The Problem of Evil and Hell
Premise: “There is evil. A loving and benevolent God would not allow evil things to happen to good people. And such a God could not co-exist with evil. Therefore there is no omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God.”
Is this premise valid? Is the conclusion warranted, rationally and logically?
As we have already determined, in Atheism, morality is a human construct and is therefore relative. The actual moral precept of Atheism is the evolutionary “survival of the fittest” concept, under which anything that benefits my survival is proper behavior. So all other behavior is of no value.
Because "evil" is undefined in the absence of absolute ethical values, then evil cannot exist without ethics existing to define it.
If ethics came from man, then "evil" is a random and capricious concept, not an absolute, real value, and therefore evil doesn't exist in a real sense.
If ethics came from God, then "evil" has to exist as the opposite to, or absence of, positive ethics. And so it would be an absolute.
But we all agree that it is evil to torture babies, for example. So evil can and does have absolute, real existence with universally recognized (therefore absolute) tenets.
The expanded, complete concept is that, “although (this part is a hidden presumption) by definition evil doesn’t exist in an Atheistic realm of relativity, yet (here is the explicit premise) evil exists, therefore God cannot exist”. This is a self-contradiction, a Type 1 paradox. An Atheist presumption of “evil” is illogical.
Therefore the assumption that evil and God cannot co-exist is not only false, evil actually requires that God exist in order that evil be rationally defined ("to exist" in an absolute sense). Whether evil can exist in the presence of God is another, unrelated issue.
Regardless of the succinctness of the logical analysis, some will object that the problem is more complex and requires detailed characteristics of both “evil”, and the characteristics of God.
Here is a more detailed statement of the issue[1]:
“Bad things sometimes happen. Whether they are taken to flow from the operation of the world ("natural evil"), to result from deliberate human cruelty ("moral evil"), or simply to correlate poorly with what seems to be deserved ("non-karmic evil"), such events give rise to basic questions about whether or not life is fair.The problem arises out of the simplistic definitions and logically erroneous conclusions of the definitions of omnipotent, and benevolent. Omniscience is granted.
“The presence of evil in the world poses a special difficulty for traditional theists, as both Epicurus and Hume pointed out. Since an omniscient god must be aware of evil, an omnipotent god could prevent evil, and a benevolent god would not tolerate evil, it should follow that there is no evil. Yet there is evil, from which atheists conclude that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god. The most common theistic defense against the problem, propounded (in different forms) by both Augustine and Leibniz, is to deny the reality of evil by claiming that apparent cases of evil are merely parts of a larger whole that embodies greater good. More recently, some have questioned whether the traditional notions of omnipotence and omniscience are coherent”.
Most frequently the concepts of omnipotent and omnibenevolent decisions are made from a human viewpoint, drenched in cultural bias, not from the viewpoint of a functional, real deity existing in unknown dimensions.
Omnipotence, Choice, and Entropy
Omnipotence is typically over-played in arguments about God: “Can God create a rock so big that even He can’t lift it?” These nonsense word-plays are usually violations of the First Principles (Non-contradiction paradoxes), and so have no meaning: would God contradict himself? And having no meaning, no truth value can be, or needs to be, assigned to them. They are exercises in triviality.
Some things that an omnipotent being could not do: (a) Subdivide himself; (b) contradict himself; (c) deny his own existence; (d) lie; (e) be deceived; (f) die.
There are things that an omnipotent deity would not do, especially if he were also benevolent: he would not violate the First Principles (very often, or on demand). He would not require repentance; he would not require worship. He would wish for them to occur voluntarily, without coercion.
In other words, he would allow humans to choose.
The fact of “choice” requires once again the presence of entropy. Choice is easy but without value if it only is between good, pleasant alternatives. Choice is of value only if it is between good alternatives and bad alternatives. Entropy is the natural placement into our universe of both stress on humans, and bad alternatives. For example, natural disasters are entropic; they place on us stress, and the need for humans to choose between the alternatives of assisting or ignoring. Entropy is necessary, if choice is to have value. The consequences of natural disasters are not the same to a deity as they would be to us. Pain and suffering are severe to us; how would they appear to an eternal being? And how about death? It might seem permanent, severe, and the end to us. To an eternal being, it might seem as just a move to a different level, or a different set of dimensions.
Benevolence vs. Sentiment
Would the human concept of benevolence play well in the dimensions of a deity? The human concept of benevolence is sometimes confused with sentimentality. A human might wish to prevent all natural disasters. Would a deity? Why would a benevolent deity remove the precious gift of choice, in order to satisfy a sentimental need to eliminate bad things such as natural disasters from the universe? Benevolence and sentimentality should never, ever be confused.
Deformed Children, Suffering and Premature Death in the Dimensions of a Deity
From a human’s perspective, these are terrible things. Again, how would the human concept of “deploring suffering” work in the dimensions of a deity? Would a deformed child be considered defective by a deity, which sees its unbroken spirit, it’s influence on the world around it? Would suffering be deplored by a deity, when suffering is known to strengthen, to be the fire that forges character? And who is to say that any death is premature, in the dimensions of a deity, which would welcome the essence, the spirit back home?
