(Almost) Answering the Problem of Evil

[Notedstrangeperson]

Or "How the Problem of Evil PROVES (Rather than Disproves) the Existence of a Benevolent, Personal God"

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?*​

We have been debating for centuries why an all-powerful God who claims to love us would allow such terrible things to happen. We'll probably be debating for centuries more. However I believe the answer lies not in trying to understand how God works, but trying to understand how evil works.

We debate what exactly "evil" is just as much as we debate why it exists - and even though there are several answers (more on that in a moment) the problem of evil has already defined it for us: "Evil" is that which should not exist. Why else ask why God does not remove it?

The problem of evil (or PoE) doesn't exist in religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism because they do not believe bad things "should not" happen. If bad things happen it is because the person has done something wrong, either in this life [karma] or in a previous life [dharma]. Their belief in non-duality also means that evil must exist in order for good to exist, just as without darkness there is no light, or without destruction there is no creation. In other words, the idea that evil "should not exist" is totally foreign. Evil must exist in order to balance the universe.

The only justifiable way to argue that evil "should not exist" is to first assume that there is a way that things "should" be - that there's an ideal way to live which we have somehow strayed from. There is no way to explain this naturally: the universe is totally indifferent to our existence, and nature will evolve any method it can to ensure it survival, even if those methods cause a great deal of pain and suffering. Since the universe wasn't made specifically for us, what right do we have to complain that things don't happen the way we want them to? From a naturalistic point of view, PoE does not exist either.

The only way we can argue that things should (or should not) happen is if we believe there is some kind of plan for our existence - something that only a conscious entity could be responsible for. And since evil is general considered harmful, this conscious entity presumably doesn't want harm to come to us. In other words, we cannot believe that evil (as presented in PoE) exists unless we assume that a personal, benevolent God exists first.

PoE is a circular argument: the problem of evil disproves the existence of God. Without God there is no such thing as evil. Without evil, there is no problem of evil. Without the problem of evil, what is the most compelling argument against the existence of God?


*This quote is attributed to Epicurus but doesn't actually come from any of his writings. The earliest source we have for this quote is a Christian document called "On the Anger of God" by Lactantius in 304 AD - written over 500 years after Epicurus died (207 BC). The last line ("Then why call him God?") wasn't added until the 1990s. Lactantius' answer to the problem of evil is that solving problems gives us wisdom, and that brings us closer to God: "Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good."

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Anyone who actually bother reading my slightly-overlong post will probably have notice that my argument doesn't actually answer the problem of evil at all: why DOESN'T God take away evil?

My only answer is the same answer that's been given hundreds of times: man has free will, and (as Lactantius suggests) problems can bring us closer to God.

 

[Moral Orel]

So will there be evil in Heaven if there needs to be a duality of good and evil or is a few years of evil on Earth enough for us to remember it's importance a quadrillion years from now in Heaven?

And if there is an importance to us learning about evil for a short period of time, then an omnipotent God could simply give us that knowledge and place us in Heaven. Considering an omnipotent God, you can't say that he can't give us knowledge that we have to earn, because then there is something he can't do.

And the problem of evil isn't circular because we can all imagine a universe with evil and without a God. Just look at all the arguments from theists stating, "If there's no God then there's no purpose, everything is over when you die, how depressing...".

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So will there be evil in Heaven if there needs to be a duality of good and evil

The idea that evil must exist in order for good to exist is found in Eastern mystic religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism. That evil is something bad which needs to be destroyed, however, is found in the Abrahamic religions. So from a Christian POV no, there will not be evil in Heaven.

if there is an importance to us learning about evil for a short period of time, then an omnipotent God could simply give us that knowledge and place us in Heaven. Considering an omnipotent God, you can't say that he can't give us knowledge that we have to earn, because then there is something he can't do.

Were God to simply give us whatever wisdom comes from facing evil, there's no guarantee we would actually listen to it. If however we were to actually face a problem ourselves we'd probably understand how to deal with it far better. Or to put it another way - knowledge earned is a lot more useful than knowledge given.

It's also worth pointing out that the idea that evil can be useful (because it helps us gain wisdom) is a philosophical concept which is meant to bring together the idea that evil is simply the opposite of good [nondualistic evil] with the idea that evil is something to be destroyed because it shouldn't exist [diabolical evil]. It's focuses more on how we should react to evil rather than where evil comes from.

 

[Moral Orel]

The idea that evil must exist in order for good to exist is found in Eastern mystic religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism. That evil is something bad which needs to be destroyed, however, is found in the Abrahamic religions. So from a Christian POV no, there will not be evil in Heaven.

See now you say that the Abrahamic religions believe evil should be destroyed but then you say...

