The empirical problem of evil
-
Peace,
A while back on quranconnection chat, we had an interesting discussion regarding arguments for atheism. I stated that I consider the strongest, or most robust, argument for atheism to be the empirical problem of evil. I'll try and outline it here.
The empirical/evidential problem of evil should not be confused with the logical problem of evil. The latter aims to show that the Judeo-Christian concept of God is logically inconsistent. This is not what the former argument puts forth. The evidential problem of evil states that it is highly unlikely that God exists, based on observations of the world. In my opinion, what makes this argument more robust than many of the other arguments put forth by atheists, is that it uses an inductive approach, not an a priori formula.
There are slight variations of the argument, but I've used William Rowe's format
We begin by assuming there is an even chance of God existing and not existing.
-
There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
-
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
-
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Rowe 1979 336)
The first premise aims to get round the claim of theists who suggest that sometimes what we perceive as evil is in fact necessary for spiritual growth. For example, we may consider being punched in the face as being a victim of evil, but the resultant spiritual and mental growth renders that experience a positive, because we have in fact become a better person for it. The first premise is drawing our attention to what atheists may consider ?pointless? evil, or evil that seems to have no short or long term positives. E.g. a fourteen-year-old girl being-gang raped and then executed by soldiers or intense animal suffering in the wild.
The second premise is using the orthodox Judeo-Christian concept of God as being omniscient and omnipotent who is able to stop ?pointless? evil if He wishes to.
The argument's form is valid, so the conclusion successfully follows from the premises. In short, the widespread presence of gratuitous evil makes it highly unlikely that an omniscient and omnipotent God exists. In my opinion, this is the argument that many atheists and agnostics use for their rejection of God. It is intuitive and leaves room for a ?maybe?.
Obviously, being muslim I disagree with this argument, but I'll play devil's advocate here if anyone wants to discuss it. )
-
-
The atheists arguments are a bit strange. They believe in "randomness", and so forth. That life can come from something inanimate. When you think about these things, they become absurd.
First of all, randomness does not exist. A fluctuating process, which the atheist today often calls the cause of the universe, must itself have a cause.
An object is just that. It has no will. If there exists only an object first, there wil be no other activity. So there would be this fixed object eternally, without anything else happning. Ofcourse this is impossible, as the object needs a cause, and does not exist on it own. For that you need The Abrahamic God, which fits a perfectly logically, as the cause of all things, and their sustainer.One needs this transcendent God, for anything to exist. It is selfsufficient, transcendent, alive, therefore has the will to create, and sustain an object.
Therefore the atheist often ascribes some of these qualities to an object. Often the universe, which is seen by the atheist as self-sufficient, or fluctuacting processes, which act as God. Indeed the atheist does not deny a god, it denies using the term god, but in practise, they are like idolaters of old, who give qualities of god, to an object, and are indeed recognizing a god, but playing with words, to avoid the term.
-
Point 2 and 3 is what interest me...
It is based on the conception of God based on Christian tradition..
While according to Taoism or Judaism.. God / YHVH / Tao is 'balance' / 'just'. and not 'wholly good'.The derived conclusion that there is no God is not valid..
Given it only proves that the "wholly good" God --as per definition according to Christian tradition-- does not exist..Salam / Peace
-
Peace,
A while back on quranconnection chat, we had an interesting discussion regarding arguments for atheism. I stated that I consider the strongest, or most robust, argument for atheism to be the empirical problem of evil. I'll try and outline it here.
The empirical/evidential problem of evil should not be confused with the logical problem of evil. The latter aims to show that the Judeo-Christian concept of God is logically inconsistent. This is not what the former argument puts forth. The evidential problem of evil states that it is highly unlikely that God exists, based on observations of the world. In my opinion, what makes this argument more robust than many of the other arguments put forth by atheists, is that it uses an inductive approach, not an a priori formula.
On the contrary empiricists/positivists are incapable of providing a consistent epistemology, while comically filling their "arguments" with unjustified apriori assumptions, as will be seen below.
There are slight variations of the argument, but I've used William Rowe's format
We begin by assuming there is an even chance of God existing and not existing.
What does that mean "even chance"? For a unique event, or in this case being, there can be no "chance" of anything. For there to be odds, as in statistical probabilities, the events in question need to be grouped into a class. Once you are able to differentiate between events, you are no longer dealing with probability theory.
