Answering the problem of evil.
Premise 1, A good God would want to prevent Evil.
Premise 2, A Omnipotent God would be able to stop Evil.
Premise 3, an omniscient God would be aware of evil.
Premise 4, Evil still exists.
Conclusion: therefore an omnipotent, omniscient and good God cannot exist.
This argument states that if a God possessing the qualities of the Christian God particularly Goodness, omnipotence and omniscience exists then this God would want to stop evil because he is good, be able to stop evil because he is all powerful and is aware of all evil because he is omniscient. therefore evil should be impossible in any world this God creates yet evil prevails in the world He created. Therefore it is a logical contradiction for a God with such qualities to exist in our world. This is a valid argument meaning that the conclusion logically and necessarily follows from the premises and because it is a valid argument we need to disprove at least on of the 4 premises to avoid the conclusion. However the problem of evil is not only potent because of its robust logical formula but also because it touches the emotions of every single human heart that has experienced evil and suffering. whether it be child cancer nuclear warfare, famine, poverty starvation, sexual assault. The problem is normal stated not by a 4 premise deductive argument but by the words: " But why would God have let that happen..."
By what standard?
Before I even choose a premise to to try to disprove first we need to discuss a presupposition present in all 4 premises and that is "What is Evil?" This is a valid question because we need to know what evil is if we have any hope of using it in an argument. Is evil just bad things, well what are bad things? Things you don't like? Well that is awfully subjective, you think murder is wrong? Well Hitler didn't, is it your word against his? Who is to say who is right between the 2 of you. Or perhaps you would say well most people think murder is wrong therefore that is the standard by which we judge what is evil. If it goes against the public consensus it is evil. Well so is slavery wrong? If you answered yes, then there was a time where the public consensus across the entire ancient world was that it wasn't wrong. yet you beg to differ. What about the roman empire where it was perfectly moral to keep pre-adolescent boys as sex slaves among the rich. Is that moral? There was a public consensus on it? We immediately see that majority opinion is no basis to ground objective morality and objective evil. That leads me to my next point. whatever "evil" is being used in the logical problem of evil, it has to be objective, it cannot be subjective evil. If we are going to try to measure the God of the universe by any standard at all, it better be at the very least an objective standard not one that changes from person to person.
We struggle to find an objective standard for what is "evil" or wrong. One might say, "suffering is objective". To that I might say that is true, pain and suffering are objective, but who says they are wrong? What do nerve receptors firing electricity in your body have anything to do with an objective standard of evil? Who says pain is wrong or evil. Some people enjoy pain e.g. Masochists. Once again we cannot find a standard that is objective to define evil. This is why most atheists admit there isn't anything such as objective evil, or objective morality. Meaning that the morals we have as a society are simply the result of the chemistry happening in an individuals brain. Meaning the carbon dioxide in your brain happens to react in such a way that you think... wait you don't actually "think" your thoughts are just fizzing chemicals. Anyway your brain happens to fizz in a way that makes you perceive murder to be wrong and the chemicals in Hitler's brain are fizzing in the opposite direction. Famous Atheist Richard Dawkins says in his number 1 best selling book "River out of Eden" :
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
It is a near unanimous consensus among atheist scholars that there is no objective morality. So if those who formulate and use the logical problem of evil cannot even grant the existence of objective evil. By what objective standard of evil are we going to judge God by? In the Christian world view we ground objective ethics in the Character and nature of God, and anyone who doesn't abide by God's ethics is simply wrong and or evil. The atheist agrees that the evil needed in the problem of evil is of the objective kind. So atheist often resort to an internal critique meaning that they say "fine, we might not have an objective standard of evil, but you claim to have one. We can simply evaluate your objective standard by the logical problem of evil and now your God cannot exist." This is when I believe the atheist is approximating something resembling a good argument.
The Internal critique
The atheist says. "Look the objective evil we use in the logical problem is the standard your God claims is evil in your own bible and we see that your God not only allows evil thereby proving the logical problem of evil because your God has the attributes of Goodness, omnipotence and omniscience but also endorses evil by giving commandants of Genocide to the Canaanites and allowing slavery hence the slave laws in Leviticus. Genocide and slavery being things that Christians would call evil. So Christianity fails by logical contradiction as your God has qualities incompatible with the existence of evil and even if you somehow get past that, if you claim that the Christian ethics are grounded in God's nature then he goes against his nature by sanctioning activities he claims are evil." Lets tackle these 2 objections.
The Free will Theodicy
To disprove the logical problem in its formulation using Christian objective evil as the objective evil referenced by the Problems premises. Premise 1 is the one that is incorrect and needs to be disproven. Now before you pick up stones I will grant that the problem is correct in implying that a good God would create a world without evil. That is exactly the case when we look at God's initial creation in Genesis 1 that everything is made perfect and void of evil. We do not see anything created evil in Genesis 1. In fact the statement "and God saw it was good" is repeated after every creation of God. So whence cometh forth evil you may ask? From the freewill of man. God saw that a greater good can be achieved by permitting the possibility of evil by creating beings with free will. Meaning that the creatures can either do good or evil. This was done because God saw that the virtue that proceeds forth from the free will to do virtuous things as more good then virtue committed out of necessity. For example it is rarely considered virtuous for a parent to care for a child they brought into the world but a necessity. However it is considered virtuous for someone to adopt and care for a child that isn't theirs because it wasn't done out of necessity.
One could object and say: "But God could maintain free will by not allowing evil to be among the choices people make." Firstly that defeats the purpose of free will in the first place because you are supposed to do good when you could have chosen not to. That's impossible now because all things are good so nothing is virtuous. Secondly evil isn't a substance that can be created. Evil is simply the absence of Good. Think of "heat" coldness is simply the absence of heat. when you measure the temperature in a room what you are measuring (if it is a warm room) is the abundance of heat in the room and (if its a cold room) the limited heat in the room. Notice how what you measure both times is heat. There is no way you can measure the amount of coldness in the room but you can deduce that it is cold due to limited heat. It is the same with Good and Evil. Good is created by God, evil is what is deduced in the absence of God. So when man chose to sin he made the whole natural world as a consequence fall. We see that because of man's sin God changes nature, the ground will be hard and difficult to plant on. We see that nature is cursed due to the fall of man. This accounts for natural evil such as famines, earth quakes and disease etc. Now you maybe respond with "Well I don't think having free will is worth all the pain and suffering we go through." The simple answer to that is: "We don't care" If God sees it fit that free will is a greater good as to permit humans to commit evil to allow for this greater good. Then that's that. Remember as an atheist you don't have a standard to evaluate whether God's decision is moral or not because you don't believe in objective morality. Remember you are doing an internal critique. As long as God's decisions are consistent then he defines what morality is. Remember you are not looking to judge God's moral choices and law by your standard of objective morality (you don't have one). You are judging whether God's moral standard is consistent you gave up any ability to judge morality when you asserted that we are the result of cosmic accidents, simply matter in motion, and our great grandads were fish.
The Conquest of Canaan
The atheist may say to us that: "Well God violets his own moral nature because God issued Genocide in the conquest of Canaan and gave slave laws on how to own slaves in the old testament. Lets start with the Canaanite conquest The bible says on numerous occasions that God is a righteous judge who hates evil and judges his creation. Funny enough atheist would object if God didn't judge evil. some examples are: Jeremiah 18: 7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. 11 Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’ We see that in our moral system our God has the divine prerogative as creator to judge the evil of his creation by punishing entire nations, yes even collectively
Isaiah 10:5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! 6 Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Once again God can judge his creation by destroying them and not only that, but can do so through the means of his covenant people. God also uses the nations around his covenant people to Judge his own people, Israel: Judges 2:13–14
2. [13] They abandoned the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. [14] So the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he gave them over to plunderers, who plundered them. And he sold them into the hand of their surrounding enemies, so that they could no longer withstand their enemies. So for the Conquest of Canaan to be morally consistent according to the bible's standard of morality. It would need 1 thing The Canaanites and the Amorites had to be evil we see that God waits until the iniquity of the Amorites is full before sending the Israelites to Judge them; Genesis 15:16]And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” (ESV) God also makes it clear that when he uses a nation to judge it is not for that nation to rejoice in their own victory: Deuteronomy 9:4–5 “Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,’ whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you. [5] Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. (ESV). Meaning, This is not some instance of God failing at just war theory by issuing entire nations including children men, women and animals to be killed. But rather divine justice and retribution for their iniquities. The Israelites are not to profit from this because this is not their victory that's why God is so angry at King Saul because he preserves the best cattle in the destruction of the Canaanites. Now we could go into how maybe the children weren't actually killed and there is hyperbole in the term "destruction" because you see that these groups in fact were not utterly destroyed because we see them still alive in the next chapter. Or that the archeological evidence that these areas where actually military fortresses and hence very few if any children were there. Or how this was a driving out of the Canaanites from the land not a genocide, only those who did not flee (soldiers) were killed. That is all true in showing that the commands weren't actually as brutal as they might seem and the use of hyperbole is certainly present. However lets not forget that the atheist is doing an internal critique all we have to prove to beat the Logical problem of evil is to show that Gods judgement of Canaan is consistent with the Bible's view of God's ability to judge as moral.
k Slavery
Lets move on to slavery. God seems to give laws on how to manage slaves so it seems God is endorsing slavery. The first thing to notice is that slavery in the bible is not similar to the slavery of the trans- Atlantic slave trade. It was far less brutal, it was more becoming somebodies servant as the Hebrew is used interchangeably to refer to servants or slaves. But this misses the point, laws on how to do something does not mean God is saying that specific thing is moral. God can regulate the evil done by man so as to prevent it from going out of control. God regulated slavery such that God could progressively abolish it. Why would God do this? Because the ancient world was firmly run by slavery in fact quite a high percentage of the population were slaves. Completely abolishing the practice would lead to more death because the poor who often gave themselves into servitude so they can have a roof and something to eat was very common. So to prevent these people from dying of starvation with the abolishment of slavery God decided to regulate the practice to make it more humane. We see this principle of God regulating a practice and ultimately abolishing it in the new testament with divorce. Jesus says Matthew 19:7–9 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” [8] He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (ESV). You see God regulated Divorce because of the hardness of heart of the Israelites but divorce was still immoral. So we see that God can regulate a particular sin because completely abolishing it at that particular time would lead to more evil then than the sin itself would cause. The men could have killed or gotten rid of their wives if the divorce law was not there, because of how hard their hearts were. Notice how Jesus references the beginning as a standard of how things should be. We see the same thing in the new testament when Paul tells Philemon a Roman slave owner who has now become Christian who had his slave Onesimus run away. The penalty of a runaway slave in the roman empire was death. Paul writes to Philemon as his pastor because Onesimus has come to Paul in seek of help and refuge Philemon 15–21 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, [16] no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.[7] So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. [18] If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. [19] I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self. [20] Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ. [21] Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. (ESV)
I encourage you to read the epistle to Philemon it is only 1 chapter. We see Paul abolishing slavery for Christian slave owners pleading with them not to unemployed their once bondservant but to continue employing them but to treat them as family and to treat them as they would treat Paul, their pastor. We see that with the rise of the Christianity in the Roman empire. slavery is ultimately abolished permanently as more slave owners come to Christ and relinquish their slaves. The Roman empire becomes the first area in the World where slavery is abolished. This becomes characteristic of everywhere, where Christianity spreads. Even the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished by William Wilberforce, a Christian. So if God endorsed slavery so much, how come Christianity was the sole movement that abolished an otherwise universal practice in the ancient world. In fact wherever Christianity spread the abolishment of slavery swiftly followed in the coming years. The principle is: regulating evils that if immediately abolished would cause more evil then the evil in question. You may think that this principle is still evil, but don't forget you are doing an internal critique and if Jesus says it is a moral principle, that means in our moral standard (that you have adopted to even argue to this point) it is consistent.
The goal is to make the atheist realize they don't have a moral standard of their own and when they borrow your moral standard, you show them how everything is consistent in our moral standard and when they question your moral standard. You ask them which moral standard are they appealing to because in doing an internal critique they are bound to our moral standard. Lastly God has a different standard of things that are permissible for him to do then that of humans. similarly to how the law can put millions of people in prison for life but if you imprison someone for life in your basement, you will go to jail. Because the law has more authority then you do, so there are some things that are moral for the law to do but immoral for you to do. What more for God? Psalm 115:3 [3] Our God is in the heavens he does all that he pleases.
Evil exists nonetheless
At the end of the day, evil exists. Even if we manage to disprove the logical problem that doesn't change the fact that children die of cancer, innocent people get assaulted, our loved ones die. No one finds comfort to these pains through remembering that the logical argument fails. We take solitude in that the God of the universe came to experience that pain with us. That if anyone didn't deserve to suffer it was him, yet he joined us in our pains and shed his blood to redeem us. The resolution to the pain is. God came to experience that pain with you so that one day just like he has risen from this pain. He promises that we too shall rise from the pain of death and Our LORD says behold ye who sob and are in destress Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” The atheist says that our pain and suffering is simply the way of the universe that we live to suffer and to die. The atheist offers no hope, no resolution, your pain has no rhyme or reason, no purpose, no evil, no good just blind pitiless indifference, matter in motion, indeed you are but a sorry piece of cosmic scum. If anyone has a problem of evil it is those who deny the words of Christ when our Lord says: Matthew 11: 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Comments
Post a Comment