Moral Manipulation & the Problem of Evil

[Philosophy Now]

Jimmy Alfonso Licon challenges a traditional Christian explanation of suffering.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Mora ... em_of_Evil

[traceyb1]

The problem of evil would certainly seem to pose a serious problem for the theist. But after having carefully - and thoroughly enjoyed - this article, a problem arises for the author, as well. Namely, by his stating that people's actions, committed freely , can CAUSE suffering. In other words, if we accept that people have free-will, then their actions MAY or MAY NOT lead to suffering. Not WILL. Because if EVERYTHING had a causal link, then it would follow that a subsequent event would HAVE TO HAPPEN. WILL guarantees an event happening ; MAY does not. So, either people are free-agents, acting on their own volition, and their actions may or may not cause suffering, or everything is determined, and terms like " good " and " evil " fly out the conceptual and logical window. I don't think God needs to worry.

[MMasz]

I appreciate Licon’s article as he seems sincere in his analysis of the Problem of Evil and he avoids the snarky comments typically accompanying such articles. Unfortunately, Licon analysis suffers from a flawed idea of what attributes the god they don’t believe in possesses. Hence, the types of arguments devolve into straw men, an error which could be avoided if one were to look at what the Bible actually teaches versus the conception of god an atheist might invent. These article rarely, if ever, include an analysis based on Scripture. Without Scripture, one is relegated to opinion.

Some area for the Biblical novice to explore would be the Fall in Genesis, and what is called “the potter’s freedom” from Jeremiah 18. The alleged omni-benevolence of God is somewhat of a misnomer since if God were really OMNI-benevolent then he would be a universalist regarding salvation. Further, how would an onmi-benevolent god deal with sin, since if he were omni-benevolent he would never have permitted sin in the first place.

Frankly, things like the Holocaust, the Crusades, rape, etc., etc., actually validate what the Bible teaches about the nature of man. God owes us no explanation for all the crap that happens. Read Job’s anguish and God’s explanation to Job. Don’t like the answer? Tough twinkies. God does whatever he wishes.

The alleged Problem of Evil is actually one for the atheist to wrestle with as they have to define evil in the first place absent God.

[traceyb1]

The problem of evil is not so much a problem for the theist as it is for the atheist. I am not denying that evil exists, because it clearly does, in various forms, shapes, and sizes. The question most atheists ask , if an all-benevolent God exists, is WHY does evil exist ? The fact that evil DOES exist proves that God cannot possibly exist.

Well, I do not deny the existence of evil, for it clearly exists, in a plethora of forms, shapes, and sizes. The question to be begged, then, is WHY ? Well, it is simple. Can anyone know what " good " is, without knowing what " evil " is ? How can anyone conceivably say " That is good ", without having the faintest idea of what " bad " is ? It makes no sense logically and conceptually. But if the atheist wishes to insist the presence of evil disproves the existence of God, then they will inevitably fall into a reduction ad absurdum : The fact that evil is present in the world means an all-benevolent God doesn't exist . But you can't have an idea of " good " without knowing what " evil " is. So if God doesn't exist, then neither does evil, since God is all-benevolent. If evil doesn't exist, then neither does good, and God. But evil DOES exist. Therefore, the fact that evil does exist PROVES that God exists. The atheist can't have it both ways. Either God exists because evil does, or evil doesn't exist if there is no all-good God.

[MMasz]

The problem of evil is not so much a problem for the theist as it is for the atheist. I am not denying that evil exists, because it clearly does, in various forms, shapes, and sizes. The question most atheists ask , if an all-benevolent God exists, is WHY does evil exist ? The fact that evil DOES exist proves that God cannot possibly exist.

Well, I do not deny the existence of evil, for it clearly exists, in a plethora of forms, shapes, and sizes. The question to be begged, then, is WHY ? Well, it is simple. Can anyone know what " good " is, without knowing what " evil " is ? How can anyone conceivably say " That is good ", without having the faintest idea of what " bad " is ? It makes no sense logically and conceptually. But if the atheist wishes to insist the presence of evil disproves the existence of God, then they will inevitably fall into a reduction ad absurdum : The fact that evil is present in the world means an all-benevolent God doesn't exist . But you can't have an idea of " good " without knowing what " evil " is. So if God doesn't exist, then neither does evil, since God is all-benevolent. If evil doesn't exist, then neither does good, and God. But evil DOES exist. Therefore, the fact that evil does exist PROVES that God exists. The atheist can't have it both ways. Either God exists because evil does, or evil doesn't exist if there is no all-good God.

