The Five Responses to the Problem of Evil

Why doesn’t the existence of evil in the world keep Christians up at night?…

> God has good reasons for allowing suffering and evil to exist. He uses suffering and evil to accomplish a greater good, even if we never know exactly what that reason is. God is on our team and he is both the quarterback and coach! You see, the “logi…

“Will says: C Michael, I reject your position that the concept of evil and suffering (or goodness) can only exist within a Christian world view. You have offered no support for the claim and should understand how insulting and myopic it is to non Christians and non theists.”

Many atheist thinkers admit that atheism is unable to justify objective moral norms. They admit that atheism entails moral relativism or moral nihilism. That’s not a Christian caricature of atheism. You need to keep up with your own side of the argument.

As to “insulating,” you only have the right to be offended if there’s an objective distinction between right and wrong. So your umbrage begs the question.

Ryan says:

“How do you know God exists? How do you know he’s the God depicted in the Christian bible? How do you know God is good or all good?”

We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. There’s a vast corpus of literature in apologetics, natural theology, and philosophical theology addressing those issues.

“How do you know the bible as we have it contains God’s unadulterated, inerrant revelation? If you think it does, I have some verses to bring up from the Old Testament containing divine decrees that don’t reflect an all-good nature or timeless wisdom.”

That begs the question. You need a source and standard of objective morality to render that value judgment in the first place.

If God is good and loving ,then why there is violence and injustice still prevailing in world?God has the power to destroy all evils and create harmony all over the world….

> 4. The Atheistic Response * Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent) (untrue) * Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent) (untrue) * Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist (true) Conclusion: An all-good, all-powerful God could not exist since there…

This is an important topic that can be a barrier to belief for unbelievers or a hindrance to an intimate relationship with God for believers. I think position 5 cannot claim to be THE Christian position. Equally capable, godly believers have come up with other views of theodicy that merit consideration. As pointed out, I would say the Calvinistic/deterministic view impugns the character and ways of God, while the Open Theist views of William Hasker, Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, etc. merit consideration. Having studied Open Theism for over 30 years, I would not say the information here resonates with what I believe or am reading in the dozens of books/articles by prominent Open Theists. The article is a needed attempt, but I would not find it fair or satisfactory overall. Of course, this is a huge issue that cannot be done justice in a brief article.

Re CMP & S. Hays, “if there is no God, there is not really any such thing as evil.”

I disagree. The difficulty for atheists is not in failing to recognize evil, but in failing to provide sufficient grounds for it. An atheist would (unless completely evil or socio-pathic herself) be able to point at rape or the murder of a child and state, “that is evil, that is morally wrong”. Of their account for their moral view would be different than mine. I would argue that atheists can recognize evil because we all share the image of God and all share a common conscience.

Consequently, it is also possible for an atheist to have and live by a moral sense of ethics.

However, having a concept of evil, recognizing evil and living morally are not the same as being able to provide adequate grounds for universal sense of evil / good.

However, more relevant to the topic of this thread is the recognition that atheists do not need to have their own grounds for evil in order to pose the dilemmas outlined by Patton. Atheists rely on the Christian definitions of evil and good, and use an alleged incoherence in the Christian’s beliefs to attack the Christian view.

***

There are also acceptable answers to the dilemmas that Patton does not cover. It is acceptable for the Christian to agree that there are gratuitous evils, that God is opposed to all evil and did not decree for it to occur, and that Christians do not have to seek to justify the evil under discussion but rather trust in God’s power to overcome and annihilate it.

John Inglis said:

“On the definition of Divine Command Theory you provided, you are correct that commands of God flowing from his nature fall within that theory. However, you are wrong that there is no distinction between arbitrary commands (i.e., commands not grounded in something) and commands flowing from God’s nature.

Ryan said (6 comments prior to John’s remark):

“I did NOT say there isn’t a difference between a DCT theorist who says God’s act of commanding action P makes it right, and a DCT theorist who says morality is grounded in and flows from his essential, good nature. I said that both these views fall under the umbrella of DCT schools of thought.”

Your comments are thoroughly replete with these kind of blatantly false mischaracterizations. This conversation won’t advance if you refuse to conduct it in good faith.

I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but excuse me, the skeptic doesn’t need to borrow from the Christian tradition when labeling an act wrong or evil. Both concepts predate Christianity, and are found in religious traditions like Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Egyptian mythology, etc. It’s not amusing anymore to watch these historical revisions go unrefuted. This fantasy that Christianity has always dominated minds and hearts and gave us most useful forms of knowledge/understanding throughout history is just that…fantasy. Differentiating between ordinary wrongdoing and evil is a discussion for a future comment…

Second, while the two versions of DCT are distinct, it’s a distinction without a difference. You only change the form of the dilemma. Is compassion good because it’s a part of God’s nature, or is compassion a part of God’s nature because it is already good? When you decided to regard biblical content as historically accurate, you judged that God was good. This requires logically prior criteria for good apart from your belief in God or the bible.

John I. said:

“You should deal with the actual arguments put forward rather than hiding behind pejorative accusations.”

