#StrawGodFallacy - Rebuttal to #ProblemOfEvil criticism

[phyllo]

I don't think the question can be controversial, do you? A genuinely "good" God, in the mode for which the skeptics are asking, would be a firm and unrelenting preventer of all of these misdeeds, from the greatest to the least. For why would a God who winked at some sins, and then crushed others ruthlessly, be considered "good"? I can't see it.

I don't know anybody who expects God or any person to treat all "misdeeds" in the same way.

There are degrees of good, bad and evil.

It's called the "problem of evil", not the "problem of inconvenience and annoyance".

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think the question can be controversial, do you? A genuinely "good" God, in the mode for which the skeptics are asking, would be a firm and unrelenting preventer of all of these misdeeds, from the greatest to the least. For why would a God who winked at some sins, and then crushed others ruthlessly, be considered "good"? I can't see it.

I don't know anybody who expects God or any person to treat all "misdeeds" in the same way.

Well, of course, the Bible says He doesn't...so you're right: it would be less than "good" if God made no distinctions of that sort. It speaks of "greater condemnations," and more serious judgment for certain actions. For example, it particularly condemns the abuse of children, saying that those who do it would be better to have "a millstone tied around [their] neck, and thrown into the sea." It certainly doesn't condemn all sins with such strong language as that.

Nevertheless, we're still stuck with the important point. Recognizing that there ARE degrees of punishment, depending on the offense, are there any sins which a truly "good" God can simply overlook, and still be "good" or "just" or "righteous"? And if you think he can do that, then let's outline the particular sins or infractions that you think should be in that category. That way, we'll establish our "should have" point for the criticism of God's actions.

[Gary Childress]

I don't think the question can be controversial, do you? A genuinely "good" God, in the mode for which the skeptics are asking, would be a firm and unrelenting preventer of all of these misdeeds, from the greatest to the least. For why would a God who winked at some sins, and then crushed others ruthlessly, be considered "good"? I can't see it.

I don't know anybody who expects God or any person to treat all "misdeeds" in the same way.

Well, of course, the Bible says He doesn't...so you're right: it would be less than "good" if God made no distinctions of that sort. It speaks of "greater condemnations," and more serious judgment for certain actions. For example, it particularly condemns the abuse of children, saying that those who do it would be better to have "a millstone tied around [their] neck, and thrown into the sea." It certainly doesn't condemn all sins with such strong language as that.

Nevertheless, we're still stuck with the important point. Recognizing that there ARE degrees of punishment, depending on the offense, are there any sins which a truly "good" God can simply overlook, and still be "good" or "just" or "righteous"? And if you think he can do that, then let's outline the particular sins or infractions that you think should be in that category. That way, we'll establish our "should have" point for the criticism of God's actions.

Apparently, drowning just about every human in the world must be "good" then. The Bible is the single most nauseating book I know of.

[phyllo]

And if you think he can do that, then let's outline the particular sins or infractions that you think should be in that category. That way, we'll establish our "should have" point for the criticism of God's actions.

I don't want the topic to be changed from the 'problem of evil' to 'my personal evaluation of the seriousness of sins'.

Why not just tackle some things that the majority would consider evil?

For example, in the case of 'natural evil', why does God allow a toddler to get cancer and die painfully.

In the case of 'human evil', why does God allow the kidnapping, rape and murder with a hammer of an 8 year old girl. (Which actually happened.) But you can discuss general abuse, torture or murder of children.

[Immanuel Can]

And if you think he can do that, then let's outline the particular sins or infractions that you think should be in that category. That way, we'll establish our "should have" point for the criticism of God's actions.

I don't want the topic to be changed from the 'problem of evil' to 'my personal evaluation of the seriousness of sins'.

It's not being. All I'm doing is asking what the question itself requires of us...what it requires us to know or assume. And that's what we do in philosophy, as you know: we look into the reasons we think the things we think.

Why not just tackle some things that the majority would consider evil?