I agree, but would hesitate to say the existence of evil PROVES that God exists. Proof has vague meaning without qualifiers. Anyway, without God the atheist is forced to relegate the definition to what is a personal preference. I’ve not heard convincing arguments otherwise.

[Dunce]

Well, I do not deny the existence of evil, for it clearly exists, in a plethora of forms, shapes, and sizes.

Does it? Joel Marks has been - in the pages of Philosophy Now - quite engagingly arguing against such concepts.

In my experience, those who have the strongest sense of good and evil are people of faith whose God is not the God of the philosophers as mulled over in Licon's article, but the God who is locked in a battle with the source of all evil - Satan. This character is not mentioned in the article at all. Unlike God, philosophers seem unable to take the horned one seriously. Yet these faithful Christians are confident that God will defeat Satan; that good will triumph over evil. They are certain about what is good and what evil - there is only dark and light, no grey areas - and are pretty smug about knowing themselves to be on the winning side. Well you would be wouldn't you?

[traceyb1]

So, Christians are " the only ones " who have a sense of what " good " and " evil " are ? The atheist is utterly and completely " morally " bankrupt, or " amoral " ? The atheist can't POSSIBLY have a concept of what is right, and what is wrong ? It is just CHRISTIANS who go about living a morally upright life ? That seems to me a tad arrogant , and a bit misguided. I know MANY atheists who have a sense of what constitutes - or , rather, what MAY constitute - right and wrong, good and evil. No, he didn't mention Satan in his article ; but he DID try to prove an all-benevolent God cannot LOGICALLY or CONCEPTUALLY exist because there is evil in this world. What IS " evil " ? Many would say " Well, the absence of ' good '. But HOW can anyone possibly- and CRUCIALLY, LOGICALLY - know what evil is, without having a basic sense of what good is ? . And by doing so, his argument fell into a reduction ad absurdum trap, as I have previously shown. He says it himself that there is evil in the world; he did not , as you claim, " leave it out ". And, no, I am not " smug " as you rather amusingly suggest. All I did was turn the proverbial and logical tables on the " problem of evil ". And it's quite clear from that that the problem is more of a problem for the ATHEIST, rather than the theist. But thank you for the reply. I enjoy exercising my mental muscles through intellectual sparring from time to time. Keeps me on my figurative toes.

[traceyb1]

The problem of evil is not so much a problem for the theist as it is for the atheist. I am not denying that evil exists, because it clearly does, in various forms, shapes, and sizes. The question most atheists ask , if an all-benevolent God exists, is WHY does evil exist ? The fact that evil DOES exist proves that God cannot possibly exist.

Well, I do not deny the existence of evil, for it clearly exists, in a plethora of forms, shapes, and sizes. The question to be begged, then, is WHY ? Well, it is simple. Can anyone know what " good " is, without knowing what " evil " is ? How can anyone conceivably say " That is good ", without having the faintest idea of what " bad " is ? It makes no sense logically and conceptually. But if the atheist wishes to insist the presence of evil disproves the existence of God, then they will inevitably fall into a reduction ad absurdum : The fact that evil is present in the world means an all-benevolent God doesn't exist . But you can't have an idea of " good " without knowing what " evil " is. So if God doesn't exist, then neither does evil, since God is all-benevolent. If evil doesn't exist, then neither does good, and God. But evil DOES exist. Therefore, the fact that evil does exist PROVES that God exists. The atheist can't have it both ways. Either God exists because evil does, or evil doesn't exist if there is no all-good God.

I agree, but would hesitate to say the existence of evil PROVES that God exists. Proof has vague meaning without qualifiers. Anyway, without God the atheist is forced to relegate the definition to what is a personal preference. I’ve not heard convincing arguments otherwise.