This is not a very good syllogism (if that's what it's intended to be)
- There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
The author does not define his terms. We have no clue what he means by "intense suffering", "greater good" or "evil". In fact, I would argue that an atheist cannot even consistently define such terms.
- An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Again, what does "wholly good" mean? And why should that imply the "prevention of suffering"? The author is guilty of begging the question. Furthermore, why is utilitarianism simply assumed as a valid moral theory, without any reason? Not to mention, who gets to decide what is more or less evil? My guess is that it's the atheist who has that privileged position.
- (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Rowe 1979 336)
As I said above, this "syllogism" is terrible, given that we are not told what "wholly good" means, nor "evil", nor any other term he has provided. These arguments are typical of anthropocentric philosophies, which, without warrant, assume that "good" is whatever humans need/desire. God's goodness comes from his eternal nature, not from his creation. Therefore, everything God does is good, since he is the apriori pre-requisite for even making the distinction between good and evil. Of course this includes when he imposes suffering on his creatures. What if God creates for his own glory?? Then all of these "theodicy" objections fall away, and we are left with nothing but gratuitous assumptions and non sequiturs.
The first premise aims to get round the claim of theists who suggest that sometimes what we perceive as evil is in fact necessary for spiritual growth. For example, we may consider being punched in the face as being a victim of evil, but the resultant spiritual and mental growth renders that experience a positive, because we have in fact become a better person for it.
Again, this assumes that the creature must be the subject of "goodness" and the object of glory. While adversity can lead to "growth" only for believers, it does nothing but harden those who were created for hell, such as pharaoh.
The first premise is drawing our attention to what atheists may consider ?pointless? evil, or evil that seems to have no short or long term positives. E.g. a fourteen-year-old girl being-gang raped and then executed by soldiers or intense animal suffering in the wild.
Of course, because the atheist simply takes it for granted that, if God existed, it would be to glorify his creatures.
The second premise is using the orthodox Judeo-Christian concept of God as being omniscient and omnipotent who is able to stop ?pointless? evil if He wishes to.
This seems to be more than just a "judeo-christian" concept, no?
The argument's form is valid, so the conclusion successfully follows from the premises.
It is invalid, for it makes the informal logical fallacy of begging the question repeatedly, and therefore its conclusion cannot be said to follow from the premise.
In short, the widespread presence of gratuitous evil makes it highly unlikely that an omniscient and omnipotent God exists.
Once again, where does he provide a theory of morality to substantiate his assumptions, and even he had a consistent epistemological theory on morality, how does he know that the existence of a particular "evil" is gratuitous??
-
Peace,
The so recycled argument that many people use and reuse and keep saying that if God existed he would have certainly prevented any evil from happening! and the reason they say this is because God hall all the powers.
Now let me ask the question the other way..
What would be life and its purpose if God will constantly preventing us from doing the things we were going to do.. even if the bad implications are far in the future..
Of course life then will be as described in Heaven, and so earth will be heavenly like.
and since the act on earth as the religious people put it, is only a test..
How can then be it a test if you're not allowed to err? -
I presumed these 'atheist' argument are mostly due to constant exposure of God portrayed as human being.. (personified)
Commonly found within western culture.. especially Christianity...If they really understand on the concept of "What Is God"..
The questions of "Does God Exist?" and "If He does where is He?" and "If God is X why does God didn't do Y" are irrelevant..Everything within this Universe are created in pair (balanced).. Good and Evil, Night and Day, Positive and Negative, Positron and Electron, Matter and Anti-Matter.. Theist and Atheist.. Sectarian and Secular... Truth and Falsehood, Up and Down, Left and Right, Life and Death etc..
Is Evil a problem? Not necessarily.. perhaps it is a necessity.. without evil, good shall not exist wouldn't it?
Is Atheism a problem? Again not necessarily...
Is Atheism a falsehood? Again not necessarily.. it depends on what does the word "God" meant.. it's true that some conception of God/Deity are false.. not true...
Is there such thing as a free choice/free will? Well again it depends on your perspective..from the being/creation perspective yes there is.. from the absoluteness perspective; no there isn't...Salam / Peace