Simple: because that asks us to believe that whatever "the majority" (however defined) thinks must be true. And we know that isn't always the case: the historical precedents are simply too many. So it would be asking us to accept an absurd premise, one that we recognize is simply false or unwarranted. Rationally speaking, we can't do that.

For example, in the case of 'natural evil', why does God allow a toddler to get cancer and die painfully.

Okay, now we have a specific example. But we must pause: do we already know that that is "evil"? Maybe we feel we don't like it, but how do we know it's actually evil, and how do we know it's "God's fault," so to speak?

If we go to the skeptic's position, the position of the one posing the "problem of evil," then the truth is that we DON'T know. In fact, the Atheistic position would require of us to believe that it's NOT evil. It's just how things happen, and there's no good or bad about it. The Theist can ask the question, of course, because he believes that something can be objectively wrong, or objectively evil, and has a basis for doing so. But will Atheism help us with the problem of evil, here? Will it provide us any light at all? And if we think as Atheists, will we even be allowed to think our own question is cogent?

At the same time, don't you and I feel that the Atheist's answer is wrong? Doesn't our instinctive sense rebel against that sort of shallow dismissal of the suffering of an innocent? I think it does. And I think we sense something is unfair there, even if Atheism would demand of us to interpret that as nothing more than a delusion. The moral intuition, in such a case, is too strong to resist, is it not?

Something, therefore, seems very wrong with the Atheist's position, does it not? It won't allow us to believe in the evil of things that intuitively revolt us in the extreme. And I submit to you that if evil actually is an objective reality, and our intuitions are telling us the truth, then the inability of Atheism to inform us about evil identifies a very important fault in Atheism itself. We're not going to get any moral light from Atheism.

In the case of 'human evil', why does God allow the kidnapping, rape and murder with a hammer of an 8 year old girl.

Well, that one changes the problem somewhat, obviously: because in that case, the evil is clearly coming from an evil human being. And that should cause the Atheist to wonder how it is that human beings, whom Humanists and others assure us are essentially good or neutral ("tabula rasa," perhaps) can be capable of such a thing.

And again, this signals a problem with Atheism: it can't explain why human beings do things we intuitively feel are evil. It can't even allow us to know that they ARE evil, or that "evil" is a word that refers to any objective reality at all. And again, Atheism stymies us, when it comes to the question of human evils, just as much as it fails us when we try to think about natural evils. For no evil exists -- that's what it requires us to assume, in both cases.

So now we have two cases, one natural evils, and the other human evils. However, I think we'll give too easy an out if we try to blend those two cases. We'll maybe start to blame things on humans which are genuine "natural evils," or blame on God things that are clearly "human evils." The two cases have distinct answers -- and though those answers may eventually coordinate (I think they do), at least at the beginning, I think we should accept the distinction proposed by philosophers like Susan Neiman, and treat the two as importantly separable.

So let's start with the second case first: human evils. The question becomes something like, "Why does God allow human beings to do the evils they do?" Of course, again, the Atheist's supposition is going to have to be "He doesn't": there's no God, and there's no objective reality to evil. But I think you and I agree that the Atheist's supposition is too cruel and intuitively offensive, do we not? Or would you accept the Atheist's logic, and simply dismiss that case outright?

But, of course, if we do the latter, then the question of the existence of evil is simply not askable, since no evil exists. And I do think you want to pose the question. Do you mind, therefore, if I simply set aside the Atheistic perspective, and speak in terms of how Theists understand the answer?

Human evils are attributable to free will. That God has endowed human beings with such things as individual identity, volition, moral choice, will, soul, self, personhood and freedom entails that human beings can always go one of two ways: to do the good, or to do evil. It's our choice. And sadly, we don't always choose well. Moreover, evil is not squeamish about taking victims -- it's just that evil. So when an 8-year-old girl is assaulted, it is the bad consequence of a good thing: volition, identity, choice...in a word, humanity.