[Conde Lucanor]

Let's assume there is a god and this god has the attributes usually ascribed by Christian traditions:

1) He is all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing.
2) He is the origin or First Cause of everything
3) He is a person: has will, consciousness, etc.

Under that same tradition, these are all necessary conditions for a god to be.

Since this entity is the ultimate source of everything, he has to be the ultimate source of evil, by his own will, with perfect knowledge of it. That would give a huge blow to his "all-benevolent" feature, a problem that Christian theologians don't seem to have resolved, except for conveniently dropping out of the features of their god any of the things that they claim as essential: either not all-powerful, either not all-knowing, either not a First Cause, either not a person, etc. In other words, either way, they must deny their own god.

Notice that what men do is of no consequence to the problem of the existence of evil, since everything (including men) is ultimately related to the First Cause. Whenever a claim is made about evilness being caused by men, there's a concealed denial of the necessary conditions for a god to be.

Now let's assume there is no god, as atheists would claim. Not only not all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing, but no god at all (not even Satan, which in some accounts is regarded as the counterpart of god - thus, just another god). So, good and evil, in whatever terms we want to define them, become part of man's nature. Whatever is in man's nature does not contradict the claim that there is no god. Evil is only a sufficient condition for a person to exist, but not for a divine person.

Whenever a claim is made about a neccesary First Cause of evilness, it must come from theists that believe in a First Cause.

Therefore, the problem of evil only brings trouble to the ranks of theists.

[Immanuel Can]

Therefore, the problem of evil only brings trouble to the ranks of theists.

I can't see why this would be true. I mean, surely BOTH Theists and Atheists *experience* evil, so in that sense it must "bring trouble" for both.

Are you supposing it's easier to *accept* the existence of evil from an Atheistic point of view? But again, I can't see why that would be. Is it easier for an Atheist to watch a loved one die than it is for a Theist? Do they feel less physical pain than Theists? Do the experience less suffering, or do they cope better with suffering?

Are you supposing it's easier to *identify* evil from an Atheist point of view? Again, I can't see why. The Theist has at least a basis upon which to substantiate a definition of evil; but Atheists have no objective basis upon which to support a judgment that something is "evil." As that great 'saint' of Atheism David Hume pointed out, what *is* simply *is*: how does one get to a universal claim for objective value from that?

Are you supposing it's easier to *combat* evil from an Atheist point of view? I can't see that it is. If it were, the educative, charitable and humanitarian efforts mounted by Atheists would surely dwarf those created by Theists; but as we see, the precise opposite is the case.

Are you supposing it's easier to *explain* evil from an Atheist point of view? I can see that it's somewhat different, but not any easier. The Atheist has to ask himself why the universe happens to be arranged in a way so antithetical to his well-being (i.e. evil), but has nothing he can tell himself but "Bad luck" on that score.

In no dimension can I make sense of your claim that the existence of evil is less troublesome to one kind of person that another; I'm inclined to think it is only somewhat *differently* troublesome, but at least as problematic overall, and I would even dare venture it could be *more* problematic. After all, a Theist can at least think he has *some* account of evil, even if he doesn't always understand everything: but how does an Atheist even figure out how to open up the subject? Without objective values, how can he indict anything as *evil*? Is it not true, as Dostoyevsky said, that "If God is dead, everything is permitted"? (Без бога всё позволено).

[Conde Lucanor]

Therefore, the problem of evil only brings trouble to the ranks of theists.

I can't see why this would be true. I mean, surely BOTH Theists and Atheists *experience* evil, so in that sense it must "bring trouble" for both.

Are you supposing it's easier to *accept* the existence of evil from an Atheistic point of view? But again, I can't see why that would be. Is it easier for an Atheist to watch a loved one die than it is for a Theist? Do they feel less physical pain than Theists? Do the experience less suffering, or do they cope better with suffering?

In the context of this thread, I understand the "problem of evil" as the "problem of understanding the concept of evil". I'm not talking about how theists or atheists experience evil, even though one might expect a correlation between the experience and the representation of it. The point is that the existence of evil challenges the theistic point of view that an all-benevolent god exists, but it doesn't challenge the atheistic point of view that no god exists.

