Evidence for God from Science

ryanbouma wrote:Thank you so much for that reply Jac. I'm going to let that soak in and give it thought, but I believe I can get on board with that explanation. Because its a simpler explanation than mine, its preferred. And thank you for not trying to trivialize suffering. I agree that this tactic really turns off the skeptic. And in my experience, it is the Problem of Evil that keeps people skeptical more than anything I'm aware of.

I completely agree that that PoE is at the heart of most skepticism. I think all of us, Christian and atheist alike, believe what we do in large part because we want to. I say that to people all the time and get furious objections to it. No, no, I'm told, we believe because of the evidence! What we want to believe doesn't have any value in determining truth!

If we lived in an emotionless world, that type of thing might be true. But Dr. Spock, none of us are, and when we treat others as if they ought to be Dr. Spock in order to see and accept truth, we do more harm than good. Where I live, there was a very young boy who was critically injured during Hurricane Sandy -- a tree fell on his head -- and he is still in the hospital recovering. When you tell his parents, "I'm really sorry about what happened to you. That was so unfortunate. It wasn't evil, mind you, and nor is his or your present suffering. No, it isn't evil -- it's just unfortunate," then not only do you show yourself to be a heartless jerk, but you run the risk of (as you put it) trivializing that suffering, and in doing so, you neither take them nor God seriously. And if they doubt God due to that suffering, then your answer will push them away long before it draws them in.

That would be true, by the way, even if you could successfully argue that suffering isn't evil. Again, I don't think that you can do that. Suffering is evil. But say it isn't. Say you can account for our intuitions to the contrary and build a case that it's just unfortunate. You still wouldn't want to go down that road as an apologist, because the whole reason the PoE turns people from God is that it makes them angry. I don't care how easily you can show such anger to be unjustified. The fact is, people say, "That's just disgusting. Why would you even want to believe that?" And when you try to tell them that, then you just harden them in their position. "Oh," they say, "So your god not only doesn't care or can't stop suffering, but he doesn't even think it's evil?!? No WONDER your god doesn't care--HE is evil."

You can't argue with that. I can show (theoretically) why they are being illogical, but the more I do, the more I harden them in their error. It might make me, the apologist, feel great. I've just won another debate with a wicked atheist. But look at what it has cost me. My lack of compassion has just contributed to the death of a soul, and there's nothing acceptable about that.

But, of course, all of that is moot when the fact is that, theologically and philosophically speaking, natural evil DOES exist and suffering IS evil. So now, we're not only being cold-hearted jerks when we tell the suffering that they aren't going through evil, but to top it off, we're speaking falsely about God and driving people away from Him by giving trite answers. Yeah, good job we're doing there.

PaulSacramento wrote:Define evil.
Now have a atheist or skeptic define evil.
e·vil
/ˈēvəl/
Adjective
Profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Noun
Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.

or:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

Personally always find the definition that some skeptics TRY to use very interesting when dealing with "natural evil":
Obviously they can;'t use the standard "moral/immoral" view since nature has no morals.
SO they try the:

2. causing harm or injury; harmful: an evil plan
3. marked or accompanied by misfortune; unlucky: an evil fate

Yet, under the correct context of how evil is use in those definitions, are harm, injury, misfortune truly evil?

I mean, do we call a tornado evil? do we call an earthquake evil?

The tornado isn't evil. The suffering caused by the tornado is evil. You make a mistake in defining evil as only something that is immoral. That's not true. Look at these two sentence:

• Immorality is evil;
  Evil is immoral

Are these saying the same thing? Are they identical? Are both true? The answer in all cases is, "No." The first is true. The second is not. Immorality is a subset of evil. That is, all things immoral are also evil things. It is not true that all things evil are also immoral.