In all seriousness, and putting all thinly-veiled vitriol aside, I can’t stick around if you continue mischaracterizing our discussion. Does anyone who happens to be watching – 1 or 2 people maybe – think that I haven’t offered substantive responses to John’s solution to the Euthypro dilemma? Simply because I tacked on a critique of many Christian apologists/philosopher’s seemingly lopsided, incomplete exposure to philosophy doesn’t mean I failed to address your claims through reasoned argument.

I bet your a perfectly nice guy and that I’d like you if I met you. We’re both probably not like this in person when we take our philosophy and religion hats off. And I’m the last guy that expects everyone to be schooled in philosophy or religion. If that was the case, who would get the real work done? 🙂 All I ask is that folks be honest about their knowledge limitations and hold beliefs tentatively or with humility in areas where they haven’t engaged in sustained reflection.

So, here’s a concrete example of cherry-picking and philosophic myopia: Apologists often think that inventing or dogmatically accepting the existence of God, and then proceeding to create/maintain a philosophically coherent belief system around this being, counts as being faithful (nice word choice) to a healthy mind’s need for reason and evidence.

There are many problems with this approach, some extraordinarily obvious, some not. First, rationalism as a school of thought is dead, or at least it should be. I think you know what rationalism is, I don’t want to insult by defining it. Experience/evidence-based investigation, not reason, is undeniably the most reliable form of inquiry ever known, not reason or philosophy. Is this fact disputed by anyone?

Second, almost no philosopher save for some Christian philosophers believes that…

…reason or philosophy too far removed or detached from knowledge derived from experience/science is a reliable way of forming knowledge or discovering truth. For one, history is replete with examples of inquiry conducted through reason simpliciter and it’s utter failure to properly explain/predict the behavior of matter.

Kant himself thought reason ought to be largely subsumed under experience and the role it plays in forming knowledge and understanding. He thought things like logic and analytic truths were constitutive, and true by definition. Regulative principles were those assumptions that – while not derived solely from experience – are necessary for orienting yourself coherently within the realm of experience, and thus justifiable assumptions. Mathematical truths are a funny case that he discusses, but it’s too long for this post.

Anyway, Kant warns against relying on reason alone. He gives the example of antinomies, contradictory conclusions that one can arrive at through deductive proof on topics like quantity, quality, relation, space and time, god, and free will.

Here’s the point. The Western analytic tradition of philosophy broadly sees it’s role as secondary to science in terms of reliability, deriving truths that predict matter’s behavior, and primacy in general. There’s a range of views on just how this works, and I’ll have to gloss over the nuances. Quine – a 20th century philosopher – thought that philosophy’s proper role is to be wholly subsumed under science, and it’s job is merely to clarify scientific findings and through language convention set up rules for logic, clarity and consistency. The goal of philosophy discovering a first principle, an unconditioned, is seen as misguided.

This might be slightly too strong a conclusion, but there’s considerable truth in his views. Think of Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction, thought by him and many Christian apologists to be indubitable…

“A thing cannot both be A and not-A at the same time in the same sense.”

Quantum physics has reliably demonstrated that this isn’t true at the fundamental, smallest level of reality. That doesn’t mean that PNC isn’t a reliable guide to rational discourse, but it puts reason in it’s proper place and context, as something not to be trusted in itself by itself apart from experience.

The whole point here, finally, is that I argue Christian apologists go about enquiring on God’s existence in entirely the wrong way. They rely very heavily on reason and philosophy and very, very lightly on science, experience, history, psychology, anthropology, etc., and for this reason I justifiably feel rightly suspicious, as do many analytic philosophers whose objections shouldn’t be disingenuously trivialized as rebelling against God or failing to apprehend the given.

Steve,

“We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. There’s a vast corpus of literature in apologetics, natural theology, and philosophical theology addressing those issues.”

A wide range of evidence/commentary exists that casts doubt on God’s existence, from philosophy, psychology, history, anthropology, physics, etc. You won’t see me casually dusting my hands as if to say: “I rest my case.”

Any explanation invoking God is, to state the obvious, inextricably linked to whether we have enough reason/evidence to affirm God’s actual existence.

Again, this is my main problem with the way most Christian apologists generally conduct themselves. They invent/ dogmatically assume God exists, which is questionable at best, doubtful at worst, construct a mostly coherent philosophical belief system around it, and pass this method off as being reasonable and evidence-based. An oversimplification, of course, and some good ones avoid this, but many focus excessively on syllogistic formal arguments divorced from experience. 15-16th century rationalism rears it’s ugly, defeated head again!

The first logical step is forgotten. Before proceeding with building upon a theory or belief, we first need evidence it’s true and tethered to reality. In philosophy, this is why the coherence theory of truth is rejected. Consistency isn’t a sufficient condition for truth, because it doesn’t give us indication of whether it corresponds to anything real. You can make belief in God somewhat rational, and that’s fine. What you can’t do is hold an epistemically unwarranted strong, certain belief in God and claim it’s impossible for me to make moral judgements or have meaning and purpose.

Ryan,

Your comment simply begs the question in favor of atheism.

Steve,

Your comment admits defeat, recants all claim to belief in Christianity and names me supreme ruler of planet earth!