Are you supposing it's easier to *identify* evil from an Atheist point of view? Again, I can't see why. The Theist has at least a basis upon which to substantiate a definition of evil;

A wrong basis it seems, as demonstrated by the paradox of an all-benevolent god that permits evil.

but Atheists have no objective basis upon which to support a judgment that something is "evil."

Yes, they have. They can base it on a cultural convention, a socially constructed category. So, if a given society says that some kinds of acts fall in the category of evil, every instance of that act will be judged as evil.

Are you supposing it's easier to *combat* evil from an Atheist point of view? I can't see that it is.

I have never claimed that.

If it were, the educative, charitable and humanitarian efforts mounted by Atheists would surely dwarf those created by Theists; but as we see, the precise opposite is the case.

Not only that would be a false generalization, but also an Ad Populum fallacy. It is also implying that members of a minority are less humanitarian for being part of that minority.

Are you supposing it's easier to *explain* evil from an Atheist point of view? I can see that it's somewhat different, but not any easier. The Atheist has to ask himself why the universe happens to be arranged in a way so antithetical to his well-being (i.e. evil), but has nothing he can tell himself but "Bad luck" on that score.

And just exactly why an atheist has to think the universe has been prearranged in a particular way? I don't get it. Isn't he/she an atheist precisely because he/she thinks it has not been prearranged? Do you mean the word "contingent" is not part of everyone's vocabulary?

"If God is dead, everything is permitted"? (Без бога всё позволено).

Kind of an irony, because if a supernatural world exists, everything is permitted.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:
Are you supposing it's easier to *identify* evil from an Atheist point of view? Again, I can't see why. The Theist has at least a basis upon which to substantiate a definition of evil;

A wrong basis it seems, as demonstrated by the paradox of an all-benevolent god that permits evil.

But nothing can be *wrong* in an Atheist universe -- at least not in an evaluative, moral sense. Everything simply "is." (See David Hume.) You cannot rationally indict God for allowing "evil" if you can't even explain what "evil" really is. You've rendered the word meaningless yourself then.

That is one reason why the argument for the existence of evil actually turns out to be an argument *for* God -- if there's no God, no objectivity to evil either.

And as for the implication that the Theist view is deluded, even delusions are, from an Atheist perspective, are not "wrong" morally but are merely phenomena -- "things that happen" -- or "is"s, not "ought-nots." So again, there's no Atheist ground from which to launch an indictment.

As for the permitting of evil, all sides admit that if there were any way to justify it's existence, it would have to be an over-riding consideration to explain why God allows it. The Theist claims there is such a consideration, and the Atheist denies that there could be. But the weakness of the Atheist position is greater; for if it should happen that the Theist can propose even *one* such rationale, then that would be sufficient to defeat the Atheist's categorical-negative claim.

Immanuel Can wrote:
but Atheists have no objective basis upon which to support a judgment that something is "evil."

Yes, they have. They can base it on a cultural convention, a socially constructed category. So, if a given society says that some kinds of acts fall in the category of evil, every instance of that act will be judged as evil.

No, they have not; because "cultural convention" is straw and wind.

Consider the case of female circumcision, the brutal mutilation of young females in the name of "purity." It's an ancient custom, dignified by time, firmly believed in by entire societies. I have no doubt that you share my revulsion at it. But what makes your society's condemnation of it, and their society's celebration of it any different? So we, as human beings, are all locked in whatever our society happens to dictate. Little girls in Somalia must continue to be mutilated; and you have nothing moral to say about it? I do not believe it.

What you need is an *outside* transcendent standard to pass any such judgment. But the Atheist already holds that there are no such objective, *outside* standards.


Immanuel Can wrote:
If it were, the educative, charitable and humanitarian efforts mounted by Atheists would surely dwarf those created by Theists; but as we see, the precise opposite is the case.

Not only that would be a false generalization, but also an Ad Populum fallacy. It is also implying that members of a minority are less humanitarian for being part of that minority.