It's also worth pointing out that the idea that evil can be useful (because it helps us gain wisdom) is a philosophical concept which is meant to bring together the idea that evil is simply the opposite of good [nondualistic evil] with the idea that evil is something to be destroyed because it shouldn't exist [diabolical evil]. It's focuses more on how we should react to evil rather than where evil comes from.

...you say that evil existing is useful. So is evil necessary or not?

Were God to simply give us whatever wisdom comes from facing evil, there's no guarantee we would actually listen to it. If however we were to actually face a problem ourselves we'd probably understand how to deal with it far better. Or to put it another way - knowledge earned is a lot more useful than knowledge given.

Maybe when I say "give" it isn't a strong enough word for you to understand the point. What I mean is: have us understand the lesson and have the wisdom without the experience. Is this impossible for God? If it isn't impossible, then why put us through the terrible experience to begin with? If it is impossible, then see Epicurus's question above.

 

[The Cadet]

Of all the flaws in your post, this one strikes out at me the hardest:

The only justifiable way to argue that evil "should not exist" is to first assume that there is a way that things "should" be - that there's an ideal way to live which we have somehow strayed from.

No, actually, it implies that there are ways we would rather have the world. Would the world be a better place for us if hurricanes didn't exist? Well, yes, actually. This doesn't mean there has to be some absolute ideal, and it doesn't imply that we somehow strayed from it.

From a naturalistic point of view, PoE does not exist either.

Of course. But the point of the problem of evil is an argument from contradiction. We start with the assumption that god exists as described, and find a contradiction, thus showing that the assumption cannot be right. So saying that "if god doesn't exist, the argument fails" misses the point entirely. Of course, as stated earlier, the problem of evil can easily be couched in entirely secular terms. Even without god, there are still things that are better or worse for us.

Without the problem of evil, what is the most compelling argument against the existence of God?

The burden of proof.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"Evil? Lets hear less of that word, please!" The devil

 

[Freodin]

My only answer is the same answer that's been given hundreds of times: man has free will, and (as Lactantius suggests) problems can bring us closer to God.

Have you ever tried painting a room by placing a bucket of paint on the floor, adding some dynamite to it and exploding it?

See, it can get paint on the walls. So obviously this is the method a skilled craftsman would set it up.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Anyone who actually bother reading my slightly-overlong post will probably have notice that my argument doesn't actually answer the problem of evil at all: why DOESN'T God take away evil?

My only answer is the same answer that's been given hundreds of times: man has free will, and (as Lactantius suggests) problems can bring us closer to God.

Couldn't the all powerful all loving god find a better way to bring us closer to him then suffering through our problems?
What could be a "problem" for us would be considered trivial by other people in the world who are in a daily struggle to survive.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No, actually, it implies that there are ways we would rather have the world. Would the world be a better place for us if hurricanes didn't exist? Well, yes, actually. This doesn't mean there has to be some absolute ideal, and it doesn't imply that we somehow strayed from it.

Arguing "I would rather have the world like this" is not the same as arguing "The world should be like this". The way we would prefer the world to be is entirely subjective - one person would prefer the world to be one way, another person would prefer the world to be another way. I would say, for example, that a world without hurricanes would be pretty bad for us, as hurricanes are part of the natural weather cycle.

The idea that the world "should" (or shouldn't) be a certain way is more objective: certain things should/n't happen, regardless of our personal opinions about them.

But the point of the problem of evil is an argument from contradiction. We start with the assumption that god exists as described, and find a contradiction, thus showing that the assumption cannot be right.

In this case the contradiction - the presence of evil - could not exist without first assuming the existence of conscious, benevolent being. If we assume there is no such being, then the type of evil described in the problem of evil does not exist either.

Even without god, there are still things that are better or worse for us.

The fact some things may be better for us does not necessarily that this is the way things "should" be. In fact what often makes things better for us usually makes things worse for other animals or the environment.

The idea that things ought to be better for us is derived from the notion (which predates Christianity) that the world was made specifically for mankind: in the Anger of God (in the exact same chapter where he quotes Epicurus), Lactantius says that the Stoics believed "The world was made on our account". If the world was made for us, then we should use it to make things better for ourselves.

From a naturalistic POV of course, this makes no sense either. Nothing and nobody made the world just for us.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Couldn't the all powerful all loving god find a better way to bring us closer to him then suffering through our problems?
What could be a "problem" for us would be considered trivial by other people in the world who are in a daily struggle to survive.

There are ways to become closer to God without suffering: praying, giving to charity, singing etc.

That said, you've pretty much answered your own question: suffering is also pretty subjective. A minor problem for one person would be a disaster for another. That means the problem is in our heads rather than in reality.

So let's assume it's possible for evil to be useful (because it gives us knowledge and wisdom). That either means:

(a) God put evil here in order for us to overcome it. In this sense Useful Evil is not actually evil at all, because it has a purpose. And if it has a purpose then we can't really argue that it "shouldn't exist"
(b) Evil exists, even though it shouldn't. But even though it shouldn't exist, humans are such intelligent and resourceful creatures that we can make the best out of a bad situation, and find something useful to take away from it. Evil is useful not because it is somehow secretly good for us, but because we are smart enough to learn from it.​

I personally favour (b).

 

[The Cadet]

Arguing "I would rather have the world like this" is not the same as arguing "The world should be like this". The way we would prefer the world to be is entirely subjective - one person would prefer the world to be one way, another person would prefer the world to be another way.

My example was poorly chosen, but in many cases, these distinctions are non-arbitrary. Life is generally preferable to death. Pleasure is generally preferable to pain. And so on and so forth. There are objectively better and worse states for humanity, based on the goal of living a good life.

But as usual, we twist the definition of evil in unrecognizable ways in this argument. I find that by zooming out and looking at the big picture, we get a much clearer image of what's really being proposed here. Imagine you have a friend, and that friend comes to you one day and says, "Hey buddy, so, uh, your daughter got raped. I could have easily stopped the rape from happening, even without making the rapist have any real negative consequences, but I didn't." This guy sounds like a real jerk, right? He couldn't possibly be considered omnibenevolent, right? And yet, god supposedly is omnipotent and omnipresent, which means that every time a child gets raped, one of two things happened: god let it happen, or got demanded that it happened. If we would call our friend evil for not stopping the rape of a child, what do we call a being that could stop children from ever getting raped and chooses not to? I think "evil" fits the bill quite nicely, personally. Certainly we wouldn't refer to it as benevolent.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Life is generally preferable to death. Pleasure is generally preferable to pain. And so on and so forth. There are objectively better and worse states for humanity, based on the goal of living a good life.

We can't based objective morality on subjective experiences.

...Or to put in less pretentiously, pain and pleasure are both subjective (one person might feel a lot, another only a little) so we can't say something is "objectively" right or wrong when the same thing affects different people in different ways. To emphasize my point:

If we would call our friend evil for not stopping the rape of a child, what do we call a being that could stop children from ever getting raped and chooses not to? I think "evil" fits the bill quite nicely, personally. Certainly we wouldn't refer to it as benevolent.

I live in the UK, in the 21st century. So yes, your example would work - I would be extremely angry if my so-called friend didn't stop the rape of a child, especially if that child was my daughter.

If on the other hand you were speaking to someone in a different place and/or a different time, the result would be very different. In some countries the girl would be punished for "losing" her virginity prior to marriage. If the girl was married to the man who raped her, legally it would not considered rape at all. So however horrified you or I would be, other people would either not be horrified at all, or horrified at the victim rather than the rapist.

The example you give isn't "objective morality" - it's collective morality e.g. everybody agrees that this is wrong, therefore it is wrong. Go to certain countries in the Middle-East or Africa, or travel back in time, and the collective morality there would be that it wasn't wrong at all (if the girl was married) or that it was the girl's own fault and she should be punished (if she wasn't married).

 

[TheQuietRiot]

That said, you've pretty much answered your own question: suffering is also pretty subjective. A minor problem for one person would be a disaster for another. That means the problem is in our heads rather than in reality.

If a child has bone cancer is that reality or just a problem in our heads?

So let's assume it's possible for evil to be useful (because it gives us knowledge and wisdom). That either means:

(a) God put evil here in order for us to overcome it. In this sense Useful Evil is not actually evil at all, because it has a purpose. And if it has a purpose then we can't really argue that it "shouldn't exist"
(b) Evil exists, even though it shouldn't. But even though it shouldn't exist, humans are such intelligent and resourceful creatures that we can make the best out of a bad situation, and find something useful to take away from it. Evil is useful not because it is somehow secretly good for us, but because we are smart enough to learn from it.​

I personally favour (b).

Both of these scenarios paint god as a rather sinister and nefarious character.

If he wanted to teach us a lesson about evil and making the best out of the bad situation then why doesn't he just comes out and speak to us. Why the cloak and dagger approach. Why doesn't he teach us how to beat cancer, aids and all the other diseases that plague us?

The suffering is unnecessary. It is akin to teaching a child not to touch a hot stove by holding its hand to the element yourself, rather then taking the time to simply explain it to the child.

 

[Freodin]

There are ways to become closer to God without suffering: praying, giving to charity, singing etc.

That said, you've pretty much answered your own question: suffering is also pretty subjective. A minor problem for one person would be a disaster for another. That means the problem is in our heads rather than in reality.

