The Argument from Evil

[KforcerOfKnightforce]

As a philosophy grad student, I wrote a paper where the gist was that the argument from evil doesn't work as a proof against God's existence because it aggressively asserts the existence of transcendent, objective moral truths about the universe; if one argues that evil exists, truly and actually, then they are also necessarily asserting the existence of moral truths or a moral order.

And the existence of a moral order or transcend moral truths, I held, left little room for atheism.

These thoughts actually far preceded the paper; when I was struggling with what I believed, I often thought about the fact that in my heart of hearts I believed that certain deeds were evil. If there is true evil in the world, then I thought, then morality is not relative or subjective. Therefore, morality must be transcendent and objective, which would mean that there most be a transcendent and objective moral truth.

And for such to exist, then God must exist, for objective and transcendent truths don't simply accidentally wander into existence do they? For these moral pronouncements to truly rise above subjectivity, they must have surely been pronounced by an objective, transcendent, omnipotent mind. Moral laws that are supposed to simply "exist" ultimately imply no objective rubric of anything, do they? Though they might prescribe certain behaviors, they'd carry no more weight--regardless of how we apprehended them or the consequences for not abiding them--than a person's interpretation of the meaning of a pile of leaves scattered by the wind.

My professor wasn't persuaded by this. However, I would be curious what other people thought of this.

 

[lawtonfogle]

A proof by contradiction works by assuming X assist, and then using X to disprove X. If we view the argument from evil as a proof via contradiction, which is must be because it starts by assuming God exist, then shows that this results in a contradiction, then this does not mean that the Atheist needs to assume God outside of 'for the sake of contradiction'.

It is much like the simple proof of sqrt(2) is irrational. You start by assuming it is rational, and show this is a contradiction. Of course, this does not mean that sqrt(2) is rational, because you only assumed it 'for the sake of contradiction'.

 

[KforcerOfKnightforce]

So, in other words, if we don't assume God exists for the sake of the argument from evil, then what we referred to as evil within the scope of that argument can become simply facts of life to be subjectively interpreted outside the arguments scope?

I.E., the argument for evil just assumes the existence of God and what would be evil within such a universe where God exists, rather than out and out asserting the existence of evil in the world?

 

[KforcerOfKnightforce]

Anyway, it always just seemed like such a silly attack on the existence of God to me, because the existence of moral truths implies--pretty strongly--the existence of God. How many atheists do you know who believe in non-relative, transcendent, objective moral truths?

How many atheists actually believe right and wrong are not ultimately cultural constructs?

 

[lawtonfogle]

So, in other words, if we don't assume God exists for the sake of the argument from evil, then what we referred to as evil within the scope of that argument can become simply facts of life to be subjectively interpreted outside the arguments scope?

I.E., the argument for evil just assumes the existence of God and what would be evil within such a universe where God exists, rather than out and out asserting the existence of evil in the world?

(Please note I am talking about the ideal 'argument from evil', not about arguments which may or may not have actually been used which may have logical flaws in them.)

(Also please note I am not saying the argument from evil is perfect, only that this is, as far as I can tell, not a valid attack on it.)

They would be an assumption things like murder/rape exist. They do not need to call it wrong to assume it exist (which is a fair assumption). They then go 'for the sake of contradiction, lets assume God'. They would then call those things such as rape and murder evil based on the universal absolutes which are assumed via the assumption of God. Then they go on from there.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Anyway, it always just seemed like such a silly attack on the existence of God to me, because the existence of moral truths implies--pretty strongly--the existence of God. How many atheists do you know who believe in non-relative, transcendent, objective moral truths?

How many atheists actually believe right and wrong are not ultimately cultural constructs?

There are ways to derive ethics without the use of divine command morality, though I suggest you talk directly with some Atheist on the matter. Of course, don't just approach a stranger, try to be a friend in other matters as well, and just discuss this matter when it comes up. Also, at first, just listen to what they say. Take some time to go over it in your head and see if they have any weaknesses.

Finally, realize that just because you can show there are moral absolutes (if you happen to be able to), that does not prove God exist. Why do moral absolutes need God when God does not need something else? One only need to apply the 'does not need any thing else' element of God to moral absolutes and it all still works out.

Also, even the best proof of God I have ever seen never defines Him more than an existing entity, which could well be termed the rules of the universe, the true laws (not scientific laws, slight difference) by which the Universe works by. There is no proof of this entitie's sentience, much less good will or free will.

 

[KforcerOfKnightforce]

In my experience, it is very unusual for an avowed atheist--someone with a strong commitment to atheism--to also believe in real, actual moral truths.

At the college I used to attend, there was a debate between a Christian and an atheist over whether or not one could believe in objective morality without God. The atheist, rather than arguing "Yes, you could believe in absolute moral truths without believing in God", argued against belief in God in general before, almost offhandedly, mentioning that all moral statements are totally subjective.

Of course, he was simply one guy who happened to be given a stage to speak on for a particular night, but I thought that was quite striking.