Do we want a world in which God has eliminated choice, identity, volition, morality, will, soul, personhood...and consumately, freedom and our own unique selves? Would we be content instead with a world in which all evils -- from the great to the small -- were eliminated from possibility, so that we never had even the slightest choice to do anything but the very best? Or would we have to ponder, instead, what the right balance between allowing the freedom to choose good or evil might be, if we want there still to be such things as individuality, choice, personhood, etc. in the universe?

What would your answer be? Would you select the world of perfect moral robots with no volition of their own, or would you permit some measure of freedom of moral choice to remain in the world -- even if it entailed that some evil things would still happen to some people?

I'll await your decision on that. When we've solved human evils, I think we can go on to natural ones. But we definitely need to solve this quandary first.

[phyllo]

Why not just tackle some things that the majority would consider evil?

Simple: because that asks us to believe that whatever "the majority" (however defined) thinks must be true. And we know that isn't always the case: the historical precedents are simply too many. So it would be asking us to accept an absurd premise, one that we recognize is simply false or unwarranted. Rationally speaking, we can't do that.

You can start another thread examining the views of "the majority".

If you want to argue there, that the majority view of child abuse as an evil is wrong, then go ahead.

Here, you have already admitted that it is evil based on the Bible ( For example, it particularly condemns the abuse of children, saying that those who do it would be better to have "a millstone tied around [their] neck, and thrown into the sea." )

For example, in the case of 'natural evil', why does God allow a toddler to get cancer and die painfully.

Okay, now we have a specific example. But we must pause: do we already know that that is "evil"? Maybe we feel we don't like it, but how do we know it's actually evil, and how do we know it's "God's fault," so to speak?

An all-powerful God could have easily tweaked biology so that children don't get cancer. Or any fatal childhood disease for that matter.

the skeptic's position

the Atheistic position

Again skeptics and atheists???

Human evils are attributable to free will. That God has endowed human beings with such things as individual identity, volition, moral choice, will, soul, self, personhood and freedom entails that human beings can always go one of two ways: to do the good, or to do evil. It's our choice. And sadly, we don't always choose well. Moreover, evil is not squeamish about taking victims -- it's just that evil. So when an 8-year-old girl is assaulted, it is the bad consequence of a good thing: volition, identity, choice...in a word, humanity.

Do we want a world in which God has eliminated choice, identity, volition, morality, will, soul, personhood...and consumately, freedom and our own unique selves? Would we be content instead with a world in which all evils -- from the great to the small -- were eliminated from possibility, so that we never had even the slightest choice to do anything but the very best? Or would we have to ponder, instead, what the right balance between allowing the freedom to choose good or evil might be, if we want there still to be such things as individuality, choice, personhood, etc. in the universe?

God could take away the desire to abuse, torture, rape and murder children. It's no great loss that such an aspect of "free will" is removed.

And after all, God loaded humans with certain propensities. There were built in preferences from the beginning. "Created in the image of God".

It's not as if we evaluate all acts as being equal.

[Immanuel Can]

Why not just tackle some things that the majority would consider evil?

Simple: because that asks us to believe that whatever "the majority" (however defined) thinks must be true. And we know that isn't always the case: the historical precedents are simply too many. So it would be asking us to accept an absurd premise, one that we recognize is simply false or unwarranted. Rationally speaking, we can't do that.

You can start another thread examining the views of "the majority".

I don't need to. I know the answer. The majority cannot legitimize a value judgment, because they're so often wrong. And you know that, too, I'm sure.

Here, you have already admitted that it is evil based on the Bible ( For example, it particularly condemns the abuse of children, saying that those who do it would be better to have "a millstone tied around [their] neck, and thrown into the sea." )

For me, it was never in doubt. But then, I'm a Theist, and so I know. But how does an Atheist know? That's the question.

For example, in the case of 'natural evil', why does God allow a toddler to get cancer and die painfully.