Not at all: it's a purely empirical claim. There are many good ways to measure it. For example, go count the number of medical, educational and charitable institutions established by Atheists and Theists. Or go to the street missions, the prisons, the Developing World, or anywhere else where people are suffering, and count the numbers of compassionate Atheists laying down their money, their security, and even their lives for the underprivileged; and while you're there, count the Christians.

But please, please...don't take my word for it...go and look.

And just exactly why an atheist has to think the universe has been prearranged in a particular way?

Actually, I didn't have to say "evil exists": you did. You claimed God was guilty of it. And if so, I presume you must believe you have seen a thing called "evil," or else you'd be accusing God of nothing thereby.

Well, if so, then you already admit that you "see" the world in precisely the way I'm describing: as including a property called "evil." Well, if it exists, the Atheist, just like everyone else, needs to describe it. He also needs to explain to himself why it exists. If it annoys him, he should be able to say why he's annoyed by it. If he expects it to be removed, he should say why he expects that. And if he genuinely thinks that "evil" is bad, and if he's a "good" person himself, he should probably do his best to remove it. But most of all, the Atheist needs to explain to himself why he lives in a world that is characterized by so much "evil." Why was he not born into a completely benevolent universe? He cannot blame God, since he believes God does not exist: so what does he blame? And how does he explain to himself why suffering so much in this world is "worth it"?

You see, the Atheist has at least as much "work" to do intellectually on the question of evil as the Theist does; but he finds answers much harder to come by.

[Conde Lucanor]

But nothing can be *wrong* in an Atheist universe -- at least not in an evaluative, moral

sense. Everything simply "is." (See David Hume.)

In your theist universe, moral rules are supposedly obtained from the experience that mortal human beings have had with the divine entity, in other words, by revelation. But that only works one on one, between one human and the divinity (see Thomas Paine). As soon as one mortal talks to another mortal to say what he/she claims are the moral rules given to him/her by a divinity, we are in the realm of common human experience, where assertions can be either true or false. Those notions of good and wrong, no matter what the claim of their origin is, will conform a human moral system, understood and experienced in a human context, socially constructed. If it were not, I mean, if it were the perfect expression of what the divinity had devised, we wouldn't see different notions of good and wrong, completely dependent of sociocultural contexts. But that's exactly what we find: different notions across different societies in time and geography, most of them never aware of how the moral systems of the others are or were conformed. Moral diversity and moral relativism make even more problematic the idea that morality came from an all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowingly, personal god.

And nowhere else we find more contradictory notions about good and wrong than in religion itself, even in "sacred texts" that are said to be fundamental for the doctrine. One of such problematic contradictions is the paradox found in the notion of an all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowingly, personal god, that creates evil. According to Christian doctrine, a baby is born sinful without a choice, and has to redeem himself/herself to this divine entity for things he/she had never done, but orchestrated by the deity itself. Unless you don't believe the Bible, of course, or that god is all-powerful, all-knowing.


An atheist, on the other hand, can find perfectly reasonable explanations of the distinction between good and wrong in the natural and cultural conditions in which human existence has become rooted, in the mutual lends between psychology and sociology, in the relation between individual needs and social needs. Available at hand for the atheist is also the concept of ideology, which explains how real, human, unsatisfied needs, become idealized in a realm of fantasy populated by gods.

because "cultural convention" is straw and wind.

Well...isn't that funny, that cultural conventions are straw and wind, but the bearded guy in an invisible realm, that's just such a concrete, tangible thing.

Consider the case of female circumcision, the brutal mutilation of young females in the name of "purity." It's an ancient custom, dignified by time, firmly believed in by entire societies. I have no doubt that you share my revulsion at it. But what makes your society's condemnation of it, and their society's celebration of it any different? So we, as human beings, are all locked in whatever our society happens to dictate.

That just shows that notions about good and wrong change constantly in relation to historical and social contexts. If societies that celebrate this ritual believe it is their moral obligation, but other societies consider it's wrong, how could the notions of good and evil come from god? Even religions and their doctrinal systems evolve along with society. In biblical times, it was OK to slaughter entire populations, murder children, rape women, slave enemies, etc., all commanded as moral goodness by the all-powerful, all-knowingly, all-benevolent god himself. Unless you don't believe the Bible, of course, which would turn this discussion meaningless.

