Evil is a Problem for Atheism

19 Responses

  1. There is no such thing as evil. That would require libertarian free will, which does not exist.

    Moral nihilism is just the truth. Even if it were false, that doesn’t change the fact that people are raped, tortured, work crappy jobs, are exploited. So what exactly is the difference between a world where moral nihilism is true and moral realism is true, if the same crap happens in both worlds?

    Instead of wasting time labeling things as ‘evil’, if you care about reducing suffering…go out and reduce it instead of defending Catholicism, which hurts people incredibly with its teachings on sexuality and Hell.

    • John DeRosa says:

      Raphael,

      You make a lot of unsupported assertions. I don’t deny you have evidence and reasons behind what you say, but I would like to here them. Preferably the ones most relevant to the post you are commenting on.

      However, I see you are willing to “bite the bullet” of moral nihilism, which I explain in the post is indeed consistent with your atheism.

      Re: So what exactly is the difference between a world where moral nihilism is true and moral realism is true, if the same crap happens in both worlds?

      Well, many would argue (as I suggest in the post) that a world where moral realism is true entails a theistic world.

      • What bullet have I bitten? Moral nihilism doesn’t mean I don’t care about suffering, and moral realism doesn’t change the fact that there is suffering. I have no emotional difficulty whatsoever in affirming moral nihilism.

        “a world where moral realism is true entails a theistic world.”

        And that theistic world is still a world where rape and murder exists.

        • “Even if there were a god, it wouldn’t matter.” -Albert Camus

        • John DeRosa says:

          Raphael,

          Re: “What bullet have I bitten?”

          Perhaps you don’t consider it a bullet. If moral nihilism is true, then it’s not a fact that, for example, raping children for fun is wrong. Most people think this is a fact (i.e. not just a matter of opinion or consensus). But you don’t? Right?

          Also, do you agree with that statement from Camus? If so, what does he mean? If there is a God, then that seems to be of ultimate importance.

  2. “Most people think this is a fact…” Then they haven’t really considered the issue. What does it even mean to say “rape is wrong”? It still occurs anyway. Where was moral realism when the child was raped? Where mas moral realism when the Jews were being thrown into gas chambers? Where was moral realism when Adam ate the fruit? Where was moral realism when blacks were kept as slaves?

    Moral realism is a let-down. It labels things as evil, but so what? They still happen. In what sense is X wrong if X still occurs? At least moral nihilism doesn’t make promises.

    So go ahead and try to make me look sick for not believing in morality. You’ll fail. Moral nihilism is not incompatible with caring for the suffering of others. I could flip that around and say you’re sick for worshiping a God who allows children to be raped for fun.

    “If so, what does he mean?” If there is a god, so what? There is still slavery, exploitation, animal abuse, rape, torture, genocide, war, disease, cancer, etc. So a god makes no practical difference from no god at all.

    • John DeRosa says:

      Raphael,

      Re: “So go ahead and try to make me look sick for not believing in morality. You’ll fail.”

      This is not my intention. I don’t think you’re sick.

      Re: “If there is a god, so what? There is still slavery, exploitation, animal abuse, rape, torture, genocide, war, disease, cancer, etc. So a god makes no practical difference from no god at all.”

      This begs the question. Assuming atheism or some form of deism is true, there are still tons of evils and God makes no practical difference. However, if Christianity is true, then even the greatest evils will be overshadowed and outstripped by God’s goodness in the long run.

      One purpose of this post was to show the difficulty of affirming moral realism and atheism simultaneously. Since you affirm moral nihilism, this point does not count against your worldview. There are many people who do not affirm moral nihilism, and this is a relevant point for them.

      I appreciate you taking the time to visit and comment on my website.
      Peace,
      John D.

      • “then even the greatest evils will be overshadowed and outstripped by God’s goodness in the long run.”

        How? ‘Evil’ will not be undone. And is it really okay to allow evil (when you could easily prevent it) just because you will “overshadow it” (whatever the heck that means) later on? “Oh, daughter, I will let you raped, but I’ll give you a nice house and an ice cream later on…even though I could do that now instead.”

        And you’re ignoring the evil committed by your Deity: torturing people forever. Compared to torturing someone forever, raping someone for fun is almost nothing.

        • John DeRosa says:

          Raphael,

          Re: How? ‘Evil’ will not be undone. And is it really okay to allow evil (when you could easily prevent it) just because you will “overshadow it” (whatever the heck that means) later on? “Oh, daughter, I will let you raped, but I’ll give you a nice house and an ice cream later on…even though I could do that now instead.”

          One main problem with this approach is that it puts God on our level, as if he is just one more human alongside us but with greater superpowers. That is not the view of classical theistic thinkers. So, you cannot simply judge God as if you were judging just one more human moral agent. You can attempt to, but inasmuch as the judgment rests on a false view of God, it will not prove successful. I know you’re familiar with Dr. Feser. See this article of his of a brief rundown on some of the differences between classical theism and theistic personalism.

          As far as the argument for evil being overshadowed and outstripped, Catholic philosopher Alexander Pruss fills in some details here. I also write more about it in this post. Suffice it to say that all evils in this world are finite, and if our existence is infinite, then such tiny excerpts of the past (no matter how grave) will look like a spec of dust in comparison to eternity.