Okay, now we have a specific example. But we must pause: do we already know that that is "evil"? Maybe we feel we don't like it, but how do we know it's actually evil, and how do we know it's "God's fault," so to speak?

An all-powerful God could have easily tweaked biology so that children don't get cancer. Or any fatal childhood disease for that matter.

Yes, of course he could. But if it's not an "evil" -- and according to Atheism, there's objectively no such thing as "evil," then there's no reason He should have. And this gets back to the central problem: Atheism has no account of morality. It can't tell us why anything is right or wrong. So it's in no position to have suggested that God, or the indifferent universe, has ever done anything "wrong" in the entirety of its history.

Atheism doesn't get a pass on the duty to rationalize, you know. It doesn't have a right to launch an accusation that it, itself, denies can make any sense, and then not even defend that accusation from questions. It doesn't get to be right merely by default.

And if it does, then so does Theism. And again, the question simply goes away in incoherence.

the skeptic's position

the Atheistic position

Again skeptics and atheists???

Yes. I use the term "skepticism" here to designate a group of anti-Theistic worldviews, such as Materialism, Physicalism, Moral Subjectivism, and so on. But Atheism's more specific: it has its lone concern the declaration that God does not exist.

But if you prefer different nomenclature, I'm happy to change that.

Human evils are attributable to free will. That God has endowed human beings with such things as individual identity, volition, moral choice, will, soul, self, personhood and freedom entails that human beings can always go one of two ways: to do the good, or to do evil. It's our choice. And sadly, we don't always choose well. Moreover, evil is not squeamish about taking victims -- it's just that evil. So when an 8-year-old girl is assaulted, it is the bad consequence of a good thing: volition, identity, choice...in a word, humanity.

Do we want a world in which God has eliminated choice, identity, volition, morality, will, soul, personhood...and consumately, freedom and our own unique selves? Would we be content instead with a world in which all evils -- from the great to the small -- were eliminated from possibility, so that we never had even the slightest choice to do anything but the very best? Or would we have to ponder, instead, what the right balance between allowing the freedom to choose good or evil might be, if we want there still to be such things as individuality, choice, personhood, etc. in the universe?

God could take away the desire to abuse, torture, rape and murder children. It's no great loss that such an aspect of "free will" is removed.

But back again to the question I asked earlier, and which we have not yet found an answer for: how much evil should a genuinely "good" God eliminate?

Is your proposed solution, of banning torture, rape, etc., also one of leaving slander, theft, covetousness, blasphemy, lies, maliciousness, and other lesser forms of evil untouched? If it is, I would suggest it does not imply a genuinely "good" God. It rather implies a God that colludes with some wickedness, while arresting other forms of wickedness; with the additional problem of reducing the freedom of human will in all the affected areas, of course. And if we do that, then we're back to just as difficult a question: how do we establish that the balance of allowed evil and the mandated good is wrong? We'd really have to be God ourselves to know such a thing, would we not?

And after all, God loaded humans with certain propensities.

According to the Biblical account, no: man was created good but free to choose. He was created as an individual, with volition and selfhood: and indeed, in that he was like God, for God also has volition and is a self. But man, at his creation, did not have the propensities for these sorts of acts we've been listing until after he abused his freedom of will to reject God, and became a sinner. This is why the Bible speaks of it being a "Fall." It was a departure from a morally-higher state to a much lower one.

It's not as if we evaluate all acts as being equal.

I think we already addressed this. God doesn't evaluate them all as equal, either.

[phyllo]

But how does an Atheist know? That's the question.

That's a question you keep inserting.

A question which is not relevant to the POE.

... according to Atheism

Again, irrelevant.

Yes. I use the term "skepticism" here to designate a group of anti-Theistic worldviews, such as Materialism, Physicalism, Moral Subjectivism, and so on. But Atheism's more specific: it has its lone concern the declaration that God does not exist.

But if you prefer different nomenclature, I'm happy to change that.

Skepticism, atheism, etc are not part of the problem.

