Evidence for God from Science

there's a big difference between someone who is self-centered, greedy, arrogant, and inconsiderate of others (ie lacking common human decency and goodness) and someone who actively goes out to harm others, is cruel, purposely inflicts pain on others, etc. IMO "evil" is active (involves doing, or causing to be done, heinous acts such as rape, murder, torture, etc.

WHile there may be a difference in their actions, the result can still be just as painful. The greedy man prevents good to be done, the selfish man can create fights, insults, hurts, the arrogant man prevents learning, stifles relationships. What about the man who sees a rape happening but because of his selfish desire to protect himself doesn't attempt to stop it? What about the greedy man who doesn't help someone in need? Christ himself spoke of this on the Sermon on the MOunt. It isn't about the fact that you haven't jsut murdered anyone. The man who thinks and speaks ill is just as evil or ill at heart. It isn't about not committing adultery, it's about what's in the heart as well. A man just looking lustfully at a woman has committed adultery as well.

While I though the movie slow and somehwat painful to get through, I do like some of "Groundhog Day" because it shows that even his *avoiding* hurtful things isn't enough. While it may be nice to compare ourselves to the worst andsay "we not that bad", it's not enough. It's when he not only avoids being a jerk but goes out of his way to be the best person thorughout the day that gets the days ging again. Of course, a nice story, but I liek the ilustration.

I don't agree - there's a big difference between someone who is self-centered, greedy, arrogant, and inconsiderate of others (ie lacking common human decency and goodness) and someone who actively goes out to harm others, is cruel, purposely inflicts pain on others, etc. IMO "evil" is active (involves doing, or causing to be done, heinous acts such as rape, murder, torture, etc.)

Ah, let's look at each of your characteristics here.

Self-centeredness - What makes this wrong (however you define the word)? You must answer this question with some form of "Well, because you ought to be x instead." For example, it is wrong because denies generosity (to use only one example). Again, we see that this is in fact a lack.

Greed - What makes this wrong? Same as above, because it is actually a lack of something that is right, namely, empathy for others. Lack of empathy is what we call greed.
Arrogance - What makes this wrong? Same as above, because it is actually of lack of something that is right, namely, humility. A lack of humility is what we call arrogance.
Inconsiderateness - What makes this wrong? Same as above, because it is actually a lack of something that is right, namely, kindness and respect. We call a person who lacks kindness and respect for others inconsiderate.

What about a murderer then? Clearly, they are "evil." I have no problem with that, but what makes it evil? Is it a thing in itself? I don't see how. Why is murder wrong? Give me all the reasons you want. Especially from your teleological ethics, you'll be forced to talk about effects. It is wrong because it takes away another person's life--it is, in essence, theft. But what makes that wrong? Ultimately, theft goes back to greed, which we say is actually a lack of empathy. If you go through the exercise of listing all the things that make up the wrongness of murder, you will actually find that all of them are privations of something that ought to be the case. In other words, it is not the presence of something that makes it wrong, but the action is wrong because it's nature is that it lacks something.

To prove the point, what, in the case of murder, is present in the action that cannot be reduced to a lack of a good attribute?

Yes, a long time ago in college philosophy. Probably no surprise to you, I lean toward the teleological.

No, it doesn't surprise me. It's the most common position taken today, I think. The problem is that no teleologist is really willing to accept it, I don't think. For example, I can justify American slavery under a teleological ethic. The action brought about a greater good for society as a whole, even though a few people had to suffer. But surely you would still say that it is wrong.

In short, teleology believes, ultimately, that the end justifies the means. If the means brings about pleasure, then it is good; if it brings about pain, then it is wrong. But we all can think of instances in which "wrong" things bring about apparently good results, but we still call them wrong. And we can all think of instances in which doing the right thing brings out negative consequences. So, if the end doesn't justify the means in ALL cases, then teleology cannot be a proper system of ethics.

That's why I support virtue ethics. In the end, that's what ALL of us appeal to anyway. We say a person ought to be a certain kind of person, even if being that kind of person doesn't bring out any particular good. You ought to be a generous, humble, courageous, respectful, loving, etc. person. It is true, of course, that if all of us behaved that way, then the end result would be pretty good! But it doesn't follow from that that the reason those traits are good is because of what they bring about in the end. I think we've already seen that is the case. So, we have to believe that those traits are good in and of themselves, regardless of what they do or don't bring about. But once we adopt that view, then everything I've been saying above comes fully back into focus. Murder is wrong because it lacks the virtues. Further, a virtuous person is not the kind of person who commits murder by definition.

It is sad, I think, that we've lost virtue ethics in our culture. That system is the only one, I think, that can solve most of the social problems we see in the world today. And better still, you don't have to be religious to adopt it. Aristotle was hardly a theist, and he was a virtue ethicist.

So, you have two challenges before you to maintain your argument that evil is a thing in itself that God (must have) created:

1. Using the example of murder, list any attribute present in the action itself that cannot be reduced to a lack of an ought;
2. Explain how a non-virtuous ethic (i.e., teleology) can consistently account for attributes that are desirable in and of amd for themselves.

Sorry lost track of this one... so where were we? Oh yeah, evil... existence/nonexistence, created/not created.

1. Only things can be created;
2. Evil is not a thing;
3. Therefore, evil cannot be created.

Excellent point which is what I was hoping would come out of my previous post. I'll spare everyone the torture of quoting it.
So based upon that sentiment do we have:
1. Only things can be created;
2. Good is not a thing;
3. Therefore, good cannot be created.
hmmm????

I'm really not trying to be a smart butt. I think there has been some good discussion here, I just wonder if we're sharing context. While light/dark, heat/cold, full/empty are good analogies, I don't feel they really capture the essence of the discussion, because it's too easy to relate to them in a physical or material sense. What about wise and foolish or love and hate?

And, sorry nd925, saying that God created the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, is not the same as saying that God created good and evil.

So, you have two challenges before you to maintain your argument that evil is a thing in itself that God (must have) created:

1. Using the example of murder, list any attribute present in the action itself that cannot be reduced to a lack of an ought;

First off, I never said "evil is a thing in itself that God (must have) created" - I said that evil is active, it's not the lack of something. I suspect you are looking for an answer such as "hate", which I expect you will then claim to be "an absence of love" or something similar. Hate is not the lack of love (nor of anything else), it is far more. If I am misinterpreting your question, please forgive my assumption and please clarify the question.

Let me put the question back on you - denial of what "ought(s)" (as you used the term above) will directly result in the intentional death of another (ie in murder)? Murder doesn't result from a "lack", it requires an action; pulling a trigger, stabbing, strangling, etc.

2. Explain how a non-virtuous ethic (i.e., teleology) can consistently account for attributes that are desirable in and of amd for themselves.

What does this have to do with the definition of "evil"? You asked a question unrelated to the issue at hand which I took to be a point of interest. I thought you were asking if I was familiar with teleological and deontological ethics. I answered it as such.

warhoop, If saying that God created the tree of Knowledge of good and evil is not the same as God creating good and evil then what does it say? He created a tree of knowledge of good, but let someone else create the evil part of it? That would put His sovereignty in question. In not being a wise guy so please don't take it that way, I'm just interested to know what that verse means to you.

First off, I never said "evil is a thing in itself that God (must have) created" - I said that evil is active, it's not the lack of something. I suspect you are looking for an answer such as "hate", which I expect you will then claim to be "an absence of love" or something similar. Hate is not the lack of love (nor of anything else), it is far more. If I am misinterpreting your question, please forgive my assumption and please clarify the question.

But hate is not "far more" than a lack of love. It actually really is nothing more than an absence of love (properly defined). Love isn't a warm and fuzzy feeling. It is the thing that desires what is best for its object. A parent who does not discipline his child can be properly said to hate her.

Evil, then, is no more active than darkness. What is active are actions. And actions are performed based on virtues or based on a lack of virtues. Murder is based on such vices as hatred and cruelty. What makes the action murder evil is precisely the fact that it is an expression of hatred and cruelty. But what, then, makes hatred and cruelty wrong? They are wrong because they are imperfections, where hatred is an absence of love, and cruelty is an absence of kindness.

Let me put the question back on you - denial of what "ought(s)" (as you used the term above) will directly result in the intentional death of another (ie in murder)? Murder doesn't result from a "lack", it requires an action; pulling a trigger, stabbing, strangling, etc.

As I said above, murder is an action that expresses an absence of of love and kindness, which are things that ought to be done/practiced.

What does this have to do with the definition of "evil"? You asked a question unrelated to the issue at hand which I took to be a point of interest. I thought you were asking if I was familiar with teleological and deontological ethics. I answered it as such.

I think it has everything to do with the subject at hand. If you can't give a self-consistent teleological ethic (and I think I demonstrated that you can't), then teleology cannot be defined as a proper, or at least complete, ethical system. That means you must appeal to something else to explain things that are right and wrong, which I contend you do, and, ultimately, you will appeal to the virtues. Take slavery, for instance. Why was and is it wrong? It certainly benefited the American economy. Answer: because it fundamentally disrespects human life (see that denial of a virtue there?).

If, then, you concede that ethics are ultimately defined in terms of virtues rather than means justified by ends, then you must concede my entire point. What God created were the virtues. He didn't create cruelty or greed. He created kindness and generosity. Cruelty and greed are words we attribute to people who are not kind and not generous. Thus, my point is proven (again). God didn't create evil. He created the virtues (to put it loosely--strictly, they are rather an expression of His nature, but that's another discussion). By creating the virtues, He made it possible for people to lack them, so just as by creating the Light He effectively "created" Darkness--and yet we would never say God created darkness precisely because darkness is not a thing--so likewise by creating Good God effectively "created" Evil, though we would never put it that way as Evil proves not to be a proper thing.

A different tack, if you will since the discussion seems to have centered on virtues. And if I may clarify, we are using the word virtue as a general descriptor of moral excellence, not necessarily speaking about cardinal or theological virtues and that the virtues or moral excellences are imparted by God and could thus be properly said to be traits or characteristics of God. So being creatures of God, in that we are made in his image, we inherit traits of God. I submit that it only because we have received some of God's traits that we are able to discern good from evil, love from hate, etc. Thus, I have the virtue of love within me, at this point setting aside any Fall of Man or salvational related issues that you may have with that statement. My point is that that love as an initial inheritance, will always be there, but how I handle that love can define the end result and thus bring about hate.

To quote Jac:

A parent who does not discipline his child can be properly said to hate her.

I don't believe this parent hates their child per se, but they have corrupted, debased, or perverted the virtue of love and brought about hate. Consider a stalker who murders the object of their affection.

God gave us good, it's our corruption of that gift that brought about evil.

warhoop wrote:To quote Jac:

A parent who does not discipline his child can be properly said to hate her.

I don't believe this parent hates their child per se, but they have corrupted, debased, or perverted the virtue of love and brought about hate. Consider a stalker who murders the object of their affection.

God gave us good, it's our corruption of that gift that brought about evil.

Well . . . there is this verse . . .

• He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. (Pro. 13:24, KJV)
  
  He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him (NIV)

Love is an action, not really a feeling. Hate is the absence of love. If I do not discipline my child, I am not loving them, and to not love them is to hate them. All this goes directly to the OP

cslewislover wrote:It's amazing how this same question keeps popping up over and over again. I wonder how many threads are devoted to it?

I agree. It isn't a difficult thing to comprehend that people seek evil, God doesn't create it.

God may not create evil, but he certainly allows it to happen. It could be argued that allowing evil is evil itself.
If I see a child playing in the street and a car about to hit the child and do nothing, is it evil of me to allow the
child to be hit?

rare96ws6 wrote:God may not create evil, but he certainly allows it to happen. It could be argued that allowing evil is evil itself.
If I see a child playing in the street and a car about to hit the child and do nothing, is it evil of me to allow the
child to be hit?

Perhaps the child is hit, is crippled, but doesn't die. She uses this awful experience to become a great advocate for the disabled and affect laws that help millions. Who are you to stop her (by attempting to save her)?

Evil is not a thing to be allowed or not allowed. It is a direct consequence of having a choice, without which we might as well be mindless robots.

Byblos wrote:

rare96ws6 wrote:God may not create evil, but he certainly allows it to happen. It could be argued that allowing evil is evil itself.
If I see a child playing in the street and a car about to hit the child and do nothing, is it evil of me to allow the
child to be hit?

Perhaps the child is hit, is crippled, but doesn't die. She uses this awful experience to become a great advocate for the disabled and affect laws that help millions. Who are you to stop her (by attempting to save her)?

Evil is not a thing to be allowed or not allowed. It is a direct consequence of having a choice, without which we might as well be mindless robots.

We don't need one of the choices to be evil. Both choices could be good. We would not be robots just becasue one of our choices is not an evil one. There doesn't seem to be a reason for the existence of evil, but God created evil as a choice for us, so there must be some reason.

rare96ws6 wrote:We don't need one of the choices to be evil. Both choices could be good. We would not be robots just becasue one of our choices is not an evil one. There doesn't seem to be a reason fof the existence of evil, but God created evil as a choice for us, so there must be some reason.

Eze 28:14-17 - "You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 "You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you.

"16 "By the abundance of your trade You were internally filled with violence, And you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane From the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the stones of fire.

"17 "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I put you before kings, That they may see you..." NASB

Question: Did God create evil or was it found within someone long ago?

There is a tendancy for some to say that since God created beings, he therefore created evil because some beings are evil but if the exil was found within them - then how could God be charged with creating it? Sin is the creatures own doing.

Another Question: Can God shape, form, calamities for corrective and judgment purposes and even use evil against itself - exposing it for what it is and does?

From this, ones choice made manifest...

Romans 3:5, 6 - "But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?" NKJV

Ecc 3:1 - "To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven..." NKJV
-
-
-

rare96ws6 wrote: We don't need one of the choices to be evil. Both choices could be good. We would not be robots just becasue one of our choices is not an evil one. There doesn't seem to be a reason fof the existence of evil, but God created evil as a choice for us, so there must be some reason.

Ok, please define what is a good choice, in the absence of a bad choice.

Byblos wrote:

rare96ws6 wrote: We don't need one of the choices to be evil. Both choices could be good. We would not be robots just becasue one of our choices is not an evil one. There doesn't seem to be a reason fof the existence of evil, but God created evil as a choice for us, so there must be some reason.

Ok, please define what is a good choice, in the absence of a bad choice.

Choosing between a sphere and a block to play Rollie-Pollie.

(when I was very young, one of my favorite games to play with my grandma was what we called, "Rollie-Pollie". Each person sits on the floor with their legs spread open in a V-shape and a ball is passed between each person rolling it on the floor back and forth. Great fun.)

Choosing the sphere is the best choice while the block is still a good choice, it just isn't the right choice for Rollie-Pollie.
The game's name would need to change to "Slidie-Slyde"
.
.