Posted by Jason on: 02.02.2009 /
Over at the Friendly Atheist Hemant has given some space for Lee Strobel to answer some questions. In his list of arguments that might plant the seeds of faith in atheists Lee mentions Philosopher Paul Copan’s second point:
And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in God is the problem of evil, does the concept of evil itself not suggest a standard of goodness or a design plan from which things deviate, so that if things ought to be a certain way (rather than just happening to be the way they are in nature), don’t such ‘injustices’ or ‘evils’ seem to suggest a moral/design plan independent of nature?
It’s an interesting twist on the old argument posed even before Epicurus wrote his famous riddle. The argument goes like this: If God is believed to be wholly good and omnipotent and omniscient in his power and knowledge then the existence of evil that is evident in the world creates an inconsistency.
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Whence then is evil?
Or possibly some combination of these. Whatever the combination though we are left with a being that is not wholly good, all knowing and all powerful. Plenty of such beings exist. I am not all good, all knowing or all powerful. Nor am I a god.
If you start with the premise that a God exists that has the three attributes described then the Problem of Evil is one that needs to be taken very seriously. Responses to it should provide some useful insights into the nature of God and evil as well as the place that faith has in a universe where the problem exists. It is unfortunate that most believers simply dismiss the question as unimportant or claim that God must have a good reason for allowing evil to exist. I would think that exploring these reasons would be very interesting. Indeed there is an entire branch of theology dedicated to exploring this question.
Theodicy is an attempt to answer an epistemological question without recourse to external evidence, or as we like to call it, logic. There are several logical explorations of the Problem of Evil. Calvanism is one that declares the absolute ruin of humanity’s ethical structure only saved by divine grace or for this problem that we are the problem and must be directed back to God’s goodness.
There are other ways to examine the problem of course. Some branches of theodicy assert that the concept of evil is an entirely human one. A tsunami that kills hundreds, displaces thousands and causes massive damage to property and possessions is not evil as it lacks intent. An animal that savages a person is not evil for the same reason. Some also say that evil is illusory because suffering and pain are illusory although those in pain probably wouldn’t agree. Others suggest that evil is a necessary part of the goodness of God’s plan but we are unable or unwilling to see the place of evil as a way of finding goodness.
Then there is the question of free will. Evil must exist for us to be able to choose to do good. Without evil we would not have any ethical choices to make and could not be described as having free will. Free will is really a whole other discussion that we could spend years exploring and it doesn’t really answer the problem of evil because it shows that God is willing to allow evil to persist and so cannot be opposed to it completely. If that is the case then how can God be wholly good? And we’re back to the Problem of Evil again.
Back to Paul Copin’s point that the Problem of Evil is evidence of good and a design that we deviate from. Quite simply: No. The Problem of Evil only exists to challenge the assumption that there is an utterly powerful, intelligent and benevolent force in the universe. It is a question for theists to answer. Atheists have no reason to answer a question about Godly action or inaction. Nor does the existence of evil point to something good to counter it…sadly. For atheists the Problem of Evil is simply another reason why it is unlikely that a god described as wholly good, all powerful and all knowing exists. Another reason to doubt.
Comment by: Stephan
1There is a field of theodicy called “Open Theism” that posits that God, in creating people with free will, gave up some of his omnipotence temporarily. He essentially created rules that even He has to obey. This allows evil to have a place in the short run, but God has a plan to deal with it in the long run. It is not that the evil has to happen in order to bring about good, but that good will eventually triumph despite evil.
A lot of Christians are uncomfortable with this because it means God is not currently omnipotent in the way we envision it. But since I believe God was at one time omnipotent and will again someday be omnipotent, and God exists outside of time, I don’t have a problem with it.
I liken it somewhat to a parent-child relationship. A parent could theoretically have complete control over their child’s activities, thus limiting free will and controlling all evil. Just lock them in their room with a few good books and some decent toys and nothing bad can happen, right? Unfortunately it also means that nothing good can happen. A parent needs to give up some control, risking bad in order to make good possible. It’s messy, but necessary, and I think it’s entirely consistent with both logic and Christian practice.
Comment by: Eliza
2Some may be interested in Bart Ehrman’s 2008 book, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question: Why We Suffer. (Paperback edition is being released in ~3 weeks.)
Wikipedia has a page on Open theism. This is a modern explanation, it seems.
The Wikipedia page gives a couple of lines from scripture which have been cited to argue against the Open Theism, including:
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not…
But, then, finding a few quotes doesn’t prove anything. On the other hand, the OT is rife with examples of people being treated by God in ways that we today would consider torture (though some interpret these acts in a more positive light when God is the one causing the illness, slavery, famine, plagues, & death), and the NT promises hell for some, yet as far as I can tell, there’s no indication that there are limits on God’s actions or omnipotence at the time, nor that he will regain or reassert his omnipotence at some future time. It reads, instead, like these are purposeful actions by God, usually to punish people for sin and/or insufficient belief.
Comment by: Seren
3If a god exists outside of time, then she can’t change like this.
it’s only time that allows us to be different things at different points.
things that exist “outside of time” have to be true at all times, eg Pythagoras’ theorem.
or perhaps a philosopher of maths will learn me here!!
Having said that, i’m not sure i can dismiss Copan’s point as quickly as you do, Jason.
here’s a definition (which may be wrong - i’d be interested to know what people think):
saying something is evil
=
saying something should not (have) happen(ed)
=
saying something else should (have) happen(ed)
i get a little wonder-y about where humans get the head space to imagine things being other than they are. i don’t think it’s a particularly advanced state to acheive - todlers write stories - but it seems to involve some wacked out ontology.
we’re continuously referring to things that don’t exist - ie what should have happened.
i find that difficult, as a materialist/physicalist (which i’m not always, but when i’m trying to be consistent…)
Comment by: Chris C
4It seems to me Stephen’s argument answers this very well. In short a God does exists who is all good, all knowing, all powerful and also all powerful in his Creation, within the limits He has set himself. This rider is true Biblically or he would simply have to stop anything He/She disliked to be all powerful in Creation.
Eliza’s question on suffering is a different, though related, issue. One that we could pick up as another topic?
Seren says
No, She is also capable of operating within time as well: something to do with female logic. Although, She appears to have come as a bloke to show us the best example of this.
Comment by: Stephan
5Eliza, I wouldn’t necessarily trust Wikipedia to be the best resource on Open Theism, although I understand that you probably don’t have time to pick up every book on every topic people recommend. Greg Boyd is one of the more recent authors to take this stand. His book “Is God to Blame” is fantastic.
Comment by: Eliza
6Perhaps unsurprisingly, we seem to be running into 2 types of approaches: (1) those who don’t (currently) believe in god/s and who see the problem of evil as, well, a problem affecting the logical arguments of those who do believe, and (2) those who do (currently) believe in God and who see the problem of evil as necessarily having an explanation within the reality of God’s existence.
I read as much of “Is God to Blame” as amazon.com would let me read (~8 pages) and it didn’t strike me as convincing. But, then, I’m already on the side of the fence where it wouldn’t be…
Comment by: Pseudonym
7Here’s what I wrote last time this topic came up:
In a sense, the problem of evil is really just a more sophisticated version of the question of whether or not God could make a stone so heavy that he couldn’t lift it. And this, in turn, is similar to various logical paradoxes from mathematics which involve unrestricted universal quantification, such as the Burali-Forti paradox.
In other words, it’s not deities that causes the problem, it’s the “omnis”.
There is no reason why a deity must have all of these “omni” properties. The Greek pantheon, for example contained many deities which didn’t have these “omni” properties, and yet we have no problem identifying them as “gods”. Epicurus knew this, which is why he didn’t consider his riddle an argument for atheism. (The best term I can think of for him is “polydeist”: he believed in multiple gods, none of whom really interacted with people.)
Also, I’ve never seen a justification for most of these “omnis” from the Judeo-Christian sacred texts.
To be fair, getting rid of (at least the naive idea of) these “omnis” also makes most of the supposed logical arguments for the existence of God trivially incorrect as well, such as Plantinga’s version of the ontological argument.
Comment by: Seren
8Pseudonym: which “omni/s” would you strike from the list?
i think the difficulty for theists now days is that the most common forms of theism involve belief in a god who created the universe.
it is difficult to see how the source of the (physical) universe that we experience could not have full knowledge of it (since she invented it), or full power over it (since she made all the powers in it).
What’s the other one? Oh, yep. Goodness. That’s what Isaiah drops - “Who fashions light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates evil, I am HaShem who does all this.” (Isaiah 45:7)
Eliza: i think you’re right about the different starting points.
i can look at the universe and think, “if this is some deity’s creation, what does that mean that deity is like?”
but if i (belive I) have already had experience of a god then i will know something of that god’s attributes via experience.
so if i (believe i) have experienced a god’s immense goodness, then i’ll attribute immense goodness to that deity, and will, as you say, “see the problem of evil as necessarily having an explanation within the reality of God’s existence.”
Comment by: Eliza
9I find it ironic that “the problem of evil” (or “suffering”) is said (by some) to be the Achilles heel of Christianity, when some readers (including myself) find plenty of support in the Bible for God being able and willing to cause suffering and allow evil.
Believers, and perhaps some “deistic optimists”, are the ones, it seems, who assume God has to be benevolent.
Comment by: Pseudonym
10Seren:
Almost all of them, at least in their most naïve forms.
I touched on this point when I mentioned the question of whether or not God could make a stone so heavy that he couldn’t lift it. This, to my mind, shows that “omnipotence”, assuming that God possesses this property, doesn’t literally mean “can do anything”: either he can’t create such a stone, or he can’t lift it.
This mistake that Epicurus made in his argument (which was good rhetoric, but sloppy reasoning) is that just because a being isn’t “omnipotent” (in its most literal sense), that doesn’t imply that the being is “impotent”. Impotence is the opposite of omnipotence, but it’s not the absence.
Comment by: Jason
11Pseudonym, if a Christian relinquishes the claim that God has the “omnis” or even just one of three do you feel that this relegates God to the status of a superman or other powerful but non-godly being?
Comment by: Pseudonym
12Jason, no. To use the example from earlier, the Greek pantheon didn’t have many of these “omnis”, but we have no problem identifying them as gods.
At the very least, most theists concede that is not possible for their god(s) to do something that is logically impossible and, for most ideas of “deity”, inconsistent with their character or nature.
C.S. Lewis put it this way:
You might also like to look up “process theology”, which has an interesting take on this.
Comment by: Seren
13Psuedonym:
Yes, but we don’t identify any of them as creator gods.
i don’t understand how the creator of the universe could not do what it likes with that universe. presumably she invented logic, no?
unless you’re suggesting the creator did not have a choice in whether or not she made this universe.
What do you think of this site:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/process.htm?
i haven’t read any Whitehead for ten years, and looking at the above website i don’t think i understood any of it when i did read him!!
i’m really uncomfortable with dualism and idealism, but Whitehead’s metaphysics, as described by the site, does provide an interesting solution to the problem i was (trying to) describe in post 3, above.
Comment by: Jason
14Pseudonym
I would say that Christians don’t recognise Zeus and pals as gods but as made up stories. As an atheist I certainly don’t see them as gods. However the point is well made but it goes back to what we think of when we try to define “God”.
We really need some parameters to work with if we’re going to make sense of the idea. Unfortunately, in my experience, Christians tend to resist putting any parameters on God and prefer to use the “omnis”. Of course that leaves them with the problem of evil because you can’t have it both ways.
Comment by: Eliza
15There’s also the semi-definition “God is love”, which also leaves the “problem of evil” unsolved.
Comment by: Pseudonym
16Jason:
So you would object completely to the phrase “the Greek gods”? If so, I’d say that’s pretty a tortured definition of the word “god” you’re using there. If it doesn’t encompass them, what does it encompass?
This, BTW, is one of the problems with living post-Enlightenment. People are too literal-minded and not literary-minded enough. This is evidenced by the fact that people can’t seem to tell the difference between mythology and “made up stories”.
Eliza:
That’s the one “omni” I’d be happy to keep.
Comment by: Jason
17No I’d simply be surprised if a Christian recognised the godly nature of the Greek gods rather than their mythological nature. The mythology of these gods was simply a way of explaining the natural world, particularly the fickle nature of nature. Storms and accidents at sea were the work of Poseidon, the dead were shepherded to the underworld by Hades who prevented them from plaguing the living, etc. The significance of these stories tied in to the culture of the people of the time.
Rather like the bible from my perspective.
What does “God is love” mean?
Comment by: Pseudonym
18I dispute your use of the word “simply”. Mythology is often roped into the task of explaining the natural world in the absence of a better tool, but as any researcher of mythology will tell you, that’s never been its primary function.
Comment by: Jason
19Pseudonym, I have dedicated my post tomorrow to this topic. I’d be interested to see you elaborate on the point you make. I certainly see mythology as one way to explain the natural world as well as a way of expressing culture and social mores and providing moral lessons.
Comment by: Pseudonym
20Seren:
I think you’re assuming a certain type of “creation”. If by this you mean that Young Earth Creationists have a harder time with the problem of evil than Theistic Evolutionists, you may have a point there, but without more caffeine, I can’t investigate that line of argument further.
As to logic, that’s an interesting thought. Certainly, there’s a sense in which, as Phil Wadler would put it, “universal” is too limiting a term to describe logic. You can imagine a universe where biological evolution doesn’t work, or the speed of light is different, but you can’t imagine a universe where 1+1 does not equal 2.
Having said that, there isn’t one single thing called “logic”. In fact, there are many logical systems, useful in different contexts.
And having said that, there’s also a sense in which logics which describe physical systems can be tested experimentally, so you could, in fact, test if modus ponens is “true” in quantum systems.
I think that process theology is definitely interesting, and plausible in the sense that its only real “problem” is that it’s incompatible with Biblical literalism.