Problem of Evil Formulated
- If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), He could stop evil.
- If God is all-loving (omni-benevolent), He would stop evil if He could.
- Therefore, if an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God existed, evil would not.
- Evil exists; therefore, an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God does not.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
- Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
- Is he both able and willing? Then whence evil?
- Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Logically, this argument misunderstands what's meant by God's omnipotence. Omnipotence means that God cannot possibly be more powerful than He currently is. His power is perfect. But within these traditional confines, we acknowledge that God cannot do the logically impossible. He cannot, for example, will what is contrary to His Will. Why? Because that's a contradiction.
Herein lies the easiest answer to the problem of evil:
- God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good.
- Free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (i.e. evil).
- God has morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil
- Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God.
The easiest answer expanded:
The Bible makes it clear that evil is something God neither intended nor created. Rather, moral evil is a necessary possibility. If we are truly free, then we are free to choose something other than God’s will—that is, we can choose moral evil. Scripture points out that there are consequences for defying the will of God—personal, communal, physical, and spiritual.
Freewill defined
"...what is critical to free will is not the ability to choose differently in identical circumstances but rather not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Sometimes philosophers call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind. WLC
He created us with the freedom to choose our actions, and then extended forgiveness to us. Forgiveness, the release of the condemned from punishment is the Christian answer to the problem of evil. Forgiveness is also different from excusing evil—it acknowledges that there is wrong to be made right. The Bible describes evil as something God allowed, but never condoned, for the sake of our free will.
Jesus Christ, even though He didn't sin, still had free will. One of the more clear Bible passages that demonstrates such is John 10:17-18. "I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again."
"...what is critical to free will is not the ability to choose differently in identical circumstances but rather not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Sometimes philosophers call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind. WLC
He created us with the freedom to choose our actions, and then extended forgiveness to us. Forgiveness, the release of the condemned from punishment is the Christian answer to the problem of evil. Forgiveness is also different from excusing evil—it acknowledges that there is wrong to be made right. The Bible describes evil as something God allowed, but never condoned, for the sake of our free will.
Objection - What about freewill in heaven - why didn't God jusat create heaven in the first place.
Reply: Well, I'd argue that God did create "heaven" first. The Garden of Eden was heaven-like. The problem was that Adam nor Eve never chose to be there or chose to follow God over evil. And apparently God sees real value in freely making morally significant choices - choosing to in follow or disobey God,
In heaven the saved will be elevated to a better state of being eternally than they are currently (Rom 8:18, 2 Cor. 4:17), and once glorified, will no longer have a sin nature throughout eternity (Rev. 21:4,27). The term "born again" from John 3:3 to describe our new relationship with God. Paul talks about the "new man" (Eph 4) and tells us "If any man is in Christ he is a new creation, all things have passed away, behold all has become new" (2 Cor. 5:17)
Jesus Christ, even though He didn't sin, still had free will. One of the more clear Bible passages that demonstrates such is John 10:17-18. "I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again."
One can also point to the temptation in the wilderness in Matt 4 as evidence that Jesus had freedom to do what He pleased. What he chose was not to sin. Thus, the notion of an all-loving God is consistent with abundant free will, and free will is consistent with the presence of evil. But it does not necessitate the existence or practice of evil.
Back to the argument...
You may disagree with that solution—you may not see why free will is better than God forcing us to perform on command, for example—but it at least shows that there's no logical problem with the simultaneous existence of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God and evil.
So the Problem of Evil is easily solved for the Christian. God has morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil; after this God will wipe out evil (but not free will) from human existence. Those who chose to follow God will do so, those that did not, will not.
The Problem of Evil for Atheists
If the atheist says that only subjective morality exists (i.e moral values and principles are based on individual beliefs, opinions, cultural norms, and societal contexts) then it is difficult for the atheists to construct a logically coherent problem of evil as rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide is just one's opinion, they are not necessarily evil.
Science, only explains what “is,” not how things “ought” to be. For example, science tells us how us how to make an atomic bomb. It cannot, however, tell us whether we ought to use it. Harris believes he can prove his point by demonstrating that science tells us how to make humans flourish. But why is “human flourishing” a good thing? Why not "rat flourishing" Or "cockroach flourishing"?
Naturalistic Determinism
If one is committed to naturalistic determinism, as most atheists are, then they most likely reject the notion of free will as well. In essence, humans act in robotic fashion and possess no volitional control over of their actions. Richard Dawkins agrees with this when he states, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Dawkins, pp 133]
The problem for Harris’s determinism runs even deeper. For if naturalism is correct, and human beings are mere matter and nothing else, then rational thought becomes impossible. Rationality is, after all, the ability to adjudicate between arguments and evidence. But how do atoms, molecules, and physical laws make conscious decisions? Years ago, C. S. Lewis recognized this fatal flaw. He remarks,
While atheists' attempts to affirm objective morality via naturalistic presumptions, they are fatally flawed as they have no rational basis to stand on.