I could get used to occupying this fantasy world where the mere act of utterance magically transforms reality…

It is not begging the question if a statement is true. It is true that God exists based on the evidence. The same cannot be said for the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
http://www.gotquestions.org/flying-spaghetti-monsterism.html

Yes, it is indisputably, indubitably true that God exists! There is no room for reasonable doubt!

I mean, we have the prime mover, the contingency, the first cause, the design, and the moral argument, so the debate is over, right? And we think the bible is evidence, too!

But wait…most historians don’t consider the bible a historically accurate depiction of events. The testimony of a select group of mostly illiterate, superstitious folk shouldn’t be taken at face value, should it? Events recorded 50+ years (in the gospel) after the fact by authors, some of whom remain uncertain, that detail extraordinary events thought to be highly improbable can’t be regarded as knock down evidence, can it?

How about the narrow, specific scope of the bible…doesn’t that suggest it might be man-made? How about the fact that it contains prejudices and inequalities against women and slaves common to that time period and culture. Does that suggest it might be man-made? What about attributing human qualities, especially negative ones, to a deity, and claiming that he commanded his people to carry out acts of violence on whole cities and virgin women? Constantly reminded his own people how ‘stiff-necked’ they are and how he could wipe them out at any moment? The continuation and borrowing of rituals from religions of the day? The vague and sometimes contradictory nature of the bible? The fact that God’s idea of revealing himself to all of mankind consists in choosing a small tribe 3,000+ years ago in an illiterate part of the world as special people that have divine warrant to kill, conquer and rule? Do any of these count as some degree of reason to doubt the bible’s divine authority?

Many Physicists dismiss as presumptuous and too quick the prime mover, first cause and contingency arguments, right…?

Nah! Okay, I admit it, I’m begging the question and assuming the point I’m trying to prove by not providing ANY reasons for my skepticism. You got me.

It’s a strange self-reinforcing beast you’ve created for yourself.

I really wouldn’t care if some of the religious didn’t behave naively and stifle progress due to false beliefs about what God wants. Actions are more important than belief, but once those beliefs beget misguided action, we have to say what we think about them. And as a personal example, I think it’s silly and unnecessary that an acquaintance of mine killed himself during his junior year of high school, leaving a note discussing how much his externally imposed guilt and shame over being homosexual contributed to his decision.

[…] and critique the different non-Christian responses as well as defend his Christian answer.  Here's the rest] Share this:ShareEmailPrintDiggFacebookStumbleUponLinkedInTwitterRedditLike this:LikeBe the first […]

[…] Patton interacts with “Five Responses to the Problem of Evil.” I don’t want you to be surprised by suffering. I want you to be able to handle evil and pain both […]

Ryan, you misunderstand “a cannot be not-a”. The concePt refers to logical Propositions and the relation of identity.
As to material identity, the relation holds even at the quantum level. The issue is one of indeterminacy, not different things being identical at the same time in the same way.

I don’t think I misunderstood the law of noncontradiction (LNC) at all. I misunderstood your interpretation of it, you mean? A rather self-serving interpretation, if I may say so.

Quantum mechanics have taught us (and understood by few, including you & me) that there can be something called a “linear superposition of physical states.” Translation…there can be a state of physical reality where an electron has a “spin up” and “spin down” simultaneously. Another translation…an electron can spin in opposite directions at the same time.

Let A represent the following: Electron P spins in direction R at time T.

So, you explain to me how this phenomenon can’t be recapitulated in the form of LNC: Something cannot be both A and not A (Electron P does NOT spin in direction R at time T) at the same time in the same way?

Look, bottom line, you’re still in a sense hiding behind philosophy and not addressing the heart of my argument. I said that reason – in isolation from knowledge derived from experience – isn’t a very reliable guide to truth. This conclusion is accepted by most academics, scientists and philosophers. We aren’t rationalists anymore. Our most important systems of knowledge that predict the behavior of matter and improve our lives crucially depend on observation and experimentation. Divorce your argument or line of reasoning from this – and most of us say you won’t be tracking truth very reliably.

I’m really okay with some forms that Christian belief takes…just not this dogmatic form that says there is NO room for reasonable doubt, and that I could never be wrong about my beliefs, ever! I think that’s dangerous and arrogant, and some of the best people I know are those that regularly change their minds because they’re continually learning and revising their systems of knowledge. You ask anyone in fields constantly changing (IT, physics) about whether dogmatism is a valued trait.

[…] his excerpt of his com­ing book, Michael Patton dis­cusses five responses to the prob­lem of evil. See how he uses three premises (and the omis­sion of one or two of them) causes one to draw […]

[…] traduzido e gentilmente cedido por Filipe Guerra | iPródigo | original aqui […]

[…] interested in a more theological or intellectual view of the problem of evil, I recommend The Five Responses to the Problem of Evil by Michael […]

FYI, Ryan, quantum superposition is not actual reality, but a concept used to help describe the undetermined state of a system prior to measurement (and also in mathematical solutions to the Schrodinger equation). We can’t “know” reality without measuring it, and measuring will reveal a particular configuration of a previously unknown system state. The system (of particles, fields) prior to measurement could be in one or more configurations.