Strictly, evil is the absence of good, and "good" is not a moral term (contrary to popular opinion). Let me give a VERY brief and simplified explanation of this. Something is "good" to the extent it exists as it is supposed to. Draw a circle freehand with a broken crayon on crumpled paper, and then use a computer program to draw one. Which one will be better ("gooder" -- "more good")? Obvious the latter, because it contains fewer flaws. It exemplifies better what a circle is by nature. Each flaw deprives the instance of part of what it means to be a circle, and those deprivations are evil. So it is good for the eye to see; blindness is a privation of what they eye is supposed to do by nature. The human mind is rational by nature, so reasoning is good; mental breakdowns and physical deformities that prevent one from developing their mental capacities are deprivations of the human mind. All such deprivations are called evil.

Moral evil is no different. It is good to be kind, because the human nature is so constituted that behavior we describe as kind is that which what we are supposed to do, and were it not for the Fall, we would be kind. To do something unkind is to commit an act deprived of kindness, and therefore, the act is evil to the degree that it lacks kindness (in this example -- there are other examples of moral evil, obviously). So what the Boston bombers did was evil because they weren't supposed to do that.

When you get deeper into this, you find that shy of a divine command theory, this the only way to consistently understand the whole notion of moral good and moral evil. And I would STRONGLY advise you to stay away from divine command theory, as you'll get impaled by Euthyphro if you hold to it. Apologists like to respond to that particular argument by just saying that God's nature is just goodness--that is, what we call good is just that which is in accordance with His nature. And that is true, but again, when you flesh that out, you find that you are really just saying what I've just said about good and evil above in different words.

Again, this gets very deep, and to have a proper understanding of this, we need a proper theory of goodness, which means we need to have a proper theory of transcendentals (Good, True, Being, etc. -- these are all words that describe the same thing in different ways). The tl;dr here is that your mistake is to identify evil with immoral. That isn't the case. All immoral things are evil, because all immoral things are immoral because they are deprived of goodness. But not all evil things are immoral, because "moral" only refers to the acts of a rational being, and not all privations are privations in rational beings. Suffering is just such an example. Suffering, then, is evil in the proper sense of the word. It is a privation of goodness, which is the very definition of evil, which is why, in the New Creation, there will be no suffering, for in that Creation, there will be no privation of goodness, since God--which is Goodness Itself--will fill everything and everything and everything will be in Him finally and perfectly.

So, if I am reading correctly:
Evil is anything that causes suffering?

PaulSacramento wrote:So, if I am reading correctly:
Evil is anything that causes suffering?

I think Jac is saying* that the suffering is the evil.

*Jac, I'm not trying to speak for you. I'm just trying to understand your pov.

PaulSacramento wrote:So, if I am reading correctly:
Evil is anything that causes suffering?

You are not reading me correctly. As Rick said correctly, generally speaking, I am saying that the suffering is evil, not the cause of the suffering. Allow me to explain just a bit more.

Again, evil is, by definition, the privation of good. Some privations cause suffering (if my eye is deprived of sight, that causes suffering). Some privations do not (a poorly drawn circle does not). That's why the very first thing I said to you was that tornado's aren't evil. The suffering they cause is evil.

Obviously, Ryan's question wasn't about all kinds of evil. No atheist argues against God's existence because some circles are deprived of that which makes them circles. He's asking about those things that cause deprivations is us. So I get sick and, as a consequence, I go blind. I have suffered a natural evil, because now, my eye has been deprived of its basic good, that is, it's ability to see. Not being able to see certainly causes suffering!

If you want to be even more technical, we can say that the suffering is not evil, but rather suffering is the word we use to describe our reaction to the deprivation of some good (which is to say, our reaction to the evil we are suffering from), and the more essential the good, the greater the suffering. So, again, I suffer when I go blind, such that blindness is the evil. As such, I say, "I am suffering the evil of blindness." But at that point, I think we're just being pedantic. "Suffering in and of itself is not evil; rather, we suffer evils," might be more philosophically stringent, but frankly, it doesn't change my response to the issue or the OP generally. When someone says, "I've gone blind. Why would God let this evil happen to me?" he doesn't care whether the evil is found in the verb "suffering" or the noun "blindness" ("I am suffering blindness"). The point is the same--blindness really is evil--and to try to put the evil in the right "place" is neither here nor there. In either case, what is wrong is to say that the blindness isn't really evil in the first place; that is, it is wrong to challenge his basic premise that he blindness is a natural evil and to try to figure out where a good and perfect God fits into that.

And that takes us back to the OP. Why did God create a world in which we can or must suffer such evils in the first place? We can be trivial and redefine "evil" to suit our own theological presuppositions, denying that evil so exists, or we can be proper and honest and say that such a world is just logically necessary if it is to have the function that it does, namely, provide an environment in which mankind can make rational, wise, and moral choices.

So, if suffering is evil does that mean that NO good can come from suffering? or that, if some suffering brings forth good that suffering is no longer evil?

Paul,
Surely you can figure out the basics of how Jac will respond based on the philosphical groundwork already laid.

What you are really speaking to is the reality of redemption. Did God really take evil beings and make them Holy?
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

I can think of many personal testimonies how the suffering or disease was worked (redeemed) towards a good end.

jlay wrote:Paul,
Surely you can figure out the basics of how Jac will respond based on the philosphical groundwork already laid.

What you are really speaking to is the reality of redemption. Did God really take evil beings and make them Holy?
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

I can think of many personal testimonies how the suffering or disease was worked (redeemed) towards a good end.

What I am trying to do is address the issue of why we use the term "evil".
I disagree that we can use it to describe an act that is not intentional or an act that is done without knowledge of its consequences.
I don't think that the quality of "evil" can be applies to an even that has no moral implication for the "active force" involved.
A hurricane that destroys a town is not evil, there is no evil in 150mph winds.
The consequences of such an event may cause suffering but I don't think we can use suffering as a barometer for something being evil.
I don't think that we can use anything BUT a moral understanding of right and wrong, good and bad, to define something as evil.

PaulSacramento wrote:

jlay wrote:Paul,
Surely you can figure out the basics of how Jac will respond based on the philosphical groundwork already laid.

What you are really speaking to is the reality of redemption. Did God really take evil beings and make them Holy?
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

I can think of many personal testimonies how the suffering or disease was worked (redeemed) towards a good end.

What I am trying to do is address the issue of why we use the term "evil".
I disagree that we can use it to describe an act that is not intentional or an act that is done without knowledge of its consequences.
I don't think that the quality of "evil" can be applies to an even that has no moral implication for the "active force" involved.
A hurricane that destroys a town is not evil, there is no evil in 150mph winds.
The consequences of such an event may cause suffering but I don't think we can use suffering as a barometer for something being evil.
I don't think that we can use anything BUT a moral understanding of right and wrong, good and bad, to define something as evil.

Paul, I think this Wikipedia explanation may help you understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

PaulSacramento wrote:What I am trying to do is address the issue of why we use the term "evil".
I disagree that we can use it to describe an act that is not intentional or an act that is done without knowledge of its consequences.
I don't think that the quality of "evil" can be applies to an even that has no moral implication for the "active force" involved.
A hurricane that destroys a town is not evil, there is no evil in 150mph winds.
The consequences of such an event may cause suffering but I don't think we can use suffering as a barometer for something being evil.
I don't think that we can use anything BUT a moral understanding of right and wrong, good and bad, to define something as evil.

That's because we don't have agreement on the more fundamental issue of what "good" means. If you understood that term, then everything else would fall into place much more easily. So why don't you tell me what you think "good" is?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

jlay wrote:Paul,
Surely you can figure out the basics of how Jac will respond based on the philosphical groundwork already laid.

What you are really speaking to is the reality of redemption. Did God really take evil beings and make them Holy?
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

I can think of many personal testimonies how the suffering or disease was worked (redeemed) towards a good end.

What I am trying to do is address the issue of why we use the term "evil".
I disagree that we can use it to describe an act that is not intentional or an act that is done without knowledge of its consequences.
I don't think that the quality of "evil" can be applies to an even that has no moral implication for the "active force" involved.
A hurricane that destroys a town is not evil, there is no evil in 150mph winds.
The consequences of such an event may cause suffering but I don't think we can use suffering as a barometer for something being evil.
I don't think that we can use anything BUT a moral understanding of right and wrong, good and bad, to define something as evil.

Paul, I think this Wikipedia explanation may help you understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

From that link:

Nature of natural evil

Moral evil results from a perpetrator, or one who acts intentionally and in so doing has flouted some duty or engaged in some vice. Natural evil has only victims, and is generally taken to be the result of natural processes. The "evil" thus identified is evil only from the perspective of those affected and who perceive it as an affliction. Examples include cancer, birth defects, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, acts of god, and other phenomena which inflict suffering with apparently no accompanying mitigating good. Such phenomena inflict "evil" on victims with no perpetrator to blame.

To me the key point is:
The "evil" thus identified is evil only from the perspective of those affected and who perceive it as an affliction.

That makes natural "evil" totally subjective.

Jac3510 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:What I am trying to do is address the issue of why we use the term "evil".
I disagree that we can use it to describe an act that is not intentional or an act that is done without knowledge of its consequences.
I don't think that the quality of "evil" can be applies to an even that has no moral implication for the "active force" involved.
A hurricane that destroys a town is not evil, there is no evil in 150mph winds.
The consequences of such an event may cause suffering but I don't think we can use suffering as a barometer for something being evil.
I don't think that we can use anything BUT a moral understanding of right and wrong, good and bad, to define something as evil.

That's because we don't have agreement on the more fundamental issue of what "good" means. If you understood that term, then everything else would fall into place much more easily. So why don't you tell me what you think "good" is?

"Good" in what aspect?

PaulS wrote:
The "evil" thus identified is evil only from the perspective of those affected and who perceive it as an affliction.

That makes natural "evil" totally subjective.

So, if Mufasa Mandinka kills one of his own tribe in cold blood, in the middle of Zimbabwe, and it doesn't effect me at all, that makes moral evil subjective?

PaulSacramento wrote:"Good" in what aspect?

Any aspect. Take your pick. It all leads to the same place.

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
The "evil" thus identified is evil only from the perspective of those affected and who perceive it as an affliction.

That makes natural "evil" totally subjective.

So, if Mufasa Mandinka kills one of his own tribe in cold blood, in the middle of Zimbabwe, and it doesn't effect me at all, that makes moral evil subjective?

AH, see moral evil is NOT subjective ( although some can argue that it is), but is a hurricane that kills NO one still "natural evil'?
If you say no then yes, natural evil is subjective, if you say yes, HOW does a natural event that kills no one and causes no suffering, evil?

This is why I disagree with the whole notion of "natural evil", to me it just doesn't make any sense to categorize a natural occurring even that HAPPENS to cause suffering at that time, as "evil".
We seem to be putting human qualities and notion into non-human events.
I can understand the use of Bad and good because we are describing the effects of something like a hurricane or EQ, but evil?
IMO, that just doesn't add up.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
The "evil" thus identified is evil only from the perspective of those affected and who perceive it as an affliction.

That makes natural "evil" totally subjective.

So, if Mufasa Mandinka kills one of his own tribe in cold blood, in the middle of Zimbabwe, and it doesn't effect me at all, that makes moral evil subjective?

AH, see moral evil is NOT subjective ( although some can argue that it is), but is a hurricane that kills NO one still "natural evil'?
If you say no then yes, natural evil is subjective, if you say yes, HOW does a natural event that kills no one and causes no suffering, evil?

This is why I disagree with the whole notion of "natural evil", to me it just doesn't make any sense to categorize a natural occurring even that HAPPENS to cause suffering at that time, as "evil".
We seem to be putting human qualities and notion into non-human events.
I can understand the use of Bad and good because we are describing the effects of something like a hurricane or EQ, but evil?
IMO, that just doesn't add up.

Paul, it's called Natural "evil" because by definition, evil can mean:

: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

And things that are listed as natural evils, usually bring sorrow, distress, or calamity.
Just contrast "moral evil" with "natural evil". You'll see the difference.

Whatever you choose to call it besides natural evil, it still has the same effects.