Evolution’s Failure to Explain Morality
If Darwin’s theory is correct, all living species descended from a single-celled organism and now form the different branches on Darwin’s tree of life. With this model in mind, who is to say that humans should be treated differently than roaches, rats, or spiders? Given naturalism and the Darwinian model, humans are just one branch of many. Nothing about Darwinism tells us that we ought to act differently from the other species in the animal kindgom.
Take the black widow who often eats her male counterpart during the mating process. Most male animals forcibly copulate with their female counterparts. Do these creatures commit moral evils?
Evolutionary morality is on even shakier ground when we consider that evolution is, by definition, the unguided process of natural selection. Meaning, if we were to rewind back the time to the very beginning and start over, morality could have evolved quite differently. Human morality could have evolved so human females eats her male counterpart during the mating process or it's the norm for human males forcibly copulate with their female counterparts. And the atheist and secular humanist would simply nod in agreement.
Evolution does not begin to explain why acting in those ways is objectively good. Similarly, naturalists also think that because they can discern morality means that they have solved the problem.
The fact is humans experience a certain “oughtness.” They feel like they ought to love rather than hate, and that they ought to show courage rather than cowardice, they ought to choose honor, rather than dishonor. These “oughts” are epistemically surprising given naturalism. Yet, they correspond nicely with the Christian worldview.
More specifically, the problem is that is that there's no way to get from statements "how the world is" to "how the world ought to be" without imposing a value system. And to say something is objective good [or evil] you must believe in objective values, binding everyone . It has to be something infinitely more than whatever your personal values might be.
But for that matter, is it morally evil to go against our genetic hard-wiring? If the hard-wiring is nothing more than the result of random chance over millions of years, it's not at all clear why it would be morally evil to disregard it. Your body may also decide to start producing cancer cells, but you feel no moral allegiance to quietly let it have its way.
And indeed, atheists constantly go against their genetic hard-wiring. For example, I'd venture that most atheists use or have used birth control and don't seem to find this immoral, even though it's transparently contrary to both our genetic hard-wiring, and evolutionary survival mechanisms. They're literally stopping evolution from working: a more direct violation of evolutionary hard-wiring is almost unthinkable (except, perhaps, celibacy).
So, evolution can explain urges we have for or against certain behaviors. But it cannot say which are worth acting upon, some aren't. Nor why. But to know which to obey and which to ignore is a moral question, not a biological one.
The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that objective moral values do not exist. Not everyone has the same moral standards. Our perception of what is right and wrong have changed over the centuries
If this is true, they cannot logically, rationally criticize the Nazis for killing millions of Jews, Or for the Chinese imprisonment of the Uyghurs Or any genocide, rape, murder, etc.
If objective morality does not exist, the problem of evil breaks down. So when atheists raise the problem of evil, they're already conceding the existence of objective morality.
Objective Evil Exists
We can see that objective morals do, in fact, exist. We don't need to be told that raping, torturing, and killing innocent people are more than just unpleasant or counter-cultural. They're wrong—universally and completely wrong. Even if we were never taught these things growing up, we know these things by nature.
Incredibly, even the most evil societies—even those societies that have most cruelly warped the natural law for their own ends—still profess these universal morals. Nazi Germany, for example, still had laws against murder, and theft, and rape. They didn't have some delusion that those things were somehow morally good: it's sheer fiction to suggest otherwise. Everyone, with the possible exceptions of the severely mentally handicapped/ill, recognizes these things to be evil, whether or not they've been formally taught these truths.
Conclusion
So is the problem of evil a problem for Christians? Sure. However, there are intellectually satisfying answers for the Christian
The Problem of Evil for Atheists
If the atheist says that only subjective morality exists (i.e moral values and principles are based on individual beliefs, opinions, cultural norms, and societal contexts) then it is difficult for the atheists to construct a logically coherent problem of evil as rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide is just one's opinion, they are not necessarily evil.
Thus, the atheists is barred from intellectually, rationally, logically condemning rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide, etc
If the atheist says that objective morality exists (moral values or obligations are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations) how then does the atheist ground objective morality in their worldview.
But here's the problem with that: Objective morality is best explained by God. What else can give us moral values or obligations are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?
This doesn't mean that atheists can't be moral people, as Christians teach that objective morality is knowable by all via natural law.
No good definition of Good?
