because religious people generally believe that their own particular deity is a "god of love". Even though this belief is immediately contradicted by the existence of what I suppose you could call "not-love", and a deity who seems quite uninterested in doing anything about it.

Well all the Abrahamic faiths reveal that their God is not just a God of love but a God of wrath also, who uses the evil of heathen nations to bring judgment even on His own people, so that sort of puts that argument back on its head doesn't it?

robindch wrote: »

When an atheist uses the "evil" argument, I'd imagine it's probably just him/her using one bad religious argument to show that another one is bad too.

Then maybe it would be a good idea if they brought some of their own material to the table instead of relying on religious concepts to prove their points. :pac:

robindch wrote: »

Alternatively, it could be just atheists winding up religious people.

I don't think so. I think it is just that they never really thought it out before and that on the face of it it seems like a reasonable argument against the existence of God, but when one actually thinks about it as per the OP then it becomes very clear that it is not. I just wish they'd stop using it.

robindch wrote: »

Personally, I think the ideas of "evil" and "good" as they're usually used by religious people, even when shorn of their religious connotations, are useless, if not actively counterproductive, for coming to any mature understanding of how the world works.

So you're saying that there is no such thing as evil then? Great can you pass that onto your atheist buddies so that they will stop using it as an argument against the existence of God? Cheers

antiskeptic

MatthewVII wrote: »

However, considering that social attitudes towards many ethical issues (eg murder, rape) are considered established evils, this does bring in an element of objectivity.

My opinion (and probably many atheists) is that society-defined "evil" is a more robust and accurate concept since it takes social change and thought into account, changing with society and evolving to become stronger, more inclusive, and fairer.

This appears to presume an onwards and ever upwards graph out of the jungle. Unfortunately, social change and thought can devolve into savagery - as these most violent recent centuries (not to say, the history of mankind) have amply demonstrated.

To the biblical theist, rape will always and ever be wrong. To the societally-governed atheist.. this need not necessarily remain be the case.

Atheistic takes on evil. Robust? Objective?

A theist can use the term evil, but as alluded to in previous posts, this is hard to reconcile with the concept of an all-loving god, perfect in his benevolence, without any shred of hate etc.

It's far less hard to reconcile the existance of evil with a God who is furious wrath and anger against sin - you might agree.

That's the biblical God afterall.

Soul Winner

MatthewVII wrote: »

A theist can use the term evil, but as alluded to in previous posts, this is hard to reconcile with the concept of an all-loving god, perfect in his benevolence, without any shred of hate etc.

For the record, things God hates:

“You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.” Deuteronomy 12:31

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.” Malachi 2:16

“But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” Revelation 2:6

“There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brother.” Proverbs 6:16-19

The God of the Bible is not just a God of love. Love is just one of His many attributes, He is also a God of hate, vengeance and wrath so the existence of evil is quite consistent with His revelation.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

When the world and his brother consider the rape of a child an evil act - not abstract, not undefined - just evil, then such "deal with it's" won't suffice.

But "just evil" doesn't mean anything, it is in itself abstract and undefined. Saying that an act is "evil" doesn't explain anything.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your assuming that the complexity of the (supposed) mechanics of evil render the recognition of evil equally complex. This is not so: the world and his brother have decided that the rape of a child is an evil act - without reference to theories about what the mechanics of evil might actually be.

Actually they haven't. That is particularly poor example as there are still plenty of examples where forced sex with a minor is considered justifiable, for example in the case of younger age brides in places like Afghanistan. And in fact the Old Testament is littered with examples of acts that a person in the modern society may say is "evil" but which Jews and Christians say isn't evil because it is sanctioned by God.

So again the term becomes some what meaningless. It doesn't increase understanding. Saying something is evil doesn't mean anything expect that some people hold that position.

Things are judged evil and all that does is allude to the person juding.

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well all the Abrahamic faiths reveal that their God is not just a God of love but a God of wrath also, who uses the evil of heathen nations to bring judgment even on His own people, so that sort of puts that argument back on its head doesn't it?

I'm not sure how a god of love can also be a god of wrath, especially when the love directed at his creations (which is a category that includes heathens) is supposedly infinite.

antiskeptic wrote: »

To the biblical theist, rape will always and ever be wrong.

Um, are you sure this is true?

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

So it's wrong, and the man is to be punished for raping her by being forced to marry her?

(Also, Muslims count as theists, don't they? 'cause they just recently legalised marital rape in Saudi Arabia. Yes, I know you said 'biblical' but wouldn't 'Christian' have been a better word?)

stevejazzx

Isn't this covered under 'free will'.
That is to say God could do something about evil but he has given us free will so if we are 'evil' then that is up to us, eventually we will be judged.
The paradox here for me, that no christian on this forum has ever answered (despite me asking a few times) is when did God stop interfering in human affairs?
In biblical text we have plenty of 'interference' from God. He could be striking someone down one minute or unleashing a plague of locusts the next. Nowadays however, nothing. Not a sausage.
I say the people in biblical times had an advantage that God was so active in this time - it made it much easier to believe in him than it does these days when the only activity there is hihgly personalised stuff happening an inconsistent basus and is relative to each individual.

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm not sure how a god of love can also be a god of wrath, especially when the love directed at his creations (which is a category that includes heathens) is supposedly infinite.

This is the issue, the concepts become some what meaningless.

Based on this forum a lot of Christians believe that good is defined by what God does, so naturally everything God does is good. But that means that us assessing God as good is pointless as by definition we do not have a independent standard to do this. God simply is, and everything else is defined based on that.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Um, are you sure this is true?

Given that forced marriage (which implies rape) is described regularly in the Old Testament as being approved by God I find it very hard to believe it is true.

stevejazzx

Wiknight I don't see it as a big problem (that is to say, if I apply Christian logic!) for God to be a God of love and wrath. He made his creation and gives them free regin. Thier mistakes have nothing to with his philosophy even though ultimately he will judge them. Oh and if he wants to get all wrathful then he can but he doesn't do it anymore (oh unless we're counting tsunamis!!:eek:).

Soul Winner

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm not sure how a god of love can also be a god of wrath, especially when the love directed at his creations (which is a category that includes heathens) is supposedly infinite.

I'm a Dad, I love my kids to bits but when they get out of hand and p*ss me off, I get angry and shout and maybe even ground them, but at every step I love them the same as before, so I'm not sure what your argument is suppose to prove. It is lame on its face. If I can be a Dad of love and of wrath then why can't God?

stevejazzx

Soul Winner wrote: »

If I can be a Dad of love and of wrath then why can't God?

He can be - just seems silly though that he is given how advanced a 'being' he must be.

Soul Winner

stevejazzx wrote: »

He can be - just seems silly though that he is given how advanced a 'being' he must be.

The Psalmist mused about the very same thing:

"What is man that you are mindful of him..?" Psalm 8:4

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm a Dad, I love my kids to bits but when they get out of hand and p*ss me off, I get angry and shout and maybe even ground them, but at every step I love them the same as before.

Well, yeah, but you don't kill them.

Soul Winner

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Well, yeah, but you don't kill them.

If He exists then He is the creator and giver of all life and as such has the right to take it away again, because it belongs to Him. I don't have the right to kill my kids but the thought had crossed my mind on several occasions when they were not acting in accordance with my will

Húrin

Morbert wrote: »

I have heard a few different responses, such as "original sin is retroactive" or "animals don't matter as much so it's OK", but none of them really address the issue of why God's kingdom on earth is one of relentless exploitation.

I think that God might be conducting a moral 'experiment' with us. By creating a species which has a penchant for moral values that contradict natural selection.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Isn't this covered under 'free will'.
That is to say God could do something about evil but he has given us free will so if we are 'evil' then that is up to us, eventually we will be judged.
The paradox here for me, that no christian on this forum has ever answered (despite me asking a few times) is when did God stop interfering in human affairs?

In biblical text we have plenty of 'interference' from God. He could be striking someone down one minute or unleashing a plague of locusts the next. Nowadays however, nothing. Not a sausage.

He's going around the world converting people to Christianity.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

The vast majority of people throughout history have had poor understanding of sociology, psychology and biology.

"Good" and "evil", while still used in a general sense, are concepts that are a bit passed their sell by date and really don't help in modern understanding of human emotions and behaviour.

But all that is some what OT.