John,

I’m not a physicist, and neither are you. Both of us know almost nothing about quantum mechanics. The key difference between us now, it seems, is that one of us doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.

I don’t know where you got this description from, but it’s wrong. I know very little, but know enough to say it’s mistaken. The theory says – for example – that an electron exists partly in all it’s theoretically possible states simultaneously, and it’s only when we measure it that it takes the form of one intermediate configuration.

Paul Tirac has a good description. If two states are superimposed (say electron spin up (A) and spin down (B)), when measured, they will sometimes be either A or B, and more confusing neither wholly A or B, but some intermediary state that can only be expressed in probabilistic terms.

Most physicists can’t wrap their heads around that, let alone you and me. But that’s the way the world tells us it works. And that’s been my point all along. We need to let the world tell us how it works, not common sense notions, or classical logical systems untethered to reality. Logic helps you order and make sense of propositions. It doesn’t lead to knowledge of the physical world.

Can you understand my criticism of rationalistic (by this, I mean using mostly reason to analyze something and not observation/evidence) forms of inquiry and analysis? They forget the most crucial component of forming reliable beliefs…evidence! If we were all still rationalists, we’d still believe, as Aristotle did, that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones. Only when Galileo tested claims against reality did we change that belief.

Here’s an article on superposition proven to occur on an object visible to the naked eye. A piece of metal both oscillated and didn’t oscillate at the same time.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18669-first-quantum-effects-seen-in-visible-object.html

Stop belittling human suffering. The problem of evil is deadly, and if your book consists of this kind of idiocy, then you had best not publish it.

Problem of evil is unsolvable for those who believe in a triple omni god.

IF you are triple omni, THEN THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES, as consequences by their very nature imply limitation. If you were triple omni, there would be no suffering. People would not die of cancer. People would not be buried alive in earthquakes. There would be no genocides, rapes, murders. There would be no death. In fact, the world would be exactly as you (probably) believe that it will be like in heaven. How convenient for you, then, that heaven is invisible, and you can simply make it up through wish fulfillment. You can pooh pooh the suffering in our world (that guy with cancer? No biggie! Get rid of him in a paragraph and move on to self righteousness) while blathering on about the joys of heaven (don’t you worry! God who wants you to suffer here will end it all when you’re dead. We have no evidence or reason to believe in an afterlife, but just take what I’m writing on faith).

Dude, any triple omni being who allows this kind of suffering is a monster. DEAL. WITH. FACTS.

And no, I am not a troll, nor am I apologetic. I am, however, very angry, as stupidity makes me angry. There is, to date, no real answer to the problem of evil. Given a choice between a triple omni god who allows suffering and no god, I’d choose no god. At least my reason would not suffer through the choice, and there’s enough misery on earth already without my martyring my reason to an impossible cause.

Rethink that book.

Wow Maria, that was quite the classy, sophisticated, civil response. I guess you’d fall in the category of what William Rowe calls the hostile atheist. (See ‘The Problem of Evil & Some Varieties of Atheism’ for an extremely thorough take on theodicy).

In a sense, I understand your frustration. Religious beliefs can be stubborn and cause one to inflict suffering under the guise of piety, and to willfully ignore clear evidence. We’re all familiar with examples of this both in the U.S. and with more insidious cases around the globe.

To displace your frustration onto Michael, and to assume folks like him all think and behave this way is far less understandable.

Personally, I think a solid philosophical case can be made against the existence of an all-good, powerful, omniscient God from the argument of evil, among other lines of argument.

The difference between us, it seems, is I don’t care what Michael believes nearly as much as how he behaves and treats others. I’ll bet he’s a pretty good person who’s charitable and giving. I don’t think it’s good manners to paint someone’s entire character and worth with a broad brushstroke based SOLELY on their philosophical positions. Really, it’s infantile and babyish.

I’ll argue more fervently with those who say God legislates against condoms, homosexuality, equal rights for women and minorities, that unbelievers can’t be moral, etc.

I think your problem is – while you despise stupidity in others and fancy yourself a reliable detector of it – you’re unable to detect it in yourself.

Any good philosopher or smart person who’s studied epistemology long enough (or intuited it through common sense and sustained reflection) knows that we don’t fully control our beliefs. Where & when you were born, who your parents, friends, teachers, peers are, and numerous other factors out of your control strongly influence your beliefs.

You’re inability to grasp this somewhat simple, demonstrable fact of human nature, and temper your judgments of others’ beliefs accordingly, may reveal some gaps in your knowledge of the findings of the social sciences, of philosophy and human nature.

RE “The theory says – for example – that an electron exists partly in all it’s theoretically possible states simultaneously, and it’s only when we measure it that it takes the form of one intermediate configuration.”

“Theory”: a conceptual representation of reality

“measure”: we can’t actually know anything about the nature of reality until we measure it, and even then the very act of measuring hides some of the information. Furthermore, you are agreeing that the nature of reality is indeterminate before measuring. It is theoretically useful to describe the electron as being in all states simultaneously, but it is just as true to state that the electron does not exist in any of those states.

