Philosophical Arguments from Evil

I just wanted to put across a couple of commonly-themed logical arguments that I heard on podcasts recently, that really caught my attention and resonated with my own logic. They certainly support the atheistic position for me.

The Evil God Hypothesis

Thanks to Professor Stephen Law for this one.

http://nogodcast.com/2013/09/28/episode-19-philosophy-with-stephen-law/

How can God allow evil such as we witness daily on the News channels, to exist in the world? It is a good question, and one I don't think the theists have a satisfactory answer to.

Of course, the standard response might involve the following.

If God is Good:-

-Evil is necessary because humans have to have free will in order to follow their own devices and not be God's puppets

-Evil is necessary in order to show a contrast for Good. If no evil existed, we would not be able to define anything as “good” because there would be nothing to compare it to

-Evil may be necessary because there is a long-term plan in place by God's Divine Will which involves the prior necessity of these evils having taken place.

However, the weakness of this reasoning can easily be demonstrated. It turns out that exactly the same arguments can be used in a directly opposite scenario where God is Evil, and evil is expected – here good is the thing that needs to have its existence explained.

If God is Evil:-

-Good is necessary because humans have to have free will in order to follow their own devices and not be God's puppets

-Good is necessary in order to show a contrast for Evil. If no good existed, we would not be able to define anything as “evil” because there would be nothing to compare it to

-Good may be necessary because there is a long-term plan in place by God's Divine Will which involves the prior necessity of these “goodnesses” having taken place.

That makes just as much sense as the theist's original arguments. The notion that it is really “Satan” who is in charge (consistent with the “evil” God hypothesis), is in fact, arguably more representative of the real world, in that certain features are as we would expect if that model held. In particular, the existence of other proposed gods, the notion of Hell, and the whole idea that the “good” God is actually in charge in order to avert suspicion sound like exactly the sort of thing a Machiavellian dictator would do.

At the very least, the “Evil” God hypothesis throws enough doubt and discredits the good God hypothesis to such a degree as to make it pretty worthless in my book.

-

The problem of Gratuitous Evil

Erik Wielenberg came up with this (or at least this refinement).

1. An all-knowing, all-loving God wouldn't allow Gratuitous Evils to take place
2. Gratuitous Evils probably do take place
3. God probably does not exist

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2013/11/05/episode-121-divine-deception-with-guest-erik-wielenberg/

Let's think of a bad situation, which leads to unnecessary death, and which God could have prevented if He so chose. So bad in fact - and caused by natural circumstances, not humans, so no issues of “free will” involved - that it is a gratuitous, or unnecessary and unjustified, evil. The example given is that a foal is trapped in a forest fire, is horribly burned but escapes the edge of the inferno only to die from its injuries or dehydration some days later. Nobody could possibly benefit from this event, it only has negative connotations. Of course the theist's answer to these sorts of issues would often be “God works in mysterious ways. We cannot hope to know his bigger plans or intentions”. However, we shall see that this is a facile and illogical answer, inconsistent with the facts.

The argument that God (or his intentions) are unknowable is commonly used. I've stated elsewhere in my blog that I find this message inconsistent with the notion that we can have private conversations with Him whenever we choose. That we can explain exactly what we want and He hears it (why He wouldn't just know it already, being the omniscient deity that He is, is anyone's guess) with no errors or loss in information, and yet when we do get acts of nature or events that cried out for intervention, and many people prayed for just such interventions, God is conspicuous by His absence. Then, it's always “Oh you didn't pray hard enough”, or “you weren't faithful enough”. Yes, folks, isn't it odd that the answer to crises of faith, is always more faith. Never more insight.

“So at 5 p.m. when the storm hits and everyone is praying for deliverance, God has his fingers in his ears, going “la, la, la, I can't hear you”. But at 6 p.m. when those same people who have just had their homes and lives devastated, are praying to God for help with recovering from the thing he just allowed to happen, we're expected to believe He's listening and willing and able to assist? 'Kay”

Kasparov the Deity

The idea that we are God's children and that He is a father figure, some kind of master or expert, is pretty absurd to me. One explanation that is used to support the “Unkowable God” hypothesis is the analogy that we are taking part in a game of Chess with God. He makes a seemingly crazy move, opening up the board and making a victory seem imminently possible for us. And yet, this might be exactly what a Grand Master would do to an initiate to get him to play his hand, only to reveal some yet unknown move which could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. It sounds good, doesn't it?

Except, God doesn't exactly have a great track record at being a Grand Master of anything, if you don't pre-suppose that he created the Universe in the first place. He is nothing if not predictable in the Old Testament. He has shown in the Bible that he shares human emotional traits and weaknesses, using deception and hate to his own ends. There are so many examples I don't know where to start. The “unknowable” aspect of his character is where things get really interesting in this argument though.

It follows that with time, we bear witness to an ever greater number of Gratuitous Evils, as terrible events occur somewhere in the world. In order to allow these to happen, it logically follows from the theist's own reasoning, that God must become more and more “unknowable” with time, as in order to compensate for these Evils, there must be a colossal number or amount of “goodnesses” due to take place somewhere in future, as yet unknown to us. And yet, as a species we are constantly learning and making technological advancements, increasing our knowledge and understanding of the universe. This fact is in direct contradiction to God becoming more “unknowable”, as everything else is becoming less “unknowable”.

In order to satisfy this conundrum, the theist must allow God to retreat into theoretical realms beyond the purview of the universe, and so beyond all effective relevance to the world.