Oh, my! It seems that you and robin are reading from the same script, which seems to read, "people were dumb, but we enlightened folks now know much better". This is hardly a surprising position to take, I guess, when it appears that you don't have any alternatives to dismissing antiquated beliefs about absolutes like immutable truths or the existence of good or evil.

Yes, and I bet life seems very safe and reasonable from the comfort of your couch. "Good and evil", like God, don't actually exist and any questions to the contrary can be explained away by whatever enlightened means we care to deploy.

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote: »

Isn't this covered under 'free will'.
That is to say God could do something about evil but he has given us free will so if we are 'evil' then that is up to us, eventually we will be judged.
The paradox here for me, that no christian on this forum has ever answered (despite me asking a few times) is when did God stop interfering in human affairs?
In biblical text we have plenty of 'interference' from God. He could be striking someone down one minute or unleashing a plague of locusts the next. Nowadays however, nothing. Not a sausage.
I say the people in biblical times had an advantage that God was so active in this time - it made it much easier to believe in him than it does these days when the only activity there is hihgly personalised stuff happening an inconsistent basus and is relative to each individual.

Then you seem to have an extraordinary bad run of not reading appropriate posts here. On a many occasions people have expressed their belief that God has interceded in their lives. Along with these threads, the fundamental Christian belief that God continues to be active in our live seems to have eluded you. So I'm going to suggest that your apparent difficulty in receiving an answer to your oft asked question stems not from the God's apparent inaction or the silence of Christians posters here, but from the fact that you automatically dismiss any claims or anecdotes that he does interact with us - however mysteriously - out of hand.

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

If He exists then He is the creator and giver of all life and as such has the right to take it away again, because it belongs to Him. I don't have the right to kill my kids but the thought had crossed my mind on several occasions when they were not acting in accordance with my will

Yes, and if he doesn't exist, then you are their creator, and I'm pretty certain you still wouldn't kill them.

Húrin wrote: »

I think that God might be conducting a moral 'experiment' with us. By creating a species which has a penchant for moral values that contradict natural selection.

Huh? Our moral values don't contradict natural selection.

ScissorPaperRock

Good and Evil are ideas, and as such are subjective and fluid.

In the same way that right and wrong are fluid concepts.

Neither prove the existence of a higher being. The concept of a higher being serves as a vehicle to drive forward certain ideals of right and wrong.

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Then you seem to have an extraordinary bad run of not reading appropriate posts here. On a many occasions people have expressed their belief that God has interceded in their lives. Along with these threads, the fundamental Christian belief that God continues to be active in our live seems to have eluded you. So I'm going to suggest that your apparent difficulty in receiving an answer to your oft asked question stems not from the God's apparent inaction or the silence of Christians posters here, but from the fact that you automatically dismiss any claims or anecdotes that he does interact with us - however mysteriously - out of hand.

No. I don't mean personal evidence Fanny, I've just been over this in another thread wiht Hurin. I mean when did God stop interfering in a physical sense (physical is not the best word but I'm sure you know what I mean).

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote: »

Isn't this covered under 'free will'.
That is to say God could do something about evil but he has given us free will so if we are 'evil' then that is up to us, eventually we will be judged.
The paradox here for me, that no christian on this forum has ever answered (despite me asking a few times) is when did God stop interfering in human affairs?
In biblical text we have plenty of 'interference' from God. He could be striking someone down one minute or unleashing a plague of locusts the next. Nowadays however, nothing. Not a sausage.
I say the people in biblical times had an advantage that God was so active in this time - it made it much easier to believe in him than it does these days when the only activity there is hihgly personalised stuff happening an inconsistent basus and is relative to each individual.

Húrin wrote: »

He's going around the world converting people to Christianity.

I don't follow this. Can you elaborate?

Soul Winner

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, and if he doesn't exist, then you are their creator, and I'm pretty certain you still wouldn't kill them.

Well even if God doesn't exist, I still wouldn't be their creator. They came from the union of me and their mother, neither of us created them as such, we just acted in the natural way and hey presto: Kids popped out. How the union of the sperm and egg can unite to bring forth offspring to me is a miracle. But assume God does exist for a second, and one of His attributes is that He is the originator and giver of all life, then as such He has the right to take that life away again. If He exists at all He can never be a murderer, only those who don't have the right to take life can be called murderers if they choose to do so.