You’ve solved nothing with your reasoning, you’ve piggybacked the ideas of past Philosophers and used everyday arguments that laymen continue to use to try to solve the Problem of Evil, nothing you’ve said brings anything new to the game.

And are you seriously quoting the bible throughout this blog post? Do you even understand what Philosphy really is? The approach you have used isn’t Philosophy, it’s all bias, it’s all opinion. You definitely can’t sit here and try to denounce the Problem of Evil by using bible passages. Circular much?

And then to say that we can’t know if God has a purpose for evil that is actually of good intent. Do you understand how irrational and circular those words are? First off, that means that we could label anything with malicious or evil intent as God. And this causes a serious problem with our Justice System, if evil is actually happening for a greater good then these people aren’t committing crimes.

But the biggest problem you seem to completely overlook isn’t trying to solve why there is good and evil, it’s solving why there is evil at all. You see, why would God create a universe that had evil in it at all? And if you’re to say that evil comes with good, that they are one in the same or anything of the like, then you run into a serious problem. Because that would mean that God is limited, that he is bound by some sort of laws himself.

If you think restating arguments handed down for centuries is at all relevant, continue your mediocre work. This isn’t Philosophy and none of this is profound. But don’t worry, it’s completely natural for humans not to be capable of critical thinking. It’s a well known issue that once a person holds a belief they cherry-pick confirming evidence while evidence to the contrary yields cognitive disossance.

God did not create a universe that had evil in it. Original creation was ‘very good’, but it then become fallen, contrary to His will, desires, intentions, because of free agency. The possibility of evil is not the certainty/necessity of it. God created Lucifer who became Satan. Judas was born innocent (some would disagree) and then became a betrayer/son of perdition. Adam was created innocent, but then became fallen through His own choices, contrary to God’s will for him.

There are a few problems with your post, William.

It’s fine if you want to accept the contents of the bible at face value. But you can’t ask the rest of us to. I see no reason to take biblical author’s word for it that God created the universe in seven days, held all of mankind responsible for the choices of two human beings, flooded the entire world while cramming all known organisms into an oversized ark, etc., etc.

I think its strange that people feel so confident about whether a supernatural creator exists and what his character and will for us is. But go for it.

Second, this story of the fall of man doesn’t account for natural evil, or evil/suffering that occurs due to natural disasters and other impersonal forces. It also doesn’t account for whether it’s just to punish an entire race for all of time for the actions of two of it’s members.

I think it is strange that some people are so confident that a supreme spiritual being does not exist. It is far more rational to believe in one. Moreover, it is impossible to make any sense of any kind of evil if there is no God.

I agree, strong denial of the existence of a supreme being is strange, too. It’s perfectly possible that a supreme being or beings exist. The strange part is to affirm or deny this proposition with the kind of self-assurance and certainty usually reserved for core scientific beliefs like the laws of gravity or thermodynamics. I’m afraid you’ve got a caricature in mind that doesn’t fit my attitude about God and religion.

Why is it more rational to affirm rather than deny God’s existence? I understand that’s asking for a long answer, but more specifically, do you really think there isn’t room for reasonable doubt on whether God or gods exist?

It is possible to make sense of evil if there is no God. I refer you to a great work by Adam Morton called ‘On Evil’. He makes an argument that we should keep the term evil in our moral vocabulary because it refers to a special category of beyond-the-pale wrongdoing whose psychological causes are unique and usually don’t show up in ordinary wrongdoing. To oversimplify, he calls it the barrier theory of evil, and defines it as acts arising from systematic psychological strategies to traverse the normal barrier we have to harming others, of finding ways to blind ourselves to the humanity of others, to the effects of our actions, etc.

Morton fleshes this out in much greater detail with considerable psychological science to help support his ideas. If it turns out that evil just refers to this special category of wrongdoing – which most of us intuitively reach for that word to describe particularly horrific, inhumane acts – then it just might be a useful term that makes sense despite the affirmation or denial of God’s existence.

I guess as a substitute for sustained reflection on these issues I could simply insist – without supporting reasons, explanation or evidence that I’ve done some thinking of my own on this issue – that belief in God is irrational and that all religious people suck. At least then I’d be adopting the kind of caricature that your comments are aimed at rebuking, and we wouldn’t be talking past each other.

I guess as long as we’re focusing on caricatures, I could choose to address the worst caricatures on your side of the aisle rather than address you and your beliefs directly.

A Republican Congressman from Georgia stated that evolution, the big bang theory and embryology are lies straight from the pit of hell. I guess he skipped biology and physics in college. Must be nice to simultaneously benefit from the enormous strides we’ve made in understanding the natural world through advances in medicine and technology while conveniently ignoring well-attested theories you don’t like.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said the United States brought on the attack of 9/11 due to the presence of rampant sin and homosexuality. I wish I knew the mind of God like these two delusional narcissists think they do.

Todd Akin claims women’s bodies have a way of shutting down the process that leads to fertilization during rape. This comment doesn’t deserve to be dignified by a rebuttal.

Several evangelical leaders and prominent organizations claim Hurricane Katrina was divine retribution for a sinful nation.

I could go on and on. The fearful and superstitious segment of the evangelical right offer countless examples of the many absurd, delusional forms that religious beliefs sometimes take. None of these guys are you or Credo House Ministries…this outfit seems a lot more sophisticated and sane than that. The caricatures on your side are far worse.

The traditional view of the church (Augustinian) is ‘original sin’. I would suggest the Fall brings physical depravity to the race (including consequences to nature), not moral depravity which is individual, personal. It would be unjust to condemn us just for being conceived or because of Adam’s sin, not fault of our own. We all universally follow in his footsteps and stand condemned because we are all selfish rebels by choice (hence personal responsibility vs blame it on Adam, devil, parents, etc.). So, you may be rejecting bad theology, not a biblical view. Theodicy/problem of evil has also been written on by great Christian thinkers/philosophers in detail that answers common objections/concerns.

According to most ‘traditional views’ of the church (escapes easy categorization), mankind is born into sin. In other words, we are conceived with an innate sinful nature before we have anything to say about the matter. You admit that it would in fact be unjust to condemn the entire human race for the actions of a small few. According to traditional views of Christian theology, this is exactly what happens.

Theodicy has been discussed by many great Christian thinkers, many of whom don’t share your traditional view of the bible. In fact, being a biblical ‘literalist’ or a believer in biblical inerrancy is a minority position among professional theologians holding university teaching positions. This flexibility in interpreting the bible (I’d call it serving the bible up a la carte) makes it easier to explain the presence of evil in a world supposedly created by an omnibenevolent God, but there are still many unresolved questions.

Bottom line is, you may want to consider whether your view really conforms to a ‘traditional’ take on Christian theology. To be sure, most traditional views hold that mankind is born into sin, is born fallen. If in fact we are born fallen, this obviously raises difficult questions. Why am I held responsible for the actions of a small few? Why does God judge my actions and beliefs so harshly if they’re influenced in part by factors beyond our control, especially supernatural beliefs that shouldn’t be the object of moral judgment anyway?

I think William Rowe, in his published work: ‘The Problem of Evil & Some Varieties of Atheism’, established a pretty difficult objection for any conceivable theodicy, with theodicy being the philosophical attempt to reconcile the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world.

I don’t mind summarizing his position, but his work is out there for anyone to read.

Rowe offers up the following syllogism:

1) If an all-good, all powerful God exists, then he would prevent any case of evil/suffering he could, unless he couldn’t do so without thereby permitting suffering equally bad or worse or preventing some greater good.

2) Evil & suffering does occur in degrees beyond what’s necessary to prevent any case of evil/suffering equally bad or worse or preventing some greater good.

3) Therefore, God does not exist.

Rowe admits a theist could deny proposition #2 and then affirm # 3. But he thinks we have more reason to affirm rather than deny #2. He gives an example of a random lightning strike that ignites a forest fire that eventually kills a baby deer. Incidents similar in moral respects occur all the time, and there’s no conceivable reason why this should have to occur to prevent some greater suffering or make sure we could obtain some greater good.

Rowe is more humble than some hostile atheists out there. He thinks a somewhat rational case can be made for God’s existence, but is himself an atheist who thinks the arguments against God’s existence are more persuasive.

Most importantly, I think a good intellectual practice is to expose yourself to and deal with the strongest arguments on the other side of your position. I rarely, if ever, see evidence of this except among a select few of the faithful. I think a deliberate attitude of one-sided, final belief without submission to further scrutiny is cultivated among some of the faithful, and it’s personally damaging and stultifying, in my…

Ryan,

I see several issues with some of the assumptions you are making in your posts. I will address this one in post 42, where you say that Rowe’s position asserts “Evil & suffering does occur in degrees beyond what’s necessary to prevent any case of evil/suffering equally bad or worse or preventing some greater good.” I must now put the onus upon you as you have stated upon the Christian theologians, prove it.

At the core, this is a blatant assumption that takes several things for granted in its construction. 1) What perspective allows us to understand all the suffering or good that occurred in any given event or series of events? 2) What allows us to objectively measure/weigh these actions? 3) Given your high praise for science and observation, can your weights/measures be used to create an experiment where suffering is caused in such a way as to impugn the possibility of a greater good?

It should be obvious that none of these things can logically be deduced or induced. The big assumption is that Rowe has placed himself in the position of an omniscient being and can accuse God of acting in a way that impugns his character. Obviously Rowe is limited, as am I, and as are you.

The problem with thought experiments such as this is that they are observationally fruitless. This is really just another example of “Can God make a rock so big he can’t move?” It shows a basic lack in the fundamental understanding of God and His character.

Psalm 51:5 shows David’s understanding of our sin nature. You also falsely assume that we are punished for Adam and Eve’s actions. This assumes no culpability and no sin committed on your part. As the usual line goes, if you do not believe you are a slave to sin, prove it and sin no more.

Now as far as the caricatures go, those people referenced in general made idiotic statements. You know it and I know it, but the grace of God covers even the fool. I look forward to discussing this more with you.

As long as we’re being pedantic and defining things carefully, I’m not making assumptions, I’m making assertions. Assumptions are claims that one doesn’t substantiate with any supporting reasons or evidence, whereas assertions are claims that someone backs up with reason/evidence. Assumptions are claims ‘smuggled through customs’, as it were.

Rowe’s affirmation of Proposition #2 isn’t deductive, certain or empirical. It is inductive. In other words, he thinks the affirmation of #2 is more plausible than it’s denial. Most scientific and philosophical arguments are inductive, not deductive. Rowe never claims to know for sure that evil/suffering occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary to prevent some greater suffering or the attainment of some greater good. He claims that based on our observation of the natural world and the many seemingly excessive, purposeless, arbitrary instances of suffering, it seems more plausible to accept rather than deny #2. Nothing more.

Your request for a scientific experiment testing the God hypothesis is impossible and quite silly. By definition, one can’t hold constant or test for the effects of things beyond nature or beyond our empirical observational powers. We can’t see God, hold him constant to test him, we don’t know what a sufficiently greater good would look like in God’s mind, etc.

I still think the onus of proof is on the person claiming to believe in a supernatural deity for which there is little evidence. Your line of reasoning is akin to me claiming that Zeus exists. Can you know for sure that he doesn’t throw lightning bolts regularly at the earth? After all, he could trick us into thinking we have a natural explanation for lightning strikes, since he’s that powerful! Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? I agree. Possibility doesn’t make probability.

Please read the paper. You completely misunderstood his point.

Ryan,

You completely misread and misrepresented everything I said. In no way did I propose a test for testing the existence of God. Please reread and understand exactly what I said about the test. The test was to scientifically assert that suffering occurs beyond what is necessary for a greater good to arise.

You now state that it is induced based upon the observational evidence. Does this not seem ironic given that you discount any observational evidence that God exists? You discount eyewitness testimonies, teaching, transformation of people in spirit and character, etc. You have just stated that this man has such great and surpassing observational skills to appropriately induce that the acts of suffering he observes produce no greater good.

The point I was making is that they only way to assert that is to be able to fundamentally understand the impact of any event of suffering and what greater good can arise. My line of reasoning is in no way akin to you claiming Zeus exists. In no way did I state that God has tricked us into thinking that hurricanes are a naturally understood force but in “reality” is just Him blowing really hard. Your statement shows a basic lack of argumentation and is simply an ad hominem attack against me.

But on the same token, I would say that Rowe’s observation that there is a possibility that suffering exists in a greater quantity needed to make a greater good arise, is the same discussion. Possibility does not make probability.

In no way did I suggest that you prove that God does or does not exist. I suggested that you prove the assertion that Rowe makes. The logic required to do so, assumes a lot of things that are ridiculous. My whole point is that Rowe has a bias that is clearly slanting his inductive reasoning to the conclusion he has already determined to be true.

I allow that there exists reasonable doubt for the existence of God, otherwise all would believe. I also reasonably believe in God’s…

Chad,

I realize you never proposed a scientific test for God’s existence. I mention the God hypothesis because it belongs in a broad category of beliefs that can’t be evaluated scientifically, including the belief under discussion that suffering occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary to promote a greater good or prevent an evil equally bad/worse. Is this clear now?

Okay, first, there are no surviving eyewitness accounts to Jesus life, miracles, death and resurrection. The gospel we have was written well after his death, plenty of time for exaggerations to make their way in. We don’t even know for sure who wrote the four gospels.

Second, if transformation of lives counts as evidence for the Christian God’s existence, does that mean the God of Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, pagans, etc. all exist? Simply because a belief has a positive impact on someone’s life doesn’t make the belief true. This is obvious.

Third, I don’t discount all ‘observational evidence’ of God’s existence. In fact, I think you can make the belief somewhat rational. For me personally, the absence of convincing evidence makes me skeptical of God’s existence. Skeptical isn’t the same as strong denial, by the way.

Fourth, Rowe doesn’t ‘induce’ anything. Let’s be clear. By way of induction, he says it seems more plausible to affirm rather than deny proposition #2, which is that evil occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary for promoting greater goods or preventing worse evils. He leaves the possibility open that he’s wrong, he just thinks given what we know, it seems more likely that #2 is true.

Rowe says that suffering probably occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary for promoting greater good, not that it’s possible. Again, read the paper. The fawn dying randomly in a forest fire is the example he presents. How could this possibly promote some greater good?

The point of the Zeus example was to demonstrate that your standard of proof is ridiculously, unrealistically high.

There is no conceivable way we can ever determine for sure whether evil exists in degrees beyond what’s necessary for promoting a greater good. We are finite beings with imperfectly evolved brains who may not be able to access parts of reality that allow us to answer this question.

That doesn’t mean we just throw our hands up. The best we can do is induction, and considering what we know now and seeing if it’s plausible that evil probably occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary for a greater good. The fawn in a forest fire and many other examples of senseless suffering sure seem to be pointless and the product of impersonal forces that sometimes make biological life experience pain. This is the claim. Not that we know for sure evil exists beyond degrees necessary for promoting a greater good. Only that it seems unlikely from our perspective and given the facts we know about our natural world.

I hate how many of the religious have hijacked and watered down analytical philosophy in order to promulgate a message of faith. You’ve made it into a joke in the eyes of many I know. I ask that any would-be amateur philosopher first read Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Schopenhauer, W.V.O. Quine, Wittgenstein and may others, and familiarizing themselves with deductive, inductive, modal and symbolic logic before doing any thinking on their own.

Ryan,

I will make this as plain as can be stated. There are two many problems with his analysis for it to be logically supported. He assumes that a fawn dying via forest fire via lightning strike is an example of evil. What about that same fawn being eaten by a bear? Is that evil? Where do you draw the line on evil? Is the bear being nourished a “greater good” or an evil in the line of suffering?

The main problem is that it is entirely and utterly subjective. So now I propose that in the above example the fawn carried a rare parasite that had the fawn grown into a full deer and been hunted and killed, would have then been served as a delicious venison dinner to Winston Churchill. The parasite would have been passed along and killed him before WWII. Thus the Allied victory would have been thwarted. My point is that this is just a random, pointless example where we cannot by any real semblance of understanding see the impact of a single event and claim it as “pointless”.

My point as you declared is that “We are finite beings with imperfectly evolved brains who may not be able to access parts of reality that allow us to answer this question.” His inductive reasoning is flawed because it is overcome with observational bias.

We are inductive creatures, because we cannot possibly know all of the causes of an event. Obviously we all have our own observational bias. Mine has led me from refusal that God exists, to an overwhelming conclusion that not only does God exist, but that He is the Christian God.

When you say we don’t know for certain, do you mean that we don’t have a preponderance of evidence or 100% certainty? Because I am not certain that you exist, but based on the preponderance of evidence I would say you do. In this same way, we know who wrote the Gospels and their reference to numerous other eyewitnesses that would easily be able to recant the testimony counted within.

There’s something you’re missing here. Rowe doesn’t claim the fawn dying in a forest fire is an example of evil. It’s an example of suffering.

Recall premise #1: If an all-good, all-powerful God exists, then he would prevent any evil or SUFFERING he could unless he couldn’t do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting an evil/suffering equally bad or worse.

For Rowe, If there really is an all-good, all-powerful God, he would be compelled by his infinite goodness and power to prevent any evil/suffering he could, unless he couldn’t do it without losing a greater good or permitting evil/suffering equally bad or worse.

Rowe then gives one example of an occurrence that sure seems like pointless suffering that doesn’t seem on any account necessary for promoting some greater good. All of us have first-hand experience with the impersonal forces that sometimes kill, maim or inflict with disease the just and the unjust alike.

Given the vast amount of suffering or evil that occurs, without any apparent point, Rowe feels it’s safe to assume this infinitely powerful, good God doesn’t exist, because if he did, he would prevent it.

It’s not about whether the suffering is pointless. It’s about whether it could have been prevented, and whether an all-good, all-powerful God would by his/her very nature have to prevent it, and how the observation of many instances of evil/suffering make this proposition implausible, or at least gives one good reason to deny the existence of such a being.

When I generally say we don’t know for sure, I’m referring to the good practice of being humble, willing to revisit beliefs and admit it’s at least possible to be in error. When I say we don’t know for sure who wrote the four gospels, I mean the authorship is based more on tradition than actual scholarship. Many scholars state that we don’t know who wrote those four gospels, and whether fictions made their way in between the events…

…they describe and when they were actually written down. Some of these books were written over 40 years after Jesus’ life.

Ryan says:

“It’s fine if you want to accept the contents of the bible at face value. But you can’t ask the rest of us to.”

You don’t represent “the rest of us.” You simply represent people who agree with you.

“Most importantly, I think a good intellectual practice is to expose yourself to and deal with the strongest arguments on the other side of your position.”

So what conservative Christian philosophers, theologians, Bible scholars, and apologists have you exposed yourself to?

“I still think the onus of proof is on the person claiming to believe in a supernatural deity for which there is little evidence.”

The onus is now you to establish your claim that there is little evidence for God’s existence.

“Okay, first, there are no surviving eyewitness accounts to Jesus life, miracles, death and resurrection.”

That begs the question.

“The gospel we have was written well after his death, plenty of time for exaggerations to make their way in.”

A non sequitur, inasmuch as gospels written well after his death can easily be written by eyewitnesses.

“The fawn in a forest fire and many other examples of senseless suffering sure seem to be pointless and the product of impersonal forces that sometimes make biological life experience pain.”

You need to bone up on fire ecology. Far from being pointless, forest fires are beneficial to the ecosystem.

You ought to stop mindlessly parroting the atheists you read and begin subjecting their claims to rational scrutiny.

“I hate how many of the religious have hijacked and watered down analytical philosophy in order to promulgate a message of faith. You’ve made it into a joke in the eyes of many I know.”

Since according to you, we’re all just a bunch of apes, why should your apish opinions matter to me?

“There’s something you’re missing here. Rowe doesn’t claim the fawn dying in a forest fire is an example of evil. It’s an example of suffering.”

Unless suffering is evil, you can’t…