Little girls in Somalia must continue to be mutilated; and you have nothing moral to say about it? I do not believe it.

A modern atheist can resort to a system of values based on what defines a human as a product of natural and cultural evolution. One of such values would be, for example, individual rights and self determination, which encompasses the ownership of our own bodies and gender equality. Perhaps you wouldn't think female circumcision is a brutal procedure if it were carried out according to modern surgical procedures, if it didn't prevent women to have a free sexual life and if it were not imposed by adults on children (other than that it would not be much different from removing the uterus, tying the fallopian tubes or having plastic surgery), so actually your revulsion (as well as mine) might be associated with secular values, more than religious ones.

What you need is an *outside* transcendent standard to pass any such judgment. But the Atheist already holds that there are no such objective, *outside* standards.

As explained, the atheist can find the source of those standards in his/her own human context. There are values found outside of religious contexts that imply notions of good and evil. Even some religious values are found revolting from secular perspectives. Countless societies have existed without any knowledge whatsoever of judeochristian moral systems, its myths and taboos, but still will have their own values and distinctions between right or wrong. The Piraha people from the Amazon are godless, yet they have their own values.

And don't lose sight that any judgement criteria already requires a distinction between right or wrong, between good and evil, but believers in all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowingly, personal god, cannot explain why there's evil in the first place, unless they are willing to sacrifice any of the attributes they consider essential to their god's nature. It's an unsolved paradox.

Not at all: it's a purely empirical claim. There are many good ways to measure it. For example, go count the number of medical, educational and charitable institutions established by Atheists and Theists. Or go to the street missions, the prisons, the Developing World, or anywhere else where people are suffering, and count the numbers of compassionate Atheists laying down their money, their security, and even their lives for the underprivileged; and while you're there, count the Christians.

But please, please...don't take my word for it...go and look.

If we want to get empirical, we can count how is the distribution of atheists vs. theists in prisons. I thought it was more or less the same as it is in the general population (around 97% to 3%), but in the USA it seems that criminal theists hold a bigger percentage. Don't take my word for it...go and look at the stats from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. So, if we bought your argument, we would have to assert that most theists are criminals because of their theism. But we don't believe that, because it's a statistical fallacy.

In any case, there is a growing number of secular, non-religious organizations, including atheist organizations, promoting good will and helping others. And let's not look at the list of organizations promoting hatred and intolerance in the name of religion. Let's not look at the records of Catholic and Protestant churches in history, their Taliban-like fundamentalisms, their sacred genocidal wars, their suppport to slavery, racism, misogyny, etc.

[Immanuel Can]

In your theist universe, moral rules are supposedly obtained from the experience that mortal human beings have had with the divine entity, in other words, by revelation.

True so far. But "moral rules" are not what Christianity is about. I should not speak for other systems of belief.

But that only works one on one, between one human and the divinity (see Thomas Paine). As soon as one mortal talks to another mortal to say what he/she claims are the moral rules given to him/her by a divinity, we are in the realm of common human experience, where assertions can be either true or false.

Oh, I'd go even farther, and say that moral rules can *always* be true or false, because they are backed by moral reality. In contrast, the Atheist cannot view moral rules as true or false, or good or bad...just as choices.

Those notions of good and wrong, no matter what the claim of their origin is, will conform a human moral system, understood and experienced in a human context, socially constructed.

You've made a non-sequitur here. If the Divine Being reveals something, He can, presumably speak clearly, and if necessary, guarantee understanding. After all, He created "understanding." As for "social construction," it's the secular idea that morals are invented by human communities, which is precisely the point we're debating. You can't assume it true.

If it were not, I mean, if it were the perfect expression of what the divinity had devised, we wouldn't see different notions of good and wrong, completely dependent of sociocultural contexts. But that's exactly what we find: different notions across different societies in time and geography, most of them never aware of how the moral systems of the others are or were conformed. Moral diversity and moral relativism make even more problematic the idea that morality came from an all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowingly, personal god.