So let's assume it's possible for evil to be useful (because it gives us knowledge and wisdom). That either means:

(a) God put evil here in order for us to overcome it. In this sense Useful Evil is not actually evil at all, because it has a purpose. And if it has a purpose then we can't really argue that it "shouldn't exist"
(b) Evil exists, even though it shouldn't. But even though it shouldn't exist, humans are such intelligent and resourceful creatures that we can make the best out of a bad situation, and find something useful to take away from it. Evil is useful not because it is somehow secretly good for us, but because we are smart enough to learn from it.​

I personally favour (b).

You might have ignored my exploding-paint scenario as an irrelevant humorous remark, but I think it shows exactly the problem with your position.

Evil can get you closer to God. Evil is useful, because it can teach us knowledge and wisdom. Humans are such intelligent and resourceful creatures that we can make the best out of evil things.

Or not. Evil can break you, destroy you, kill you.

But these are the intelligent and resourceful and wise and knowledgeable people that you usually do not hear from... because they are too broken, too destroyed... too dead... to comment.


I think your faith does a good job at preventing you to see that all of these arguments do nothing but make your deity appear like a huge jerk. (And I use jerk here because it is the strongest term that I can use without being censored.)

 

[Freodin]

The suffering is unnecessary. It is akin to teaching a child not to touch a hot stove by holding its hand to the element yourself, rather then taking the simply explain it to the child.

Considering the prevalent Christian view about such things like "heaven", "afterlife" or "spiritual existence", I'd say it is even worse than that.

It is about teaching a child about the dangers of hot stoves by burning your child... and then explaining that stoves aren't necessary at all and will be done away with soon!

 

[The Cadet]

We can't based objective morality on subjective experiences.

...Or to put in less pretentiously, pain and pleasure are both subjective (one person might feel a lot, another only a little) so we can't say something is "objectively" right or wrong when the same thing affects different people in different ways.

So what?

The entirety of human wellbeing is necessarily subjective. We feel. We experience. Everything about that process happens within our own heads. But the moment you stop talking about human wellbeing, you abandon any actual discussion of morality, at least by any definition I'm interested in. You move into the realm of theoretical faffing about with little actual consequence. But when I talk about "should", I'm not interested in that. I'm interested, essentially, in how to form a positive, healthy human society, with the most good and happiness for all. And given that goal, there are objectively worse or better things to do.

(And never mind the lack of a basis for any objective morality either.)

If on the other hand you were speaking to someone in a different place and/or a different time, the result would be very different. In some countries the girl would be punished for "losing" her virginity prior to marriage. If the girl was married to the man who raped her, legally it would not considered rape at all. So however horrified you or I would be, other people would either not be horrified at all, or horrified at the victim rather than the rapist.

Right. And those people are wrong, and a great many members of their society suffer greatly as a result. These cultural abuses do not somehow become tolerable simply because these people accept them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

PoE is a circular argument: the problem of evil disproves the existence of God. Without God there is no such thing as evil.

Without God, there would still be hurricanes and earthquakes. You're right that from a naturalistic viewpoint, this poses no problem. The winds and the rocks obey mechanical laws, and there is no one to blame for the ills we suffer. But if you say there is a benevolent god, then the position is inconsistent. The PoE is not circular. It is pointing out that the set of assumptions that typically go with a benevolent 'omni' god are inconsistent.

 

[quatona]

Or "How the Problem of Evil PROVES (Rather than Disproves) the Existence of a Benevolent, Personal God"

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?*​

We have been debating for centuries why an all-powerful God who claims to love us would allow such terrible things to happen. We'll probably be debating for centuries more. However I believe the answer lies not in trying to understand how God works, but trying to understand how evil works.

We debate what exactly "evil" is just as much as we debate why it exists - and even though there are several answers (more on that in a moment) the problem of evil has already defined it for us: "Evil" is that which should not exist. Why else ask why God does not remove it?

For purposes of a Christian theological discussion I would define "evil" as that which God rather wouldn´t exist (or cannot be in the presence of, or however you would describe that which is reported as being dispproved of by God).

 

[jayem]

The only way we can argue that things should (or should not) happen is if we believe there is some kind of plan for our existence - something that only a conscious entity could be responsible for. And since evil is general considered harmful, this conscious entity presumably doesn't want harm to come to us. In other words, we cannot believe that evil (as presented in PoE) exists unless we assume that a personal, benevolent God exists first.

Why would you assume the bolded part? isn't it possible that the conscious entity could actually be malevolent? That also eliminates the PoE. Evil exists because the plan of that entity is to inflict suffering and misery. An evil god wouldn't just kill us outright. If we're dead, we can't feel pain. Such a god would also be deceptive. It would allow some benevolence and happiness to exist here and there. Because--as the reverse of what you noted-- if all we experienced was unremitting evil, we wouldn't know what good is.