Why God allows evil

[Belk]

Interesting that you would say that. I just saw an article a couple of days ago about an Atheist who became a Christian... precisely because she could not reconcile the universal sense of right and wrong--that is part of being human--with the notion that we just evolved by "accident." She finally determined that a theistic perspective better explained the undeniably universal preoccupation that the human species has with the concept of moral right and moral wrong.

So... let me ask you...

Where exactly does any sense of "morality" come from? The natural law (upon which evolution depends) only rewards self-preservation, so it would never create any benefit for an organism by means of any sense of "morality." Right and Wrong are irrelevant. Self-benefit is all there is. If that's at the expense of others, then so be it. Sometimes group benefit also benefits self, so some species have herd-type behavior... but even that doesn't give rise to "right" or "wrong." Staying with and strengthening the herd is safer than not staying in the herd... self-preservation is still the driver.

Where do humans get that? Why can't we "help it"?

Of all species on this planet, we alone are afflicted with a sense of moral conscience. Why?

Just to point out this is incorrect. Self preservation is not the only thing "rewarded". The only thing is reproduction. While self preservation might aid in reproduction it is not the end goal.

 

[holo]

I think you're playing around with definitions here...

If God is the source of all things (a significant inference of the definition of God), then morality is not something he made, but something He IS.

If so, doesn't it then also apply to things other than morality, such as greed, disgust, etc?

You can play philosophical or semantic games all you want, but the reality is that if God is NOT, then nothing really matters, for even the value of life itself is subjective and just a matter of opinion.

Or on your view, it's the matter of God's opinion.

And if life itself is just a fluke of natural processes, then it really has no objective meaning. And if life has no objective meaning, then destroying a life is no more wrong than crushing a rock.

Meaning can't be "objective" anyway. And in any case, it's not like atheists don't have meaning in their life. Obviously meaning feels objective, but no matter how you look at it, it's still just an experience. Like love. Love isn't some sort of a cloud or a force field that exists in and of itself, it's merely an experience like any other.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Just to point out this is incorrect. Self preservation is not the only thing "rewarded". The only thing is reproduction. While self preservation might aid in reproduction it is not the end goal.

OK, I'll grant that clarification. For what it's worth, I was logically combining self-preservation and reproduction into the same essential motivation... since I think it could be argued that they are inseparable. Of course, an animal may well choose to sacrifice oneself for its offspring (which would seem to counter "self-preservation"), but I would count that as an extension of the self-preservation instinct, applied to the offspring.

My point still stands, however... this mechanism/motivation does not give rise to "right/wrong." It only gives rise to self/progeny-preservation.

 

[Belk]

OK, I'll grant that clarification. For what it's worth, I was logically combining self-preservation and reproduction into the same essential motivation... since I think it could be argued that they are inseparable. Of course, an animal may well choose to sacrifice oneself for its offspring (which would seem to counter "self-preservation"), but I would count that as an extension of the self-preservation instinct, applied to the offspring.

My point still stands, however... this mechanism/motivation does not give rise to "right/wrong." It only gives rise to self/progeny-preservation.

Sociologists would disagree with your claim.

Evolution of morality - Wikipedia

 

[holo]

She finally determined that a theistic perspective better explained the undeniably universal preoccupation that the human species has with the concept of moral right and moral wrong.

So... let me ask you...

Where exactly does any sense of "morality" come from? The natural law (upon which evolution depends) only rewards self-preservation, so it would never create any benefit for an organism by means of any sense of "morality." Right and Wrong are irrelevant. Self-benefit is all there is. If that's at the expense of others, then so be it. Sometimes group benefit also benefits self, so some species have herd-type behavior... but even that doesn't give rise to "right" or "wrong." Staying with and strengthening the herd is safer than not staying in the herd... self-preservation is still the driver.

Yes, and that explains perfectly why we care first and foremost about ourselves and our kin, and those who look like us. If the sense of morality was God-given, we would expect it to apply to everyone, not just those related to us or close to us. So again, I think evolution explains it pretty well.

