"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

[hankroberts]

"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

I see this question asked frequently by unbelievers who want to argue that the existence of Evil is somehow a refutation of the existence of a Moral God.

It seems to me that the appropriate first response to this question should be to ask, "If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

It seems we spend a great deal of our time defending Free Will to unbelievers, when we should actually be pointing out the flaw in their premise.

 

[bhsmte]

"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

I see this question asked frequently by unbelievers who want to argue that the existence of Evil is somehow a refutation of the existence of a Moral God.

It seems to me that the appropriate first response to this question should be to ask, "If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

It seems we spend a great deal of our time defending Free Will to unbelievers, when we should actually be pointing out the flaw in their premise.

If a personal God exists, I am quite certain there could be a variety of explanations as to why this God would allow the level of suffering and evil we see in reality. And, those reasons would all be speculation and are endless.

What I struggle most with in regards to some Christians is this; when something good happens to them, they are quick to point out that this happened because of God. When something bad happens to them or others, they tend to all of a sudden lose this ability to determine when God makes things happen and they state; God works in mysterious ways, who could possible know God's will? Well, they seem to have a good handle on God's will when something good happens, but not when something bad happens.

 

[hankroberts]

If a personal God exists, I am quite certain there could be a variety of explanations as to why this God would allow the level of suffering and evil we see in reality. And, those reasons would all be speculation and are endless.

What I struggle most with in regards to some Christians is this; when something good happens to them, they are quick to point out that this happened because of God. When something bad happens to them or others, they tend to all of a sudden lose this ability to determine when God makes things happen and they state; God works in mysterious ways, who could possible know God's will? Well, they seem to have a good handle on God's will when something good happens, but not when something bad happens.

OK, maybe I'm missing where you addressed my question. ?

 

[bhsmte]

OK, maybe I'm missing where you addressed my question. ?

Well, first of all, why do you require "an absolute moral standard"?

Humans define evil actions based on their upbringing, the social environment in which they live in and their own personal psychology.

 

[hankroberts]

Well, first of all, why do you require "an absolute moral standard"?

Humans define evil actions based on their upbringing, the social environment in which they live in and their own personal psychology.

Ah, really? So there is no absolute measure of morality? What you've proposed is either a culturally based moral standard or a socially based standard. I presume you realize the obvious flaws: how do you address those?

 

[selfinflikted]

To me, because I hear Christians say so many, many times that "god IS love" and "god LOVES you" and "god is benevolent" and so on, ad infinitum, I do give some weight to this question. *IF* god is all of these things, then it absolutely doesn't make sense that there is so much suffering in the world. I hate to resort to the parent/child analogy, but in this case I will: If I had a child who was starving, I would feed him. Period. But there are so many "children" of god who are starving in this world (just to use one example of suffering), so why isn't their "father" feeding them? I am neither LOVE, benevolent, or any of those other things usually attributed to god, but I would certainly do everything in my power to feed my children and relieve whatever other suffering they may be enduring.

I do not think that because there is evil and suffering in the world that somehow *proves* there is no god, but it does go a LONG way to suggest that god is not necessarily the things that his followers ascribe to him. (not that I believe in god in the first place, but if I did, I would likely think along these lines)

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Upbringing, society, and psychological reasons may all produce differing and perhaps eventually conflicting ideas of evil for an individual, though. So this would mean that the concept of evil is subjective only?

 

[hankroberts]

To me, because I hear Christians say so many, many times that "god IS love" and "god LOVES you" and "god is benevolent" and so on, ad infinitum, I do give some weight to this question. *IF* god is all of these things, then it absolutely doesn't make sense that there is so much suffering in the world. I hate to resort to the parent/child analogy, but in this case I will: If I had a child who was starving, I would feed him. Period. But there are so many "children" of god who are starving in this world (just to use one example of suffering), so why isn't their "father" feeding them? I am neither LOVE, benevolent, or any of those other things usually attributed to god, but I would certainly do everything in my power to feed my children and relieve whatever other suffering they may be enduring.

I do not think that because there is evil and suffering in the world that somehow *proves* there is no god, but it does go a LONG way to suggest that god is not necessarily the things that his followers ascribe to him. (not that I believe in god in the first place, but if I did, I would likely think along these lines)

Well, I guess I'm forced to ask the same question I asked the other poster: this does not seem to address my question. Does it?

 

[Inkfingers]

"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

I see this question asked frequently by unbelievers who want to argue that the existence of Evil is somehow a refutation of the existence of a Moral God.

It seems to me that the appropriate first response to this question should be to ask, "If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

It seems we spend a great deal of our time defending Free Will to unbelievers, when we should actually be pointing out the flaw in their premise.

Indeed.

When we reduce morals to relativism we destroy morals because we strip them of all authority - and a morality without any authority is no morality at all.

When morals are relative, there is no greater moral authority to saving a baby from a burning house than waiting until it is well cooked and then eating it. It all becomes a matter just of subjective desire....which is essentially self-worship and the belief (like that held by schizophrenics) that reality is defined by "me".

For morals to be meaningful they have to be absolute or they are not morals at all but are instead just an assertion of a subjective desire.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, really? So there is no absolute measure of morality? What you've proposed is either a culturally based moral standard or a socially based standard. I presume you realize the obvious flaws: how do you address those?

I guess you would have to explain why moral standards can be unique in different cultures, unique amongst individual Christians and change over time.

 

[hankroberts]

I guess you would have to explain why moral standards can be unique in different cultures, unique amongst individual Christians and change over time.

No, sir: you seem to be arguing that subjective standards exist; which is consistent with both Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism. This completely avoids the question I asked. Actually, it avoids every question I've asked.