Omnibenevolence vs. Justice
A deity is “omni” everything, right? This is a tacit assumption in the argument, yet there is no basis for assuming that a deity would be “omnibenevolent”. Were it so, it would preclude justice, which would then preclude love. So the concept of omnibenevolence in the argument produces a paradox, and destroys its own credibility. But without the concept of benevolence beyond justice, beyond love, the argument fails.
A God of justice and love would not allow suffering, would not allow people to languish eternally in Hell? Suffering (God’s megaphone, according to C.S. Lewis) gets our attention on the fact of our own non-divinity. It is part of living in an entropic universe. It part of the mechanism that allows for freedom of choice. Personal non-divinity is a universal feature of human existence.
Hell
Premise: I’m a good person. A loving God would not send me to Hell. Therefore there is no God.
Again, the Atheist has no benchmark for declaring himself to be a morally “good” person. Because of the acceptance of evolution as the only natural truth, Atheism’s concept of “good” would be to do what it takes to perpetuate your own genes. So Atheism’s evolutionary “good” would contradict God’s moral “good”, creating a paradox, Type 1. This is logically unavoidable; Atheism has no rational (non-rationalized) claim on moral “good”.
As for Hell, we know how to stay out. If we put ourselves there, it is our own doing. Some Atheists love the comparison between Hell and Hitler’s torture and death camps. But they ignore the differentiating facts: None of Hitler’s victims chose to be there, to be tortured or to be gassed or shot, and by Nietzschean Atheists no less. On the contrary, everyone, including Satan and his angels, that goes to Hell CHOOSES to do so, according to Christian Theology. Chooses to Deny God. Chooses to elevate himself to the point of self-Godhood and separate from the actual God. Hell is a CHOICE! And a loving, just, benevolent God allows that individual to complete his choice of separation.
The concept of “omnibenevolence” is now firmly entrenched in our culture, where many children are totally indulged and as a result are without fear of any consequence for the their actions or inactions. If one is totally indulged, one would expect to continue to be so treated. So omnibenevolence has become an expectation, a right, despite its destructive and paradoxical nature.
In fact, omnibenevolence occurs in our culture due to fear of not being loved. Complete indulgence is an overcompensation, attempting to cause love to occur due to the showering of material items on the object of the benevolence. Total indulgence results in the destruction of the recipient. It is not a virtue. Omnibenevolence is really omniindulgence. It is pagan.
Deification of the Self
To make this claim (that the existence of evil proves there is no God) is to assume the role of deity for oneself, insisting that oneself knows what a deity would and should do (a moral judgment by the human on the deity). This is done as an artifact of declaring that one’s own mind is the actual supremacy. The worldview of the self, and one’s own personal morality is declared superior to the deity’s. So passing judgment on the deity becomes a natural emoting of the self-declared elitist.
The premise expansion would be:
“My mind is supreme, therefore it is qualified to determine what a God would or wouldn’t do, and should or shouldn’t do; thus I have determined that God wouldn’t do (X), shouldn’t allow (Y), and therefore, because (X) and (Y) exist but are not per my expectation, I declare that God does not exist, or if He does, He is evil.”
The hidden presupposition, implicit in the premise, that “My mind is supreme…” has been shown to be a Type 2 (a) Godel Paradox.
Now, if a deity did exist, then I, myself, would be the effect; the deity would be the cause. As an effect, I am less than the cause. Since, by Godel’s theorem, I cannot even fully comprehend my own mind, it is much less possible to know the mind of the deity. To assert that one knows what a deity should do is a Godel’s Paradox Type 2 (b).
And finally, the Naturalist / Materialist Atheist would actually be required to deny that evil exists, since it is neither material, nor an empirical or forensic concept. It is a moral concept, outside the realm of science and materialism. So the Atheist assumption that evil exists is self-contradictory in the environment of the Atheist. In fact, much of what is called evil would actually be the activity called “survival of the fittest”. Since man is just a “meat machine” trying to survive, any behavior is justifiable: there is no evil. So the existence of evil cannot exist for the Atheist, who nonetheless decries it’s existence; a profound paradox, which voids the argument from the beginning .
The premise that God would do “such-and-so” based on my standards for Him, is false.
The premise that evil falsifies the existence of God, is false.
The conclusion based on this premise is false.
“I think this shows that the problem is primarily emotional, not intellectual. People just don't like the idea of a God who might send them to hell, and so they choose not to believe in Him. But that kind of attitude is just suicidal. Imagine you're standing in the middle of the street, and suddenly a friend on the curb says, "Look out! Here comes a car!" Now what do you do? Do you stand there and close your eyes real tight and say, "anybody who would run over me can't be a very nice person! If I don't believe in him, then it won't affect me! I just won't believe that he exists!" And then it is too late. A lot of people look at God that way. They think that just because they don't like the idea of God sending them to hell, if they close their eyes real tight and pretend that He doesn't exist, then it doesn't affect them. And that kind of attitude is just fatal.” [2]
“Whenever, then, anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd or evil, it is because we have but a partial knowledge of things, and are in the main ignorant of the order and coherence of nature as a whole, and because we want everything to be arranged according to the dictates of our own reason; although in fact, what our reason pronounces bad is not bad as regards the order and laws of universal nature, but only as regards the laws of our own nature taken separately.” [3]
“Religion, opium for the people! …A true opium for the people is a belief in nothingness after death – the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.”[4]
The Problem of Evil Christians
Premise: “Christians are responsible for torture and death throughout history. Therefore, Christianity is evil.”