Moral values change and evolve, and the more we learn about the world, the more we care about those far away from us, and even animals.

Where do humans get that? Why can't we "help it"?

For the same reason we have a sense of self, I guess. Having moral values, just like having a sense of identity (or ego, if you will), has increased our chances of passing our genes on. And in the past, it was also vital to not feel morally obligated toward other groups, because that would be more likely to put us in danger.

Of all species on this planet, we alone are afflicted with a sense of moral conscience. Why?

I'm not sure there aren't animals with some sense of morality. Certain apes certainly seem to have a sense of fairness, at least. If we hadn't had morality we probably wouldn't have made it this far as a species.

 

[holo]

My point still stands, however... this mechanism/motivation does not give rise to "right/wrong." It only gives rise to self/progeny-preservation.

I would argue that the sense of right/wrong IS the mechanism. If you don't have it, you and your group is less likely to survive.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Sociologists would disagree with your claim.

Evolution of morality - Wikipedia

Actually, all that proves is that the concept of morality is a REAL problem for a naturalist understanding of origins... They're trying to explain some way that it may have developed... but it's still a real problem.

Yes, they have lots of ideas, and they would not agree with me... but they are also vested in protecting their naturalistic viewpoint from any observation that it cannot explain.

The concept of morality is NOT a problem for the theist. It is only a problem for the atheist.

And my challenge remains... there's no mechanism within naturalistic evolution that would give rise to an universally experienced moral conscience in the human animal.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I would argue that the sense of right/wrong IS the mechanism. If you don't have it, you and your group is less likely to survive.

So... why do only humans have it?

 

[Belk]

Actually, all that proves is that the concept of morality is a REAL problem for a naturalist understanding of origins... They're trying to explain some way that it may have developed... but it's still a real problem.

Yes, they have lots of ideas, and they would not agree with me... but they are also vested in protecting their naturalistic viewpoint from any observation that it cannot explain.

The concept of morality is NOT a problem for the theist. It is only a problem for the atheist.

Did you seriously just claim that every sociologist is an atheist?

And my challenge remains... there's no mechanism within naturalistic evolution that would give rise to an universally experienced moral conscience in the human animal.

Your challenge remains because you hand waved away the experts who disagree with you? Sorry, going to go with the guys who actually study this for a living.

 

[holo]

So... why do only humans have it?

Again, I'm not so sure only humans have it. But given how advanced we are (compared to other species), it's no wonder if it's much more developed than in animals. Like music, art, etc.

My question to you would be if it's god-given and/or universal, why don't we agree on what the moral values are, and why are they so limited to "our" groups?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It goes back to this problem...

If there's no accountability, why would morality matter at all?

Tell me how morality as a concept has any significance at all absent any accountability for actions.

Like Holo implied, morals are interpersonal opinions. They matter to the individual. When you say “Doing X is evil.” you’re saying “Doing X is evil, to me.”

People desire accountability for the same emotional reasons they do when they form moral opinions.

 

[Kylie]

So... the measure of evil is "harm"?

How can we determine what "harm" is?

It's subjective. And, like I've said, "evil" is a subjective concept.

Are hurricanes and tornadoes evil, too? They do a lot of harm, and I can't think of any good that they do...

But they aren't the result of some conscious entity. Evil implies there's an intentionality behind it.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Like Holo implied, morals are interpersonal opinions. They matter to the individual. When you say “Doing X is evil.” you’re saying “Doing X is evil, to me.”

I hear you. I understand your position.

So... I get ten people in a room and ask them to define how they know if something is evil. They give me ten different answers. You're telling me that all of them are equally correct. But that is logically impossible... unless they are all equally wrong.

And that's why I say that if "evil" is a subjective interpretation (where everyone is equally right), then in means that there's no such thing as evil at all, for that is the ONLY way that every answer can be equally right... by being equally wrong.

People desire accountability for the same emotional reasons they do when they form moral opinions.

You really think people desire accountability?