Non-sequitur again. There's no problem here at all. No religion claims the others are right: that's why they're their own thing. Even the putatively omni-tolerant ones like Hinduism and Buddhism maintain that though others might have some light, you're much better off being whatever they are. That's not usual. And, of course, Atheists insist on that too. What you're really pointing to is the fact that belief systems conflict; but that's only a problem if you expect everybody to possess exactly the *same* revelation, and in the same degrees, and everybody to be right. No belief system expects that, save Universalism. So you've now discredited the Unitarians...but that's about it.

And nowhere else we find more contradictory notions about good and wrong than in religion itself, even in "sacred texts" that are said to be fundamental for the doctrine.

Absolutely right. Religions do not agree. And Atheists do not agree. And agnostics do not agree. In fact, there are competing communities of meaning. But we all know that...

One of such problematic contradictions is the paradox found in the notion of an all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowingly, personal god, that creates evil. According to Christian doctrine, a baby is born sinful without a choice, and has to redeem himself/herself to this divine entity for things he/she had never done, but orchestrated by the deity itself. Unless you don't believe the Bible, of course, or that god is all-powerful, all-knowing.

You've got a number of errors here, at least if you're trying to describe Christian Theism. One is that in at least free-will Theism (which was the subject of the original article) God does not create evil: rather, evil is the product of severed relationship between human beings and God, one brought about by their rebellion. Secondly, people do not redeem themselves: rather, the Creator sent His Son to do that -- that's fundamental to Christianity. As for "all-powerful" and "all-knowing," Christians believe both, but neither makes a problem for their view. The only way it becomes a problem is if you've got a Strong Determinist view of Providence. So congratulations, now you've challenged the Ultra-Calvinists: unfortunately for you, they're an extremely small and marginal group who hold to unconventional theology.

An atheist, on the other hand, can find perfectly reasonable explanations of the distinction between good and wrong in the natural and cultural conditions in which human existence has become rooted, in the mutual lends between psychology and sociology, in the relation between individual needs and social needs. Available at hand for the atheist is also the concept of ideology, which explains how real, human, unsatisfied needs, become idealized in a realm of fantasy populated by gods.

You need to read Anderson's article, "Thoughts on Oughts" in the last edition of PN. The Atheist saint, David Hume, conclusively proved you can't get an "ought" from an "is." The Atheist has only "is" statements to work from. He can say, "My society prefers not to genitally mutilate little girls"; but if they begin to do it, and all he depends on is cultural conditions, psychology and sociology, he is forced to reverse his moral position on that action and say "It's good to mutilate little girls." In other words, his Naturalist suppositions give him no tools for working on moral issues; they just make him a conformist.

Nations, cultures, social groups, clans, tribes, factions...all are contingent groups. They have not always existed in their present form, nor does it seem likely they will continue to do so. They also believe in different and even conflicting values (philosophers call this fact "irreconcilable moral pluralism," and it's a generally recognized premise of moral philosophy) So any morality premised on such groups is also contingent, changeable, and ultimately uninformative to us of what we should or shoud not (morally) do.

Again, only a morality that transcends the sociological contingency level can inform us about morality. And Atheism has no such thing.

That just shows that notions about good and wrong change constantly in relation to historical and social contexts. If societies that celebrate this ritual believe it is their moral obligation, but other societies consider it's wrong, how could the notions of good and evil come from god?

Because societies do not do what God wants. Many of them do evil...in fact, all do on some points. So now you've shot down constructivism as a source of morals. But you've not touched Theism.

Countless societies have existed without any knowledge whatsoever of judeochristian moral systems, its myths and taboos, but still will have their own values and distinctions between right or wrong.

Of course they will *have* them, but some of them will clearly be wrong. And one doesn't even have to be a Theist to know that. You just have to read Aristotle, and you'll see that the basic laws of logic produce that inevitable conclusion. When two things flatly contradict, then one may be right, the other may be right, both may be wrong -- but the one ironclad certainty, rationally speaking, is that *both* are not simultaneously right. Basic logic.