          Lastly, Re: And you’re ignoring the evil committed by your Deity: torturing people forever. Compared to torturing someone forever, raping someone for fun is almost nothing.

          This begs the question by presupposing that God commits evil and that you can successfully judge that he commits evil. According to the Catholic Christian worldview, God’s particular judgments and His judgment at the end of time will be perfect.

        • Moral realism is incoherent. I was simply borrowing the language to show that God’s actions would be evil if anything was evil. But it’s not necessary to use such language. I need not morally judge God. I can simply point out that benevolence and preventing unnecessary would be a logical entailment of God’s nature (no “oughts” required). For God to allow suffering would be wasteful, and rational, compassionate beings do not inflict/allow suffering when it could be avoided.

          Alexander Pruss and the blink of an eye. Any amount of time would be “a blink” compared to eternity. By that sadistic view, it would be okay for God to allow a girl to be raped for 800 years as long as it’s foreshadowed by infinite Heaven. It would be okay for God to allow a Jew to be starved and tortured for 5,000 years as long it’s foreshadowed by Heaven. One thing you’re overlooking in this callous attitude of human suffering is the fact that time slows down when you’re in misery. It’s easy to say Heaven “makes up for suffering” when you’re not the one living in poverty and living in intense fear of Hell, or any number of things. In pain, time can seem to drag on forever. Clinical depression is an example.

          God, again, is all-powerful. He DOES NOT need to allow pain.

          “This begs the question by presupposing that God commits evil and that you can successfully judge that he commits evil. According to the Catholic Christian worldview, God’s particular judgments and His judgment at the end of time will be perfect.”

          You’re basically saying that if Christianity is true, then Christianity is true. Of course God’s judgment would be just if you presuppose that it is just. But Christianity is what’s under dispute. Torturing someone forever is sadistic, and sadism (“evil”) is not compatible with God’s loving nature.

        • John DeRosa says:

          Re: Moral realism is incoherent.

          Why do you believe that? How did you come to that conclusion? Some atheists like Sam Harris would disagree with you. Some may agree that moral realism is false, but still find it coherent. What’s your argument for why it’s incoherent?

          Re: For God to allow suffering would be wasteful, and rational, compassionate beings do not inflict/allow suffering when it could be avoided. I think this type of language suggests that you’re thinking of God on the model of a human being. But instead of just a regular human being, he’s a super-powerful, really smart, and really loving one. That’s not the right model for thinking about God.

          Re: One thing you’re overlooking in this callous attitude of human suffering is the fact that time slows down when you’re in misery.

          You state in passing that Pruss’ line of thinking is callous. This assumes that one cannot be empathetic about human suffering and also believe in Heaven which will outstrip all temporary suffering. Christians maintain that both of those premises can be simultaneously affirmed.

          Re: It’s easy to say Heaven “makes up for suffering” when you’re not the one living in poverty and living in intense fear of Hell, or any number of things. In pain, time can seem to drag on forever. Clinical depression is an example.

          How difficult or easy something is to say has no bearing on its truth. Your reply here seems to indicate that you think Christians must say, “Who cares about your suffering! We don’t care about your suffering, because in the end Heaven is going to be so much better.” Such an attitude reflects unfamiliarity with the great saints of the Catholic tradition. People like Mother Teresa and Fr. Damien of Molokai who cared intimately about the suffering of others and spent their life loving those who suffered.

          Re: God, again, is all-powerful. He DOES NOT need to allow pain.

          Here, I agree with you. He did not need to allow pain, but He chose to allow pain. You might try to draw a sweeping inference from this, “Therefore, He’s evil. Therefore, He’s not good or loving.” That conclusion does not follow from the premise.

          I should add that one need not take a position on Pruss’ thoughts in that post (or any other theodicy) to dispel the logical version of the Problem of Evil. One might just say that God has morally sufficient reasons for the evil and suffering in the world and we do not know what they are. And, if there are good reasons to think that God exists, then those are also good reasons for thinking the logical problem of evil fails.

          I see you have presented an argument on another post regarding your version of the logical problem of evil. I will take a look at this there and reason. Suffice it to say here that for that argument to go through, one would have to show that God could not possibly have morally sufficient reasons for the evil and suffering in the world. This heavy burden, theists speculate, is what leads J.L. Mackie (and other famous atheists) not to insist on the logical version of this argument.

  3. Moral realism is incoherent because it depends on libertarian free will. Your actions can’t be good nor evil if you could not have done otherwise.

    I’m not thinking of God as a human being. I’m thinking of Him as an all-powerful pure spirit as most religious people do.

    One problem I have with religion is that it promotes speciesism and becomes an excuse for factory farming and eating animals.
    ‘Humans matter, but animals are our playthings.” I don’t care about human suffering; I care about all suffering.

    To allow any suffering is wasteful when God could have just put us in Heaven right away. Loving beings do not waste suffering. The theist attitude is insulting to human suffering because it implies that it’s ultimately justified for God to allow it, just because of a later paradise. Of course, it isn’t, because God could just give it to us now. A loving parent, capable of making his child happy, would not be showing love if he allowed his child to be tortured first.