That sure hasn't been my observation or experience. Accountability is a restriction on behavior, and people don't tend to want to have their behavior restricted... they want to do what they want to do.

 

[Kylie]

Wow, Kylie... you need to do some homework...

Some of the greatest scientists of all time were deists. Galileo Galilei. Sir Isaac Newton. Albert Einstein. Max Planck. See a LOT more here...

And did any of them use religion rather than science to make their discoveries?

And if it were not for the church, we would never have had the Scientific Revolution. One guy even wrote a book called, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

So? Science is not religion. Scientific advancements have come from science, not religion.

Your assertions are not grounded it fact. One of the most obvious predictions of a theistic perspective is the expectation that we should find order in the universe at all. If there really is a God who intelligently created all things, then we should expect there to be order and reason and the evidence of intelligence within Creation. And that's exactly what we find. If there's no God, then we should rather expect utter randomness and no order.

Why do sub atomic particles behave as precisely as they do? Why to astronomical bodies behave as precisely as they do? One of the most astounding observations in all of the universe is how it is completely and utterly governed by very precise and immutable rules of existence. That's the prediction of a religious belief in a God... it is not the prediction of a belief in no God.

"If there's no God, then we should rather expect utter randomness and no order."

And yet quantum mechanics shows that the universe is inherently random and unpredictable.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

It's subjective. And, like I've said, "evil" is a subjective concept.

So... nothing is actually evil... it just may be at one time or another called "evil" by one person or another.

That's no standard for "evil" at all.

If I don't like your subjective interpretation of what is "evil," I'll just go and do my own thing no matter what you think about it. Who are you to say that your subjectivity is any more valid than mine?

But they aren't the result of some conscious entity. Evil implies there's an intentionality behind it.

So... personhood is required? Volition? an intentional decision?

No argument from me on that point.

But I don't see how you can give any value to sentience if we are all just an evolutionary accident. From a naturalistic perspective, non-life is no more important than life... since both are just the results of natural processes.

Furthermore, if "evil" is subjective, so is value. Something may be valuable to one person, but not another. Who is right? Which life is valuable? A dog's life? A mosquito's life? A person's life? An amoeba's life? Is human life more valuable than plant life?

There's also a very important relationship between "value" and "evil"... for the destruction of a valuable life (human) is more "evil" than the destruction of a life that is not so valuable (insect, or bacteria).

You see, without a God to determine what is valuable, we're just kidding ourselves to count one accident of nature as more "worthy" than any other accident of nature.

And if a comet hits earth tomorrow and destroys ALL life on the planet, there's no great loss, since we were just a bunch of evolutionary accidents that thought of ourselves as "important" when we really don't matter at all. There's nothing after life. There's no accountability to a Creator. All the "evil" ever committed won't matter. And no one will ever know or care that we existed for a short time.

But... the story is very different if there really is a God... who created us... who made us for eternity... who loves us and has placed on earth for His purposes. The God who made us... who addressed the evil in human lives by sending Jesus to become a man and and bear the penalty for every sin and every evil ever committed on earth by any person... so that our wrongs and our guilt could be taken away.

If there's a God... then we actually matter. And morality actually matters. And life actually matters. And love actually matters.

If there's no God... then we're just a bunch of self-important overgrown amoebas that the universe is eventually going to blot out of existence... and then we're gone and none of it ever mattered.

 

[Kylie]

So... nothing is actually evil... it just may be at one time or another called "evil" by one person or another.

That's no standard for "evil" at all.

If I don't like your subjective interpretation of what is "evil," I'll just go and do my own thing no matter what you think about it. Who are you to say that your subjectivity is any more valid than mine?

No, there's isn't a standard for evil, not in any objective sense.

But if you go and do things that the majority of people consider evil, then you're going to have to face the consequences.

But I don't see how you can give any value to sentience if we are all just an evolutionary accident. From a naturalistic perspective, non-life is no more important than life... since both are just the results of natural processes.

Oh, not this tired old argument again...

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

And did any of them use religion rather than science to make their discoveries?

All scientific research is based upon presuppositions... things that they assume to be true before and without testing (sometimes without the ability to test).

I would suggest to you that the presupposition that God actually exists offers a more reliable assumption upon which to base scientific testing than the naturalistic world view.

So? Science is not religion. Scientific advancements have come from science, not religion

.
Indeed. That rather goes without saying, doesn't it? Religion has never attempted to make scientific advancements.

"If there's no God, then we should rather expect utter randomness and no order."

And yet quantum mechanics shows that the universe is inherently random and unpredictable.

Actually, you need to go back and study that point again...

Science and math and quantum mechanics have shown that NOTHING is random. Everything responds to the forces acting upon it precisely as the laws of physics require. And it's not unpredictable at all... provided you know ALL of the parameters that impact the end result.

2 + 2 is always 4... never more or less... totally predictable and totally not random. The answer will be different if other factors are at play, of course... 2 + 2^2 is not 4... but it is always 6. And (2 + 2)^2 is always 8. Slight changes impact the result, but the result is still not random.

FACTOID: The order in the universe was so obvious to the ancient Greeks that they used the word "Cosmos" to name the universe... "cosmos" literally translates to the English word "order."

There is so much order in the universe that we can calculate the precise positions of the planets in our solar system for any time and any day past, present or future. Nothing random about that. Nothing unpredictable about that.

It only appears to be random because we don't have enough information to predict the behavior of certain objects encountering other objects... but rest assured, the math exists to calculate the actions of every single atom impacted by every encounter.

The utter predictability of the universe is one of the most astounding observations ever made about the universe.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

No, there's isn't a standard for evil, not in any objective sense.

But if you go and do things that the majority of people consider evil, then you're going to have to face the consequences.

What consequences? And by whom?

If I just kill off everyone that considers what I'm doing to be "evil," problem solved, right? No more "evil" and no consequences.

But I don't see how you can give any value to sentience if we are all just an evolutionary accident. From a naturalistic perspective, non-life is no more important than life... since both are just the results of natural processes.

Oh, not this tired old argument again...

It's irrefutable...

 

[Kylie]

All scientific research is based upon presuppositions... things that they assume to be true before and without testing (sometimes without the ability to test).

I would suggest to you that the presupposition that God actually exists offers a more reliable assumption upon which to base scientific testing than the naturalistic world view.

But scientific ideas are discarded if there is no evidence to support them - something which is hard to come by when dealing with God.

Indeed. That rather goes without saying, doesn't it? Religion has never attempted to make scientific advancements.

And I can't for the life of me think of any religious advancements.

Actually, you need to go back and study that point again...

Science and math and quantum mechanics have shown that NOTHING is random. Everything responds to the forces acting upon it precisely as the laws of physics require. And it's not unpredictable at all... provided you know ALL of the parameters that impact the end result.

2 + 2 is always 4... never more or less... totally predictable and totally not random. The answer will be different if other factors are at play, of course... 2 + 2^2 is not 4... but it is always 6. And (2 + 2)^2 is always 8. Slight changes impact the result, but the result is still not random.

FACTOID: The order in the universe was so obvious to the ancient Greeks that they used the word "Cosmos" to name the universe... "cosmos" literally translates to the English word "order."

There is so much order in the universe that we can calculate the precise positions of the planets in our solar system for any time and any day past, present or future. Nothing random about that. Nothing unpredictable about that.

It only appears to be random because we don't have enough information to predict the behavior of certain objects encountering other objects... but rest assured, the math exists to calculate the actions of every single atom impacted by every encounter.

The utter predictability of the universe is one of the most astounding observations ever made about the universe.

And yet there is no way to tell when a particular atom of a radioactive substance will decay, no matter how much you know.

 

[Kylie]

What consequences? And by whom?

For example, other people kicking you out of society, or killing you, for example.

If I just kill off everyone that considers what I'm doing to be "evil," problem solved, right? No more "evil" and no consequences.

And hope that everyone else just sits by and lets you do it...

It's irrefutable...

No it isn't.