And don't lose sight that any judgement criteria already requires a distinction between right or wrong, between good and evil, but believers in all-benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowingly, personal god, cannot explain why there's evil in the first place, unless they are willing to sacrifice any of the attributes they consider essential to their god's nature. It's an unsolved paradox.

That's simply untrue. The Euthyphro Dilemma is an old one, and good answers to it have been adduced. I find it amazing that Atheists cling to it so irrationally. It's been answered. But heck, I can go over it again for you, if you like.

If we want to get empirical,

Oh, please, let's...did you actually check?

As for your prison thing, there are multiple explanations for it, even if true. One is that many people in the West claim to be "Christian" only nominally, but to distinguish themselves from, say Muslims or Atheists. Another is that prisoners realize that claiming religious belief plays well for parole officers. Another is that the main organizations that work for the reform of prisoners -- and indeed, the prison reform movement itself -- are Christian, so you would expect post-incarceration conversions. You would have to show that these individuals *were* all Christians in some full sense already *before* they committed a criminal act, which is implausible beyond belief. But hey, if you can get the proof, go for it.

Meanwhile, the evidence for the good done by Theism is absolutely overwhelming, and Atheism's record, at least in politics, is a disgrace of human rights abuses. I would that we could stick to the empirical: there I'd be guaranteed to make my case.

Consider the plausibility, for example, of anyone saying, "I was a drunk, a wife-beater and a criminal. I gambled uncontrollably. I was foul mouthed sexually addicted and derelict. I was a miser with my money, an abuser with my children, dishonest at my work, and a perverter of justice. I lied to all my friends, stole from the government, and cheated on anyone who ever trusted me. In short, I was a hater of everything that interfered with my self-interest. But when I discovered Atheism, I was gloriously delivered, and now I'm a happy man..."

Show me one like that, and I'll show you a thousand saved by faith in Jesus Christ.

That's empirical.

And let's not look at the list of organizations promoting hatred and intolerance in the name of religion. Let's not look at the records of Catholic and Protestant churches in history, their Taliban-like fundamentalisms, their sacred genocidal wars, their suppport to slavery, racism, misogyny, etc

Oooh. Let's. In the last century, Atheists killed more human beings than all the previous wars of history combined. The great Atheists Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and their friends have killed more than anyone...by far.

But let me be fair: it is necessary to distinguish between the average academic Atheist today and the homicidal Atheist regimes of the last century. Yet if you want us to distinguish between you and Stalin, I also propose that you should give the same courtesy to Theists, and distinguish between suicide bombers and medical missionaries. To be fair, you need to stop tarring all Theists with one brush.

Moreover, before the modern, academic Atheist tries to take the historical speck out of the Theist "eye", perhaps she ought to take the historical "log" out of the Atheist "eye."

[QMan]

Conde:
If we want to get empirical, we can count how is the distribution of atheists vs. theists in prisons. I thought it was more or less the same as it is in the general population (around 97% to 3%), but in the USA it seems that criminal theists hold a bigger percentage. Don't take my word for it...go and look at the stats from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. So, if we bought your argument, we would have to assert that most theists are criminals because of their theism. But we don't believe that, because it's a statistical fallacy.

Qman to both, Conde and IC:
Following this thread with interest. Just finished researching the above topic for a slightly different reason. Want to show that one can get quantitative about God and his influence in the world because he has promised benefits to those who leave a door open to a relationship with him. By definition benefits are extended to our material world as well and therefore MUST be quantifiable. One such quantity should be a lessening of criminality for theists compared to non-theists, which should be certifiable by statistical means. Turns out it actually is.

Conde is using a skewed incorrect set of statistics, which turns out to be a very common and popularized misconception. These wrong statistics are based on questionnaires and interviews, e.g., where a prisoner states that s/he beliefs in God or has practiced religion for the reasons mentioned by IC and also let's say because his grandmother took him to church twice when he was a juvenile. Turns out the exact and exclusive criteria that must be used to obtain a very strong correlation is persons in prison who have been active members of a church and been actively attending mass or services right up to their prison term. That population is not a significant part of the prison population, as one would expect. This of course also supports my argument that it is possible to quantitatively establish the influence of God in this world, as is perfectly logical based on his promises.