Changing nomenclature does not alter that reality.

Is your proposed solution, of banning torture, rape, etc., also one of leaving slander, theft, covetousness, blasphemy, lies, maliciousness, and other lesser forms of evil untouched? If it is, I would suggest it does not imply a genuinely "good" God. It rather implies a God that colludes with some wickedness, while arresting other forms of wickedness; with the additional problem of reducing the freedom of human will in all the affected areas, of course. And if we do that, then we're back to just as difficult a question: how do we establish that the balance of allowed evil and the mandated good is wrong? We'd really have to be God ourselves to know such a thing, would we not?

Ah, perhaps the penny has dropped.

The concept of an all loving God is absurd from the beginning.

It's impossible for a god to do only good.

According to the Biblical account, no: man was created good but free to choose.

If one is good, then one chooses good when free to choose. If one chooses evil, then one is not good.

If one chooses good sometimes and evil other times, then one is a mix of good and evil.

[Immanuel Can]

But how does an Atheist know? That's the question.

That's a question you keep inserting.

Not at all. It's the Atheist who is asking the question, presumably...or at least some sort of skeptic. So he owes us an explanation for the rationale of his question.

How can somebody who says there's no objective evil, accuse anybody of allowing evil? And how can somebody who does not believe in objective good, ask whether or not somebody else is good?

Even on the surface, that makes not a lick of sense. And until the Atheist explains himself, why should anybody take him seriously at all?

Yes. I use the term "skepticism" here to designate a group of anti-Theistic worldviews, such as Materialism, Physicalism, Moral Subjectivism, and so on. But Atheism's more specific: it has its lone concern the declaration that God does not exist.

But if you prefer different nomenclature, I'm happy to change that.

Skepticism, atheism, etc are not part of the problem.

Then there is no problem, since then, nobody is alleging anything: nobody is skeptical of God's goodness.

Is your proposed solution, of banning torture, rape, etc., also one of leaving slander, theft, covetousness, blasphemy, lies, maliciousness, and other lesser forms of evil untouched? If it is, I would suggest it does not imply a genuinely "good" God. It rather implies a God that colludes with some wickedness, while arresting other forms of wickedness; with the additional problem of reducing the freedom of human will in all the affected areas, of course. And if we do that, then we're back to just as difficult a question: how do we establish that the balance of allowed evil and the mandated good is wrong? We'd really have to be God ourselves to know such a thing, would we not?

The concept of an all loving God is absurd from the beginning.

Well, if one doesn't believe in objective good and evil, nothing is absurd but the allegation itself. The Atheist isn't even talking sense.

But I think it's a common intution that things are not right with this world. And I think the Atheist, skeptic or subjectivist is not doing us a favour when he denies the existence of the objective property the OP asks us to consider. I think it shows that Atheism itself is badly flawed: it's telling us nothing about the moral realm, even though we feel intuitively, very strongly, in fact, that it ought to.

Maybe that intuition isn't wrong. Maybe this world is screwed up. Maybe it contains evil. And maybe, therefore, we should stop listening to anybody who says good and evil are not objectively real.

According to the Biblical account, no: man was created good but free to choose.

If one is good, then one chooses good when free to choose. If one chooses evil, then one is not good.

"Choice" itself is a good quality. I think we all recognize that a situation in which we have choice about things is preferable to one where one has no choice. And if choice is exercised for the good, it's very good -- consider, for example, that all relationship depends on the free choice of individuals. If you have a friend, and he has chosen to be your friend, then that's something precious; on the other hand, the very fact that he has chosen to be your friend means that he had the opportunity to choose not to be your friend, or even to be your enemy. Yet without the choice, he would not be your "friend" at all. A robot, perhaps. A zombie. But not a voluntary friend. And we all recognize that such automated relationships are inauthentic. That's why we prefer friends to robots...well, the mentally balanced among us do, anyway.