    Mother Teresa? Give me a break. She campaigned against birth control and abortion. Watch Christopher Hitchens’ documentary about her. You could also watch the Dimond Brothers’ documentary, which shows that she wasn’t even a real Catholic.

    “One might just say that God has morally sufficient reasons for the evil and suffering in the world and we do not know what they are.”

    This is just saying that God has God-like reasons for the evil, for God is morality itself. It’s slimy equivocation. God has no morally sufficient reasons given the fact He could have put us in Heaven right away. Any significant morally sufficient reason would have to involve reduction of pain that would inevitably result from His not putting us in Heaven right away. But of course, God and His creatures would be perfectly happy if He put us in Heaven right away.

    Logical, loving beings don’t waste suffering.

    • John DeRosa says:

      Raphael,

      Re: Moral realism is incoherent because it depends on libertarian free will. Your actions can’t be good nor evil if you could not have done otherwise.

      This conclusion only follows if it’s true that “depending on libertarian free will” automatically makes something incoherent. You have not shown this is the case but rather assert it. This is question begging.

      Re: To allow any suffering is wasteful when God could have just put us in Heaven right away. Loving beings do not waste suffering.

      This is an informal riff on your more formal logical argument from evil. I respond to it in the other post where you spell out the premises.

      Re: The theist attitude is insulting to human suffering because it implies that it’s ultimately justified for God to allow it, just because of a later paradise.

      Here you ascribe Pruss’s point related to theodicy to theists in general. As I explain elsewhere, one need not hold to a particular theodicy to see that the logical problem of evil fails. Atheists like J.L. Mackie and William Rowe agree that the logical problem of evil fails. They are quoted in this video put out by Dr. Craig at Reasonable faith.

      Re: A loving parent, capable of making his child happy, would not be showing love if he allowed his child to be tortured first.

      What about if he allowed his child to suffer pain or anguish when he could stop it? Does this necessary imply the parent is not showing love? I think we can think of several examples when it does not imply this.

      Re: Mother Teresa? Give me a break. She campaigned against birth control and abortion. Watch Christopher Hitchens’ documentary about her. You could also watch the Dimond Brothers’ documentary, which shows that she wasn’t even a real Catholic.

      This assumes that someone who campaigns against birth control and abortion cannot be a person of great love, compassion, and charity. It begs the question. Also, telling someone to go watch something does not refute her years of charity and work for the poor. Moreover, she is only one example. You can ignore her if you want. The point is that Catholic saints who care for the poor and downtrodden show how believing in Heaven is compatible with compassion for those who are suffering.

      Re: This is just saying that God has God-like reasons for the evil, for God is morality itself. It’s slimy equivocation. God has no morally sufficient reasons given the fact He could have put us in Heaven right away. Any significant morally sufficient reason would have to involve reduction of pain that would inevitably result from His not putting us in Heaven right away. But of course, God and His creatures would be perfectly happy if He put us in Heaven right away.

      Logical, loving beings don’t waste suffering.

      This is another riff on your more formal argument from evil (though with more asserting rather than arguing). I respond to your formal argument in the combox of this post.

      Peace,
      John

  4. “And, if there are good reasons to think that God exists, then those are also good reasons for thinking the logical problem of evil fails. ”

    On the contrary, the fact that God would not allow suffering proves that He does not exist, and so the arguments for theism fail in one premiss or another. Most of the arguments for theism have been refuted and/or are not really arguments for theism, but for supernaturalism. One can be a supernaturalist without being a theist. I’m a supernaturalist atheist.

  5. Elizabeth Thomas says:

    This is utterly painful the amount of hoops and backbends this guy has to go through to make religion come out on top. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t actually understand atheism at all or he’d be able to debate it better. You can’t debate something without understanding it… No. You can, you’ve proved that, but you’re not very worth the effort of debate with the lack of understanding about what you’re even arguing against.

    • John DeRosa says:

      Feel free to specify a point of disagreement. I wrote this blog post a couple of years ago, and I realize it may not capture things fully accurately.

  6. Olivia Roberts says:

    Hi,

    I’m unsure how the discussion of Premise 1 in this post supports it. At best, it shows that the Euthyphro dilemma does not challenge divine command theories of ethics. This doesn’t get us close to showing that any divine command theory is correct, nor does it do anything to convince us that a divine command theory is the only plausible way to achieve moral realism. In other words: it lets us know that there is a uniquely theistic way of being a moral realist, but it fails to even mention, much less challenge, atheistic ways of being a moral realist.

    (Let me lay my cards on the table, too, so no one makes false assumptions: I’m a theist, I just don’t like this argument in particular).

    Olivia

    • John DeRosa says:

      Fair points, Olivia. You might enjoy some more rigorous episodes of the podcast where philosophers argue that evil and moral realism don’t fit well with naturalism:

      Ep. #34 – Evolutionary Debunking Arguments w/ Dr. Tomas Bogardus
      Ep. #170 – A Dialectical Response to the Problem of Animal Suffering w/ Dr. Jim Madden

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *