So we’re back to the series asking the question of if there is a God. I started this series off with an nontraditional merging of the problem of evil and problem of divine hiddeness, so this time we’ll be moving on to my take on the more general problem of evil. I should note that none of these issues that I have dealt with so far, or will any time soon resulted in my deconversion, however they have helped solidify my atheistic stance.
Let’s start with a great quote from 2300 years ago:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
-Epicurus
For the sake of this discussion we need to narrow down evil to only covering that which causes human suffering. For some examples from the last decade, there was the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (2001), the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004), Hurricane Katrina (2005), and the Hatain earthquake (2010). Few westerners, whether believers or not, would have any trouble calling the September 11, 2001 terrorist acts as being evil, but on the grand scale of things that attack directly caused a very small fraction of the suffering of any of the other events I mentioned.
Conservative Christians, at least those who believe in a literal creation, have a view that the earth was perfect when it was created and has since ceased to be so. According to this view, human sin is the cause of all evil, which would necessarily have to include natural disasters. Those who hold that view also hold the view that God is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. Thus God should be able to identify what will cause human suffering, want to prevent it, and be able to prevent it.
Liberal Christians often hold most scientific views about the origin of the universe on life on this planet, yet still hold on to the view of an all knowing, all loving, and all powerful God who for some reason uses horribly cruel methods of creation, such as natural selection, and allowed life to develop on a planet full of natural disasters.
All of that being said, let’s focus on the here and now so as to not get bogged down in the historical details. Shouldn’t an all loving, all knowing, and all powerful God want to limit human suffering?
Let’s look at a human analogy. Let’s say that President Obama received overwhelming and very specific information that Al Queda operatives where going to simultaneously blow all of the Columbia river dams. The result would be the flooding of such cities as The Dalles, Hood River, Portland, Vancouver, Kelso, and Longview, just to name a few. This could potentially kill millions and the devastation would be astounding. On a much smaller scale this would also cause food shortages due to the loss of irrigation and would result in mass, long term power outages across much of the Western US.
If he saw this and knew who the operatives were, where they were, and the exact time and method of attack, but did nothing I would think we would be justified him calling him evil and remove him from office.
What if he had a deal with one of the terrorists that if he allowed this attack that he would be given the information needed to completely dismantle Al Queda? Would the good of destroying Al Queda be worth the destruction of Portland and the mass suffering that would follow?
Now let’s look at the Cascadia Fault, it runs along the coast from Northern California to Vancouver Island in Canada. Every 400 or so years this fault ruptures from one end to the other creating a magnitude 9 earthquake lasting several minutes in each spot and spanning a good 700 miles resulting in a total of about 45 minutes of shaking. Seattle, Portland, and the other cities on the I-5 corridor would be left in ruins. The towns on the Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and BC coasts would be washed to sea. The resulting tsunami would devastate shorelines from Alaska to Thailand and everything in between. The destruction from this event and the widespread suffering that would follow would make the hypothetical Al Queda attack above look minor by comparison.
If we would be justified to call Obama evil if he didn’t prevent an Al Queda attack on the Columbia River dams, then wouldn’t we be justified for calling God evil for not preventing the Cascadian earthquake?
Permalink
If I were your Aunt and read this I think I would disown you:)
I think the problem of evil is a religion killer.
Permalink
The next family reunion will be interesting for sure.
The only ways it isn't a religion killer are to go the following routes:
God isn't omnipotent (Kushner)
God isn't omniscient (Rice)
God isn't all loving (Calvin)
There aren't natural disasters (Plantinga)
NA NA NA, I can't hear you (Most people)
I keep hoping someone will present a good theodicy.
Permalink
As a believer in God, I believe that we live in a sinful world that is not perfect. Sometimes bad things happen to good, innocent people for no reason. This is the cost of living in such a sinful world. I know that this may seem like a lame excuse to get around messy facts to you, but it is what I have come to believe. I don't require that God explain to me every action, or inaction he takes.
Permalink
But it was once perfect, right? How did that change?
Permalink
It was. It changed when Adam and Eve made the choice to sin, now the world that we live in is the consequence of their sin. But i'm sure you already knew that.
Permalink
If God was so smart, why did he let Adam and Eve sin? If God knows all he knew that they would sin so he actually set them up for the fall.
Permalink
David,
I didn't ask why, that's simple, someone ate the wrong fruit. How did that change everything? Was that fruit have such incredible magical power that it created ocean currents and fault lines?
Permalink
I can't pretend to know everything about how this earth, or even this universe operates. So I can't say how that event changed everything. Just like I can't say how someone came up with the idea of using 1's and 0's to store vast amounts of data. As far as why God let Adam and Eve sin, it has nothing to do with Adam and Eve tricking God, or God setting them up to fail. God respects more than anything our freedom of choice. It was their choice to eat the fruit.
Permalink
So pretty much, you have no response to my questions.
Permalink
David,
So setting up a tree that destroys quality of life for every person after isn't a cruel thing to do? I didn't chow down on any magic fruit; why do I have to suffer for it? And why on earth would a god punish subjects that he loves for seeking knowledge? Doesn't that mean your god encourages ignorance? And doesn't letting bad things happen to innocent people when something can be done about it look kind of sadistic to you?
Permalink
Dustin: No I don't have an answer for your question, but my ignorance should not serve as proof, or disproof of your point of view.
Anonymous: It's not like God was tempting Adam and Eve. He was the one that told them NOT to eat that fruit. Satan was the one who convinced them to disregard God's instructions. It's not that God encourages ignorance, it's that He didn't want us to experience the pain of knowing what sin is. If God were to have stamped out sin the moment that it started, he would be sending the message of "do what I tell you or I will destroy you" not "I value your freedom of choice". By allowing sin to take it's course, and go on so long, God is demonstrating to the rest of the universe what a terrible thing sin is. No I don't think it is sadistic because for those who accept salvation, they will receive eternal life even if they are one of the innocent people suffering. A short, painful life here is nothing compared to living for eternity with God.
Permalink
"Anonymous: It's not like God was tempting Adam and Eve."
Push button, receive greater knowledge, doom all future generations to live in comparative wretchedness. That's what we're dealing with here. What kind of asshole does this in a room full of what is, to them, infants?
"He was the one that told them NOT to eat that fruit."
Why even put it there unless it's to be used? Placing the fruit there was temptation, saying not to eat it might as well have been reverse psychology. At very least, it was installing an irresponsible hazard.a
"Satan was the one who convinced them to disregard God's instructions."
And I think Satan convinced them to do a reasonable thing; call god on his sadism.
"It's not that God encourages ignorance, it's that He didn't want us to experience the pain of knowing what sin is."
Knowing sin does not mean engaging in sin. Why create a being that would be forced to engage in sin once understanding it? Why create sin? Why create a mechanism by which generations will suffer for curiosity? Again, your bible paints the picture of a sadistic being.
"If God were to have stamped out sin the moment that it started, he would be sending the message of "do what I tell you or I will destroy you" not "I value your freedom of choice"."
Why create sin then? Why create a horrible consequence for understanding sin? Why make the consequences apply to every single person after? Your god decided to do all of these things.
"By allowing sin to take it's course, and go on so long, God is demonstrating to the rest of the universe what a terrible thing sin is."
So in other words, he's going to create the possibility for a horrific existence, let people live through it, and say 'hey, look at this nasty thing I created that all of you have to live through now; I provided an option where none was necessary!' There was no necessity for evil; your god made a decision to create it.
""hmm let's see, as an available choice for these people I'm going to punish them for learning if they disobey me. Not only that, I'm going to make sure that everyone after lives a short life that is comparatively wretched to the one available now." I mean why install a "rape human existence" button in reality, and then label it as 'a better understanding of life'."
Is it then permissible for philanthropists rape orphaned children, so long as they give them a good life after? What if they phrase it as, "you were required to be raped so that I could give you a better life." An omnipotent god has no obligation to even open up the option make anyone live short, nasty wretched lives. An omnipotent god could've created an ideal utopia that was fulfilling to those inside of it in every single way, but this option was not taken.
What a disgusting thing you believe in. I have trouble thinking of you as an ethical person when you believe in such a monstrous being, and then call it benevolent. You really have some messed up ethics.
Permalink
David – I would agree that your ignorance is not a proof or disproof of my position, but I would like to challenge you to answer the question.
Anonymous – Play nice.
Permalink
As for all the dams on the mighty Columbia being blown to smithereens (with the acquiescence of god) would that not be beneficial for the salmon? And, are not salmon creatures created by a loving and glorious god? Therefore, it is good,in the eye(s)of god(s). grasshoppa
Permalink
I've been doing some research into your question, and cam upon this article. I know that it is not the scientific explanation that you are looking for, but it is the best explanation that I can offer you at the moment.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/939-natural-disasters-why-do-they-happen
I would also add, regarding the whole death thing, that in the Bible, Jesus says that the dead are only asleep. What we perceive as death, is only a nap to God.
Permalink
Grasshoppa – You might be on to something that in my scenerio Obama could be God's instrument in saving the salmon.
David – I was hoping you would bring up the flood. Aside from the fact that it is the least reasonable explanation for anything and that it doesn't answer my question, it actually adds to my conclusion. If all the sufferring today is a result of the flood, then it's not that God is allowing the suffering but is the direct cause. In the article you referenced, I would change to formula to God's intense and capricious wrath = natural disasters. In my human analogy change it to Obama personall blowing up all the Columbia dams in such an order that it maximizes the size of the devastating wall of water. Would we not be justified in calling the President evil in that situation?
Permalink
Sorry about the typo's in my last comment, I typed it on my Droid…
Permalink
That's more or less what I expected you would say. I guess it all depends on your perspective.
Permalink
I can't see how your defense could be viewed any different than God's response to human evil being much greater evil. Thus, if humans are evil, then God is even more so.
Permalink
I can't see how your defense could be viewed any different than God's response to human evil being much greater evil. Thus, if humans are evil, then God is even more so.
Permalink
David,
So setting up a tree that destroys quality of life for every person after isn't a cruel thing to do? I didn't chow down on any magic fruit; why do I have to suffer for it? And why on earth would a god punish subjects that he loves for seeking knowledge? Doesn't that mean your god encourages ignorance? And doesn't letting bad things happen to innocent people when something can be done about it look kind of sadistic to you?