Is this conclusion warranted, rationally and logically?
The falsification of the concept of “evil” in the Atheist lexicon was shown in the preceding text. Atheists have no rational basis for claiming anything to be “evil”, especially if it is a clear case of acting in the behavior of the ”survival of the fittest”. The crusades, the power struggles of the Roman papacies, the conquistadors, the Inquisition, all were justifiable as Darwinian behavior. This doesn’t slow down the Atheist who has had a problem with Christians. The fact that Christians do accept the moral concept of evil allows the Atheist to strike back, using a concept in which he, the Atheist, doesn’t even believe.
Due to the Atheist worldview, this proposition is logically falsified from the get-go. Within the Atheist’s evolution paradigm, all “evil” is just more survival behavior of the “fittest”, and therefore it must be valid. However, let’s follow some clear, logical thought paths to pursue the claim anyway.
Some Atheists claim to be “sickened” (a term actually used on an Atheist website) by the millions of people tortured and murdered in the name of Jesus Christ. Ignoring the fact that more people were killed in the 20th century alone by Atheists following the precepts of Darwinism, than in the prior 19 centuries by Christians, the fact remains that very many Christians did very bad things. Why? Were they really valid Christians? Or were they deviant, quasi-Christians?
But let’s start here: exactly which slaughter was caused by the essence of Christianity?
And which were caused by perversions of the essence of Christianity? Where exactly did Jesus say “slaughter millions in my name; torture heretics and apostates; murder infidels”? The essence of Christianity is directly opposed to the actions of these types of “adherents”. Shouldn’t the blame be placed on the perpetrators, who went totally against the precepts of Christ? Of course it should. This argument in no way falsifies the existence of God or Jesus, or the validity of the Bible.
It seems easy from our perspective to discern the great evil that the deviant people were doing, not only to the people subject to their horrible treatment, but also to their professed faith. Why did they not discern this?
If they had done the simple act of rational discernment, they would have realized that their behavior in no way mapped onto the teachings of Jesus, and was in fact irrational and diametrically opposed to those teachings. The church was and is inhabited by mere humans in positions of great power, some of whom are non-intuitives, others of whom might be intuitive, but not rational, others of whom, just corrupt, as well as those who accurately reflect the teachings of Christ. The great power that always corrupts came with the human cost levied by the power of the human church in the hands of non-rational, non-intuitives. The conclusion is that these people were at best deviant, quasi-Christians, and at worst manifestations of total evil, in control of the human church, sometimes for prolonged periods of time. They were in full pursuit of Darwinist “survival of the fittest” behavior, which carries no moral value in the Atheist worldview.
But they do not detract from the rational, intuitive Christians that do exist, and can be found if they are sought. To condemn all Christians, or Christianity in general, for the evil of others is a logical fallacy, Guilt by Association. As I have said elsewhere, if I assume the guilt for the massive 2 millennia of “Christian” evil, will the Atheist assume the guilt for the even more massive 20th Century Atheist evil? The question itself is nonsense. The absurdity is obvious. It is irrational and trivial.
The principles of Christianity do not support or condone the behaviors being illustrated by viewing faulty papacies, crusades run amuck, or greedy conquistadors. It is not Christianity that is at fault; it is the deviancy of human beings, especially human beings in positions of great power, that is at fault. That deviancy is found both within and without religious boundaries.
To deny the existence of a deity because of deviancy in humans is logically fallacious. The fallacy is Guilt By Association. The premise is not pertinent to the conclusion, which is false.
Also, the Atheist cannot legitimately claim to be sickened by behavior that would appear to be “survival of the fittest”, and perpetrated in spades by Atheists in modern history. Nor can the Atheist claim any moral value on behavior at all, since there is no morality in the “sciences” that are the Atheist’s complete source of truth.
So the huge paradox here is that the Atheist can make NO legitimate claim of evil, while the Christian can, and does claim that the early Roman church institution did have periods that were, indeed, evil. There is no wind left for Atheist sails on this matter.
These paradoxes falsify the premise and conclusion.
“Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity.” [5][1] philosophypages.com/dy/e9.htm#evil
[2] William Lane Craig, from his debate with Ray Bradley. (Emphasis added)
[3] Spinoza; Ethics IV. In “The Story of Philosophy” 2nd Ed, Will Durant
[4] Czeslaw Milosz, Polish Poet, Nobel Prize 1980; “The discreet Charm of Nihilism”, from McGraw, “The Twilight of Atheism”
[5] Marshall McLuhan
No comments:
Post a Comment