 

[quatona]

"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

I see this question asked frequently by unbelievers who want to argue that the existence of Evil is somehow a refutation of the existence of a Moral God.

It seems to me that the appropriate first response to this question should be to ask, "If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard,

Who talked about an absolute moral standard?

then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

One could, for example, try to show how God violates His own allegedly absolute standards.

It seems we spend a great deal of our time defending Free Will to unbelievers, when we should actually be pointing out the flaw in their premise.

Which premise would that be?

 

[hankroberts]

"Who talked about an absolute moral standard?"

That would be me, I guess. The whole point is that as far as I know, without such a standard I see no justification for the assertion that 'evil' exists.

"One could, for example, try to show how God violates His own allegedly absolute standards."

Well, I guess one could do that, though I suspect it would be difficult. However, I'm at a loss as to how that would address my question.

It seems we spend a great deal of our time defending Free Will to unbelievers, when we should actually be pointing out the flaw in their premise.
Which premise would that be?

The premise that evil exists without an absolute standard: sorry, I thought that was clear. The implicit premise in the question is that since evil exists, then God must not (or at least, He is not who Christians say He is).

 

[Ana the Ist]

"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

I see this question asked frequently by unbelievers who want to argue that the existence of Evil is somehow a refutation of the existence of a Moral God.

It seems to me that the appropriate first response to this question should be to ask, "If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

It seems we spend a great deal of our time defending Free Will to unbelievers, when we should actually be pointing out the flaw in their premise.

I don't generally go around calling things "evil" to begin with...

However, when I judge something to be morally wrong I do it the same way everyone else does....I do it based upon my opinions.

 

[hankroberts]

I don't generally go around calling things "evil" to begin with...

However, when I judge something to be morally wrong I do it the same way everyone else does....I do it based upon my opinions.

Well, to paraphrase a much earlier conversation:
In some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of their opinions. Do you have any preference?

I presume by your statement that if one's opinion is that something is moral, then it is? So when Slavery was in full swing in the US, those men were of the opinion that Slavery was not immoral: your position is that they were right? The opinion of the Japanese during WWII was that non-Japanese were not human, and therefore killing them and subjugating them was morally right. So your position is that they were correct?

 

[Inkfingers]

However, when I judge something to be morally wrong I do it the same way everyone else does....I do it based upon my opinions.

When you do so, are you making a claim that something is absolutely morally wrong, or that it is simply something that you desire to oppose?

 

[bhsmte]

When you do so, are you making a claim that something is absolutely morally wrong, or that it is simply something that you desire to oppose?

Why do you need the word "absolute" attached to it.

One Christian may think one behavior is morally wrong and another doesn't. One atheist may think a certain behavior is morally wrong and another doesn't.

We aren't dealing with absolutes, when we are talking about each person's judgments, that have been built over a lifetime of experience.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Indeed.

When we reduce morals to relativism we destroy morals because we strip them of all authority - and a morality without any authority is no morality at all.

When morals are relative, there is no greater moral authority to saving a baby from a burning house than waiting until it is well cooked and then eating it. It all becomes a matter just of subjective desire....which is essentially self-worship and the belief (like that held by schizophrenics) that reality is defined by "me".

For morals to be meaningful they have to be absolute or they are not morals at all but are instead just an assertion of a subjective desire.

This is just poor argumentation. What's wrong with morals being relative opinions? Does realizing this somehow change them? Would realizing this stop you from putting out a burning baby? I somehow doubt it.

To use an analogy... you have relative opinions regarding taste. Let's say, for example, that you dislike the taste of curry. When you go out to dinner with someone who does like curry...does your opinion suddenly change? Again, I doubt it. Does the fact that your dinner partner like curry mean that you now have to eat it? Nope. Does it mean you can no longer decide to order curry or not? Of course not. Are you starting to see how poor your argument is here?

You said, "morality without any authority is no morality at all". Well where is this so-called authority you speak of? I'm willing to wager that you think many of the actions of ISIS over in Iraq are quite evil...not according to just your opinion, of course, but your god's opinion as well. Yet, god doesn't appear to be stepping in to enforce his authority at all. He could easily kill the first born son of every ISIS soldier... yet he doesn't. What kind of authority is that? I'll tell you...the impotent kind. Perhaps what you need to realize is that authority without enforcement is no authority at all...and to that end, even your god's morality carries no authority.

 

[hankroberts]

Why do you need the word "absolute" attached to it.

One Christian may think one behavior is morally wrong and another doesn't. One atheist may think a certain behavior is morally wrong and another doesn't.

We aren't dealing with absolutes, when we are talking about each person's judgments, that have been built over a lifetime of experience.

Moral Absolutism asserts that there are certain moral laws which are absolute, objective, and transcendent: Moral Relativism asserts that all moral rules are subjective, temporal and personal (either individual or social or cultural in their origin).

 

[Inkfingers]

Why do you need the word "absolute" attached to it.

To juxtapose it with "relative"

One Christian may think one behavior is morally wrong and another doesn't. One atheist may think a certain behavior is morally wrong and another doesn't.

A man may tell himself many things, grasshopper.

And if you google that, you'll find an interesting addition to the subject (especially the video form).

We aren't dealing with absolutes, when we are talking about each person's judgments, that have been built over a lifetime of experience.

Our practical judgement will always have a subjective element, but the question is whether there is an absolute morality against which all is measured.....or is everything just a matter of opinion (which basically means that there is no morality, because without authority the concept of morality is meaningless).

Personally, I wonder if it is better to speak of a scale of inferior to superior, rather than a black and white good/evil. That isn't to deny that some things are utterly evil (its barbeque-a-baby night at B L Zeebub's bar and grill) but that it isn't a purely digital phenomenon. Just a thought.