Why does God not stop the evil?

[Steve Petersen]

There is one common question which is often posed as an objection to God's omnibenevolence and that is the question: "why does God not prevent or stop the evil in the world?"

"Why does God not stop all the child molestors and rapists and murderers, why does God not stop this or prevent that or do this or that...."

These types of questions, surprisingly are raised by many atheists. But I find it ironic that the few instance in which we see God acting to stop and to prevent such heinous acts in the Bible, these same objectors claim that God was wrong in in stopping these people!

On one hand, God is blamed for tolerating evil, and on the other hand when He is shown to act in judgment on people who commit such atrocities, He is branded as being a murderer and genocidal!

If there were known to us today, to be civilizations and societies in existence that behaved the way the Canaanites, Amorites and Amalekites, did in making it a regular practice to offer their newborn babies and young children on fiery pagan altars to gods, atheists would be among the many to cry out: "If God exists, then why does He not stop these atrocities!"

Yet, in cases where it is clear that this was happening, when God does act, He is judged as being a genocidal murderer!

It seems to me that the qualm with God is not that He does not act to judge sin, but that He indeed does exist and holds us morally accountable for our sins. It is evidently clear, that in some people's eyes (those who lack belief in God) that whatever God does, He fails to meet their moral standards. Which is ironic, for if there is no objective moral standard, then all we have is opinions, none being any closer to the non-existent standard than any other. And the opinion that God was somehow wrong in ordering the children to be killed is no closer to adhering to this non-existent moral standard than the opinion that God, since He is the author and giver of life, was justified in taking that life.

So what is the objection?

Why don't YOU stop the evil?

 

[Dave Ellis]

God sets the standard and is the standard for morality.

And how did he set the standard by which he acts?

 

[mathetes123]

I think that is an interesting, and perhaps answerable, question. Is there any evidence for some sort of morality that might be called objective? I don't think the question is answerable by religion though, which is where Elioenai26 is at a stumbling block. Religion may provide the feel of an objective morality, but it must be taken on faith, which is problematic because it prevents us from critically examining conflicting religiously based moral claims. Sometimes even the very notion of critically examining these claims is rebuked as a sinful lapse of faith. This is not good because it means that thinking deeply about moral problems can sometimes be viewed as a flaw in a person's moral character. "The answers are all in the back of The Book, so why are you thinking about them!"

God provides ample evidence in His revelation (the Bible) of Himself through His written word, through the example of Jesus while on earth, through His creation, through the archeological record, through the record of fulfilled prophecy, and through the evidence of changed lives. We can know that what His word says is true if we sincerely seek the truth.

 

[mathetes123]

Why don't YOU stop the evil?

There will come a day when God judges the world and puts a stop to the evil.

 

[Elioenai26]

Are you joking? Martyrs are specifically stated to receive extra rewards in heaven. There is nothing holier or more righteous than being a martyr in Islam.

Ok. What is your point?

Not only would the hijackers say their actions were based on an objective morality, but suicide bombers, and many other muslims would say that as well.

Islamic fundamentalists would say that it was their duty as followers of Allah to fight against the infidels wherever they are. They would base this on what they perceived to be a command of God himself. They would see this command as being true even if Christians or Jews (Infidels) thought they were wrong. So in this sense, they would consider it an objective moral duty to kill infidels.

The problem is, their "objective" morality clashes with your "objective" morality. And neither one of you have any evidence whatsoever it's objective in the first place.

You, like most people here, are incorrectly using and conflating terms. You mean to say that Islamic Fundamentalists believe that it is objectively right to be obedient to God and objectively wrong to disobey Him. The Christian will say the same exact thing!

Your argument is based on a confusion of a value with a societal practice. You think the two are the same thing, but it will be demonstrated that they are not. You say that the existence of two societies based on two different religious worldviews that have different moral practices is evidence that there is no underlying, commonly held objective value between the two. But this is clearly wrong, for not only do both Muslims and Christians believe that it is objectively wrong to disobey God, but EVERY society that has ever existed has held that it is objectively wrong to disobey God or the gods they worshipped. The thing you have to understand is that indeed, there may be varying practices or means of fulfilling this moral obligation relative to the society in question, but the relative practices ARE BASED ON THE OBJECTIVE MORAL OBLIGATION to be obedient to God's commands.

Another example is this:

In cultures, societies, and civilizations throughout history, modesty is seen as being objectively good. In other words, in these societies, modesty is seen as being good and right, even if some women in the society thought it was ok to be immodest. The fact that some female islanders who live in the South Seas do not cover their breasts and British women do doesn't mean that the former do not value modesty. Due to the climate, environmental conditions, and certain religious beliefs, the people of the South Seas have developed certain practices by which to manifest the transcultural value of modesty. Although cultures may differ about how they manifest such values as honesty, courage, and the preserving of life, they do not promote dishonesty, cowardice, or arbitrary killing. (Philosophical Problems With Moral Relativism
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]by Francis J. Beckwith[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]from the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1993, page 20. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.)[/FONT]

You then go on to say that neither the Muslim or Chrisitian has any evidence to prove that objective moral values and duties exist. I, as a Christian who is a moral objectivist would simply appeal to instances where atheists have been killed because they were atheists. My moral sense or intuition tells me that when I see people's heads being sawed off slowly with a rusty machete because they happen not to believe in God, then this is really wrong. It is wrong even if the murderer thinks he is right. That is all the evidence I need. You asking me to give evidence for objective moral values and duties is like asking me to give evidence for the existence of the external world. We all clearly apprehend a physical world of trees, rivers, lakes, buildings, houses, people, the sky, the sun, animals, birds with our five senses. In the same manner, when I see a man being held down and having his head sawed off with a rusty machete, when I hear the man gurgling and choking on his own blood gushing from his arteries and the sound of him breathing through an exposed esophagus, when I feel the wooden floor beneath my feet vibrate as he writhes in agony, when I touch his lifeless body, when I smell the metal, iron smell of his blood as it is gushing out of his open severed neck, ALL BECAUSE HIS MURDERER DID NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD I know this is wrong, IT IS WRONG EVEN IF IT WAS THE MURDERERS SUBJECTIVE OPINION that it was right. I know this just like I know the world I live in is real.

Can you, Mr. Ellis, say the same? Can you agree?

 

[Loudmouth]

God sets the standard and is the standard for morality.

Actually, men set those standards and pretend to speak for God.

Also, we judge for ourselves whether those commands are moral or not. Those who blindly follow the edicts of a religious text are not moral. They are obedient. Obedience and morality are two different things.

 

[Loudmouth]

There will come a day when God judges the world and puts a stop to the evil.

Until that day comes we will continue to judge morality for ourselves using our ability to empathisize and use reason. That is the source of morality, not a book written by men pretending to be a deity.

 

[Loudmouth]

But this is clearly wrong, for not only do both Muslims and Christians believe that it is objectively wrong to disobey God, but EVERY society that has ever existed has held that it is objectively wrong to disobey God or the gods they worshipped.

It is moral to disobey an immoral command. "I was just following orders" didn't work for the Nazis in Nuremberg, and it doesn't work here either.

The thing you have to understand is that indeed, there may be varying practices or means of fulfilling this moral obligation relative to the society in question, but the relative practices ARE BASED ON THE OBJECTIVE MORAL OBLIGATION to be obedient to God's commands.

Obedience and morality are two different things.

 

[Elioenai26]

It is moral to disobey an immoral command. "I was just following orders" didn't work for the Nazis in Nuremberg, and it doesn't work here either.

I wholeheartedly agree. It sounds like you are a moral objectivist. Are you?

Obedience and morality are two different things.

Not according what you just wrote in the statement above. You use the word moral and disobey and immoral and command in your very first sentence. They are clearly related. I agree obedience is the act or practice of obeying, and morality can have several different meanings, in this it is seen they have different meanings, but so what? What is your point?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

God provides ample evidence in His revelation (the Bible) of Himself through His written word,

You have no evidence that it is a 'revelation'.

You don't remedy one naked assertion by piling another naked assertion on top of it.

through the example of Jesus while on earth, through His creation,

See above. This is just more naked assertion.

through the archeological record,

Archaeology contradicts the Bible in many pertinent areas. For example, the origins of the Hebrew people as presented in the Bible are absolutely wrong.

Not that it really matters. Even if the Bible were 100% accurate in this respect, it would not lend one iota of credibility to its supernatural claims.

through the record of fulfilled prophecy,

You don't have 'prophecy'. You have post-diction.

and through the evidence of changed lives.

This is not evidence for your god any more than lives changed by Islam is evidence for Allah.

We can know that what His word says is true if we sincerely seek the truth.

You don't have 'the truth'. You have an imagination, which you've anthropomorphized and deified. You've given zero indication that this 'god' exists anywhere outside your brain.

And again, this all completely beside the point. Even granting the existence of your god, it's an utterly useless proposition without an epistemology to derive information from it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I wholeheartedly agree. It sounds like you are a moral objectivist. Are you?

Yes, are you?

Not according what you just wrote in the statement above. You use the word moral and disobey and immoral and command in your very first sentence. They are clearly related.

I can use oxygen and gold in the same sentence as well, but that doesn't make air into gold.

Obedience and morality are not related. Obeying an immoral command is immoral. Just because someone commands you to do something does not remove your responsibility as a moral agent to act morally. It is RIGHT to disobey a deity who commands you to commit and immoral act.

I agree obedience is the act or practice of obeying, and morality can have several different meanings, in this it is seen they have different meanings, but so what? What is your point?

My point is that citing the commandments of a deity is not a moral code, it is a list of commandments. We judge for ourselves whether those commandments are moral, and we follow them accordingly, or at least we should. This means that both theists and atheists are using the same objective morality.

 

[Loudmouth]

God provides ample evidence in His revelation (the Bible) of Himself through His written word, through the example of Jesus while on earth, through His creation, through the archeological record, through the record of fulfilled prophecy, and through the evidence of changed lives. We can know that what His word says is true if we sincerely seek the truth.

Those are the writings of men. What moral truths exist in the Bible are a product of man's ability to determine what is and isn't moral. The Bible is also full of men doing immmoral acts in the name of God. This is evidence that the Bible is not truth.

 

[Elioenai26]

My point is that citing the commandments of a deity is not a moral code, it is a list of commandments. We judge for ourselves whether those commandments are moral, and we follow them accordingly, or at least we should. This means that both theists and atheists are using the same objective morality.

Is not a moral code a list of do's and dont's, or in other words, commandments? Are they not both the same, or a distinction without a difference?

If an atheist is a moral objectivist, then he is going to maintain that some moral values and duties are objective, for example, rape is objectively wrong, the same way a theist would. So what?

 

[Dave Ellis]

There will come a day when God judges the world and puts a stop to the evil.

One would assume if he was a moral being, he wouldn't have allowed the immoral travesties in the first place.

At the very least, he wouldn't put a delay on stopping the evil acts right now... What on earth is he waiting for?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ok. What is your point?



Islamic fundamentalists would say that it was their duty as followers of Allah to fight against the infidels wherever they are. They would base this on what they perceived to be a command of God himself. They would see this command as being true even if Christians or Jews (Infidels) thought they were wrong. So in this sense, they would consider it an objective moral duty to kill infidels.



You, like most people here, are incorrectly using and conflating terms. You mean to say that Islamic Fundamentalists believe that it is objectively right to be obedient to God and objectively wrong to disobey Him. The Christian will say the same exact thing!

Your argument is based on a confusion of a value with a societal practice. You think the two are the same thing, but it will be demonstrated that they are not. You say that the existence of two societies based on two different religious worldviews that have different moral practices is evidence that there is no underlying, commonly held objective value between the two. But this is clearly wrong, for not only do both Muslims and Christians believe that it is objectively wrong to disobey God, but EVERY society that has ever existed has held that it is objectively wrong to disobey God or the gods they worshipped. The thing you have to understand is that indeed, there may be varying practices or means of fulfilling this moral obligation relative to the society in question, but the relative practices ARE BASED ON THE OBJECTIVE MORAL OBLIGATION to be obedient to God's commands.

Another example is this:

In cultures, societies, and civilizations throughout history, modesty is seen as being objectively good. In other words, in these societies, modesty is seen as being good and right, even if some women in the society thought it was ok to be immodest. The fact that some female islanders who live in the South Seas do not cover their breasts and British women do doesn't mean that the former do not value modesty. Due to the climate, environmental conditions, and certain religious beliefs, the people of the South Seas have developed certain practices by which to manifest the transcultural value of modesty. Although cultures may differ about how they manifest such values as honesty, courage, and the preserving of life, they do not promote dishonesty, cowardice, or arbitrary killing. (Philosophical Problems With Moral Relativism
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]by Francis J. Beckwith[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]from the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1993, page 20. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.)[/FONT]

You then go on to say that neither the Muslim or Chrisitian has any evidence to prove that objective moral values and duties exist. I, as a Christian who is a moral objectivist would simply appeal to instances where atheists have been killed because they were atheists. My moral sense or intuition tells me that when I see people's heads being sawed off slowly with a rusty machete because they happen not to believe in God, then this is really wrong. It is wrong even if the murderer thinks he is right. That is all the evidence I need. You asking me to give evidence for objective moral values and duties is like asking me to give evidence for the existence of the external world. We all clearly apprehend a physical world of trees, rivers, lakes, buildings, houses, people, the sky, the sun, animals, birds with our five senses. In the same manner, when I see a man being held down and having his head sawed off with a rusty machete, when I hear the man gurgling and choking on his own blood gushing from his arteries and the sound of him breathing through an exposed esophagus, when I feel the wooden floor beneath my feet vibrate as he writhes in agony, when I touch his lifeless body, when I smell the metal, iron smell of his blood as it is gushing out of his open severed neck, ALL BECAUSE HIS MURDERER DID NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD I know this is wrong, IT IS WRONG EVEN IF IT WAS THE MURDERERS SUBJECTIVE OPINION that it was right. I know this just like I know the world I live in is real.

Can you, Mr. Ellis, say the same? Can you agree?

No, I don't agree. And trying to use an appeal to emotion isn't going to further your case.

You still have not demonstrated anything about this is objective.

Furthermore, you missed the entire point of my post.

What they view as god's objective standard, is not what you view as god's objective standard. Just because you assert they believe they should follow God's Rule is absurd. What their god says about morality, is in direct violation with what you think god says about morality.

So, where is the objective standard here? They claim their actions are a result of God's objective moral standard, and your contradictory views are also a result of what you claim is God's objective moral standard. Due to the law of non contradiction, either one or both of you must be wrong.

How do you know you are right and they are wrong? What can you use to tell the difference outside of your own subjective opinion.

 

[Elioenai26]

You still have not demonstrated anything about this is objective.

Do you think it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave because Dave is an atheist and Tim does not like atheists?

I want you to answer yes or no. I do not care why you say yes or no, I just want you to answer yes or no. Can you do that?

 

[Tiberius]

Do you think it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave because Dave is an atheist and Tim does not like atheists?

I want you to answer yes or no. I do not care why you say yes or no, I just want you to answer yes or no. Can you do that?

I will say yes, it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave. I say this because Tim would be doing something that affects Dave against Dave's will, and the morality I live by says that to force someone to participate in something against their will is wrong (unless it is for their greater good, such as dragging them from a burning house, even if they insist on running back inside to get their photos).

 

[seeking Christ]

Until that day comes we will continue to judge morality for ourselves using our ability to empathisize and use reason.

You, you just stick to that "ability to empathize and use reason" stuff, and see where it gets ya - you!

 

[seeking Christ]

One would assume if he was a moral being, he wouldn't have allowed the immoral travesties in the first place.

At the very least, he wouldn't put a delay on stopping the evil acts right now... What on earth is he waiting for?

Why is assumption a good thing again?

 

[seeking Christ]

I will say yes, it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave. I say this because Tim would be doing something that affects Dave against Dave's will, and the morality I live by says that to force someone to participate in something against their will is wrong (unless it is for their greater good, such as dragging them from a burning house, even if they insist on running back inside to get their photos).

Is there ever a situation where Tim killing Dave could be for the greater good?