Choice means at least two options. It can mean more, but it never means fewer. And free choosing of the good is excellent; though free choosing of evil is wicked.

But you're right about this, too: using one's power of choice to do evil makes one evil. It makes one fall, morally speaking. And choosing to do the good, no matter how often one does it, never makes up for the choosing of evil, because the evil has still been done. There's no way, humanly speaking, to wipe out past evil with any promise to do future good. Just ask the victims.

[phyllo]

Then there is no problem, since then, nobody is alleging anything: nobody is skeptical of God's goodness.

You can't possibly believe that.

You don't think there a problem of evil?

You think that only atheists are concerned by the problem of evil?

You don't think that at least some theists think that God is not good or not all-good?

[Impenitent]

scope is a funny thing

if it is good to follow the law (whose and which momentarily aside,) it must be evil to disobey said law...

condemned for jaywalking in the eyes of god...

scotch on the rocks hold the scotch... just ice

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Then there is no problem, since then, nobody is alleging anything: nobody is skeptical of God's goodness.

You can't possibly believe that.

Well, if you look at the whole message, then you can't help but see that the "then" in that sentence referred to Atheist assumptions, of course.

You don't think there a problem of evil?

The rational Atheist has to think that. I don't have to. I'm not an Atheist.

Atheism itself has no conception of evil. There's no moral judgment the Atheist can ground in any facts he actually believes in. It doesn't cohere with his worldview. Subjectivism of any kind does not allow for any objective evil to exist. Nor do Naturalism, Physicalism, etc. allow any grounds for a sincere belief in evil. For all such views, whatever is, just is. It's neither good nor evil.

But, of course, the problem remains, and is real: evil DOES exist, and viscerally, every Atheist also knows it does. But his worldview doesn't let him explain anything about it, since it simply implies evil objectively does not exist.

That's a huge problem. It's much worse for the Atheist than the Theist, actually. The Theist at least has some explanation of evil, some diagnosis, some way of understanding the problem of evil. The Atheist is entirely without conceptual resources to help him with that problem.

[phyllo]

I'm not talking about atheists.

And I've made that clear more than once.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not talking about atheists.

Why not?

I'm perfectly happy to talk about how Theists view the explanations for the existence of evil. But if evil is a problem for Theists, it's also a problem for everybody else, too. After all, we all live with the existence of evil. Why is Atheism being given a "pass" on this universal problem? And why should the skeptics get to pick on the Theists, while remaining artificially immune to facing it themselves? How is that equitable? How is that even reasonable?

But the problem, or course, is that Atheism's got nothing. Theists have answers, at least for themselves, if not to the delight of the skeptics. But Atheism and its cluster of godless fellow-beliefs, they've got no answer, no information, not even a hint. They are a gelding, on this question...no fruitful answers at all.

Now, you may not want to talk about the Atheists. But if you're fair-minded, you certainly should. The problem exists equally, on all sides.

[phyllo]

I'm not talking about atheists.

Why not?

I'm perfectly happy to talk about how Theists view the explanations for the existence of evil. But if evil is a problem for Theists, it's also a problem for everybody else, too. After all, we all live with the existence of evil. Why is Atheism being given a "pass" on this universal problem? And why should the skeptics get to pick on the Theists, while remaining artificially immune to facing it themselves? How is that equitable? How is that even reasonable?

But the problem, or course, is that Atheism's got nothing. Theists have answers, at least for themselves, if not to the delight of the skeptics. But Atheism and its cluster of godless fellow-beliefs, they've got no answer, no information, not even a hint. They are a gelding, on this question...no fruitful answers at all.

Now, you may not want to talk about the Atheists. But if you're fair-minded, you certainly should. The problem exists equally, on all sides.

Evil is a problem for theists who claim that God is all-loving and/or all-good.

Evil is not a problem for atheists because it's just something that can happen in a material, physical, evolved world.

Evil is not even a problem for theists who believe that God is not all-good, all-loving or all-powerful.