The atheist may say that we can ground morality in the pleasure or misery of individuals; the atheist defines the “good” as that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures. But why, given atheism, should we think that the "flourishing of human beings" is objectively good? Where, exactly, in the natural world do we learn this objective truth? Harris, as William Lane Craig points out, fails to provide an explanation for this assertion. He simply equates “good” with “human flourishing” without any justification in what amounts to equivocation and circular reasoning.
Science, only explains what “is,” not how things “ought” to be. For example, science tells us how us how to make an atomic bomb. It cannot, however, tell us whether we ought to use it. Harris believes he can prove his point by demonstrating that science tells us how to make humans flourish. But why is “human flourishing” a good thing? Why not "rat flourishing" Or "cockroach flourishing"?
Harris commits the Is/Ought Fallacy - the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. Example: “That man is a murderer. He should be hung/punished.” Let's say the former statment is true, but why would the latter statement logically follow? Especially if morality is subjective. Because Harris, and atheists, cannot ground objective morality as the term is philosophically understood, his only recourse is a semantic sleight of hand in which he redefines the word “good” to mean human flourishing.
Naturalistic Determinism
If one is committed to naturalistic determinism, as most atheists are, then they most likely reject the notion of free will as well. In essence, humans act in robotic fashion and possess no volitional control over of their actions. Richard Dawkins agrees with this when he states, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Dawkins, pp 133]
So how can one condemn people for their actions? Given determinism, one's actions were pre-loaded at the Big Bang and carried out by the inflexible laws of physics and chemistry. According to naturalism all actions are the result of antecedent the physical conditions of matter, acting in accordance to the physical laws. How can their be moral choices? How can there be any choices at all? How can there be logical conclusions?
Naturalistic Reasoning?
The problem for Harris’s determinism runs even deeper. For if naturalism is correct, and human beings are mere matter and nothing else, then rational thought becomes impossible. Rationality is, after all, the ability to adjudicate between arguments and evidence. But how do atoms, molecules, and physical laws make conscious decisions? Years ago, C. S. Lewis recognized this fatal flaw. He remarks,
“A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe. but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished.” - C. S. Lewis. In other words, if atheists are is on naturalistic determinism, it follows that we have no grounds for even knowing if naturalism is true.
While atheists' attempts to affirm objective morality via naturalistic presumptions, they are fatally flawed as they have no rational basis to stand on.
Morality from Evolution?
Darwinian evolution is "descent with modification". This process of natural selection acting on random mutations is the standard view. If Darwin was right then creatures scratched and clawed their way to survival, killing and eating each other. Natural selection explains sexual drive, hunger, and fear since these qualities aided in preservation. But how does natural selection explain the phenomenon of morality?
Kin selection theory an animal engages in self-sacrificial behavior that benefits the genetic fitness of its relatives. For example, a rabbit might cry out a warning to her relatives if it sees a predator coming putting itself at greater risk, or may choose to fight/sacrifice themselves. This sacrifice, ensures that the family genes will survive and pass on to the next generation.
Reciprocal relationships, aka “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours,” a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. Natural selection, therefore, favors the species that provide services for other species.
Kin selection theory an animal engages in self-sacrificial behavior that benefits the genetic fitness of its relatives. For example, a rabbit might cry out a warning to her relatives if it sees a predator coming putting itself at greater risk, or may choose to fight/sacrifice themselves. This sacrifice, ensures that the family genes will survive and pass on to the next generation.
Reciprocal relationships, aka “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours,” a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. Natural selection, therefore, favors the species that provide services for other species.
Evolution’s Failure to Explain Morality
If Darwin’s theory is correct, all living species descended from a single-celled organism and now form the different branches on Darwin’s tree of life. With this model in mind, who is to say that humans should be treated differently than roaches, rats, or spiders? Given naturalism and the Darwinian model, humans are just one branch of many. Nothing about Darwinism tells us that we ought to act differently from the other species in the animal kindgom.
Take the black widow who often eats her male counterpart during the mating process. Most male animals forcibly copulate with their female counterparts. Do these creatures commit moral evils?
If not, why would these same actions be wrong for humans since we all belong to the same tree of life? Atheists and secular humanists may wish to maintain that humans are intrinsically valuable, but they have no way of grounding this position given their naturalism.
Evolutionary morality is on even shakier ground when we consider that evolution is, by definition, the unguided process of natural selection. Meaning, if we were to rewind back the time to the very beginning and start over, morality could have evolved quite differently. Human morality could have evolved so human females eats her male counterpart during the mating process or it's the norm for human males forcibly copulate with their female counterparts. And the atheist and secular humanist would simply nod in agreement.
Evolution does not begin to explain why acting in those ways is objectively good. Similarly, naturalists also think that because they can discern morality means that they have solved the problem.
but they confuse Moral Epistemology and Moral Ontology
Atheists, naturalists, and secular humanists may be able to explain the origins of altruism. And they might even "know" objective morals. But they cannot account for the existence of the moral standard itself and why humans ought to follow it.
The fact is humans experience a certain “oughtness.” They feel like they ought to love rather than hate, and that they ought to show courage rather than cowardice, they ought to choose honor, rather than dishonor. These “oughts” are epistemically surprising given naturalism. Yet, they correspond nicely with the Christian worldview.
More specifically, the problem is that is that there's no way to get from statements "how the world is" to "how the world ought to be" without imposing a value system. And to say something is objective good [or evil] you must believe in objective values, binding everyone . It has to be something infinitely more than whatever your personal values might be.
This is a serious problem for atheism, since atheistic naturalism denies any such universally-binding moral laws. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, laid out the problem like this:
Therefore God exists.
The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that mortality is hardwired into our genes as an evolutionary survival mechanism. A man might simultaneously be sexually attracted to a non-consenting woman, and conscious that rape is immoral.
The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that mortality is hardwired into our genes as an evolutionary survival mechanism. A man might simultaneously be sexually attracted to a non-consenting woman, and conscious that rape is immoral.
Why, from a strictly biological standpoint, should the man listen to his genetic hard-wiring when it tells him rape is wrong, and not when it gives him an urge to rape? The answer to that question is a moral one, and one that (by definition) can't come from mere evolutionary urges. The urges are the problem, not the solution. You can see this with virtually any sin: man both desires sin, and knows it's wrong. If both the desire and the moral aversion are nothing more than evolutionary conditioning, why listen to the unpleasant one? Why not act like simply another member of the animal kingdom, a world full of rape and theft and killing.
But for that matter, is it morally evil to go against our genetic hard-wiring? If the hard-wiring is nothing more than the result of random chance over millions of years, it's not at all clear why it would be morally evil to disregard it. Your body may also decide to start producing cancer cells, but you feel no moral allegiance to quietly let it have its way.
And indeed, atheists constantly go against their genetic hard-wiring. For example, I'd venture that most atheists use or have used birth control and don't seem to find this immoral, even though it's transparently contrary to both our genetic hard-wiring, and evolutionary survival mechanisms. They're literally stopping evolution from working: a more direct violation of evolutionary hard-wiring is almost unthinkable (except, perhaps, celibacy).
So, evolution can explain urges we have for or against certain behaviors. But it cannot say which are worth acting upon, some aren't. Nor why. But to know which to obey and which to ignore is a moral question, not a biological one.
The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that objective moral values do not exist. Not everyone has the same moral standards. Our perception of what is right and wrong have changed over the centuries
If this is true, they cannot logically, rationally criticize the Nazis for killing millions of Jews, Or for the Chinese imprisonment of the Uyghurs Or any genocide, rape, murder, etc.
If objective morality does not exist, the problem of evil breaks down. So when atheists raise the problem of evil, they're already conceding the existence of objective morality.
Objective Evil Exists
We can see that objective morals do, in fact, exist. We don't need to be told that raping, torturing, and killing innocent people are more than just unpleasant or counter-cultural. They're wrong—universally and completely wrong. Even if we were never taught these things growing up, we know these things by nature.
Incredibly, even the most evil societies—even those societies that have most cruelly warped the natural law for their own ends—still profess these universal morals. Nazi Germany, for example, still had laws against murder, and theft, and rape. They didn't have some delusion that those things were somehow morally good: it's sheer fiction to suggest otherwise. Everyone, with the possible exceptions of the severely mentally handicapped/ill, recognizes these things to be evil, whether or not they've been formally taught these truths.
Conclusion
So is the problem of evil a problem for Christians? Sure. However, there are intellectually satisfying answers for the Christian
Is the problem of evil a problem for atheists? Yes. If the atheists denies that objective morality exists, then any "problem of evil" argument falls apart.
Thus, in order to complain of the problem of evil, one must acknowledge evil. To acknowledge evil, you must acknowledge objective system morality. But the atheist/naturalist/secular humanist cannot do that.
Objective universal moral laws is best explained by a Lawgiver capable of dictating behavior for everyone. This Lawgiver is best explained by One who we call God.
Ironically, the Problem of Evil lays the groundwork for establishing that God not only exists, but cares about good and evil. And humans as well, caring enough to die for them.
Ironically, the Problem of Evil lays the groundwork for establishing that God not only exists, but cares about good and evil. And humans as well, caring enough to die for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment