In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise:
[Last time out] He accused Dillahunty of using science as “a crutch” for his atheism.
But now Dillahunty asks the Big One, seriously, if there is a God, why is there evil?
News, “Dillahunty asks the 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil?” at Mind Matters News
Matt Dillahunty: I am fine with being able to make objective assessments, but I’m not aware of any model where anyone could demonstrate that there is an objective moral law that is universal.
Michael Egnor: I’m not asking whether you think people could demonstrate it. I’m asking, do you believe that it exists? [01:17:00]
Matt Dillahunty: No. I don’t believe in things that people can’t demonstrate exist.
Michael Egnor: You don’t believe that raping a baby is objectively, morally wrong. You think it’s just a matter of opinion?
Matt Dillahunty: I’m on record, for many years now, of advocating for situational morality, situational ethics, and rejecting the notion that because a culture says so that means that it’s so. I define morality as the well-being of thinking creatures. It’s not a complete definition, it’s what I think we’ve been working towards. I think anybody who’s talking about morality is probably talking about well-being of thinking creatures and humans in particular quite often. Once you decide, hey, we’re talking about the well-being of humans, now there are physical facts within the universe that are non-subjective that determine whether or not something is in our best interest or not, like chopping off someone’s head is not good for them. It’s an objective physical fact that chopping off someone’s head is in conflict with those things that are good for them. [01:18:00]
The only objection remaining is someone could say, there’s no reason why anybody has to care about well-being. and on that grounds, yeah. You don’t have to care about well-being, just like you don’t have to care about being healthy. Health isn’t particularly well-defined either, like physical health. We’re learning more and more about it, but it’s not like there’s some objective, true standard of health. Instead, there are a model of, we would like to be healthier, and we learn facts about the universe, and so we get healthier.
Michael Egnor: I had pointed out earlier that raising the question of objective morality stimulates atheists to do an incredible tap dance. [01:19:00]
Michael Egnor: Matt, I’m asking you a simple question. Is it objectively wrong…
Matt Dillahunty: No.
Michael Egnor: Is it objectively wrong to rape a baby, or is it just a matter of opinion?
Matt Dillahunty: It’s objectively wrong if the foundation of your morality holds that it would be objectively assessed as wrong.
Michael Egnor: No, no, no, no. Is it objectively wrong? Or is it just a matter of opinion? And if it is objectively wrong, what mind does that moral principle come from? [01:19:30]
Matt Dillahunty: This gets down to, how do you define morality? If you define it as well-being, once you’ve defined morality, then you can say, is this moral? If you’re just going to say right or wrong, then I need to know what standard we’re going to be using for right or wrong. If we’re going to use mine, which is…
Michael Egnor: I didn’t ask you any of that, man. I said, is it objectively wrong to rape babies? Yes or no, Matt. It’s a one word answer. Yes or no. [01:20:00]
Takehome: Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
Next: Does morality really exist? Does it really come from God?
The debate to date:
- Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
- A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
- Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
- Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.
- Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
- Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.
You may also wish to read:
Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.
and
The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.
Word games and gymnastics to avoid answering the question. Apparently sometimes it’s okay according to Dillahunty, but the cognitive dissonance has to be super strong in that.
Why evil?
Answer: it doesn’t exist.
First, define evil – most can’t including myself. I have been reading about it for years. (Except for one thing and only one thing)
People love using the term but cannot define it. Usually they mean bad stuff happening to people. But so is a stubbed toe.
Oh, we mean more serious things. Oh, evil is relative then.
But evil is the lack of good – then what is good? The whole created universe is an example of the lack of good. That means everything is evil.
There have been long discussions on it here.
The result – people keep repeating the same arguments that are opinions and are not justified.
The discussion above was about morality not evil.
Aside: if God prevented some bad thing such as raping a child then the world would move on to some other bad things that should be prevented. Then when they were prevented, we will be down the list to stubbing toes.
The ancient Carthaginians (at least according to the Romans) culturally accepted and encouraged the burning alive of infants as offerings to their god. This admittedly would be at least one data point in favor of the ‘morality is culturally and socially determined’ camp. However, I think Egnor’s argument still stands since there obviously is no natural law that prevents humans from through their free will choosing to commit such abominations. The free will defense – our existence would have no meaning without the human free will to choose to do and create very many things, which has to include opposing the absolute moral law.
Of course this still leaves the question of the great bulk of what may be termed “natural evil”, innocent suffering caused by forces of nature like earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc. etc. I think this is a harder nut to crack unfortunately.
No, very easy when outcomes are evaluated as relative.
All bad things are relative. It gets to a point where positive things become bad things as the bad things are eliminated.
Discussing morality makes sense only under the assumption that we can choose our behavior. IOWs the assumption that we are free persons.
A materialist, like Dillahunty, cannot participate in a discussion about morality.
Anyone can participate in a discussion about morality as long as they are not stomping around insisting that their morality is the only objective – and therefore true – morality, so there can be no debate.
Objection! Badgering the witness!
More seriously, Egnor is plainly an exponent of the fallacy of the loaded question, as in “Have you stopped beating your wife!”
If Dillahunty answers “yes” he is conceding the existence of an objective morality, if he answers “no” he concedes it is not objectively wrong – and, therefore, right – to rape babies, neither of which is MD’s position.
This is just Egnor being boorish again.
Jerry@4
I think the following is a better apologia, though still not particularly satisfying:
There is the observed regularity of natural law. The basic laws of physics appear to be cleverly designed to create conditions suitable for human life and development. It can be surmised that this intricate fine-tuned design is inherently an extremely complicated series of tradeoffs and balances, allowing and fostering human existence but also inevitably allowing “natural evil” to regularly occur. In other words, the best solution to the overall “system requirements” (which include furnishing manifold opportunities for humans to experience and achieve) inherently includes natural effects that cause suffering to human beings.
This points out that there may be logical and fundamental limitations to God’s creativity. Maybe even He can’t 100% satisfy all the requirements simultaneously. Maybe He doesn’t have complete control over nature, because that would interfere with the essential requirements for creative and fulfilling human life. After all, human achievement requires imperfection and adverse conditions to exist as a natural part of human life.
It seems that Matt Dillahunty is just playing at his position. Otherwise, it’s “might makes right.”
Q: Matt give me your wallet.
M: Why?
Q: Because, for me, it would be situationally right for you to share your wealth.
M: But for me, I don’t think it would be situationally right for me to be required to share my wealth with you.
Q: But, I have no money. Situationally, I’m poor and all I have is my clothes and this loaded .45 I’m pointing at you.
M: Oh, well in that case, I can see your point, situationally. Here you go.
-Q
Seversky at 6 states “Anyone can participate in a discussion about morality,,,”
Seversky, you are (purposely?) forgetting that, (besides your Atheistic Materialism denying the objective reality of morality), your worldview also denies the objective reality of persons, as well as denying the objective reality of the free will necessary for ‘persons’ to even be able to participate in logically coherent debates and/or discussions in the first place.
Thus Seversky, while you rightly claimed that “Anyone can participate in a discussion about morality”, you forget that, if your materialistic worldview is actually true, there are no ‘anyones’ to participate in logically coherent debates and/or discussions in the first place. Personhood is an illusion according to your worldview!
Perhaps the best evidence that the atheist’s claims about personhood, a person’s free will, and morality, are illusions are patently false claims for atheists to make is the fact that it is impossible for atheists themselves to live their lives as if what they say about personhood, free will, and morality, is actually true.
Even Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be quote-unquote ‘intolerable’ for him to live as if his atheistic worldview were actually true:
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Verse:
Just uploaded:
Is Atheism Dead? A Conversation with Eric Metaxas – interview with Sean McDowell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDOClTy0Xdk
I maintain. Like Leibniz, that this is the best of all possible worlds.
The Christian God could do no less. The question then becomes why is this the best of all possible worlds?
Aside: there are lots of things we consider very undesirable, for example a terminal tumor in a small child gets to be an extreme example. I knew of such a child who died about a year after it was diagnosed and her life was painful. She was 7 when she died.
But suppose we eliminate all such things through modern medicine, then someone will see as very bad something that no one thought twice about in the past or even in our current world.
It will get to the point that someone with just a limited income will be seen as extremely undesirable even though that person could support themselves or a family. Because they are not rich, it will be seen as undesirable.
Seversky you know less about law that you do about evolution.
There is an objection, but it is not ‘badgering the witness’ he asks three question the last beginning with ‘If’. There are a number of objections such as asking a rolled up question.
The question is also objectionable because it requires a a selection from only two choices 1. is it objective wrong or 2. A matter of opinion.
The questions are NOT when not stop beating your wife type – that presupposes something yet to be established – that beating had been admitted or otherwise there was good evidence of it.
The debate is a shambles, your man wants to debate ‘morality’ but cannot describe or define. He candidly admits his definition is unfinished, “I define morality as the well-being of thinking creatures. It’s not a complete definition.”
Not a complete definition after years of talking about it?
Jerry @2,
“Evil” is usually what sociopaths do. They lack compassion and remorse. They are basically human predators. “Political Ponerology” by Andrew M. Lobaczewski explains this in great detail. For the 96% of humans who have conscience the acts of sociopaths are very difficult to comprehend.
This said, I don’t know why people assume that God must necessarily be “a good guy”. We have no idea of what the purpose of our existence is. It is entirely possible that our purpose is to simulate the dynamic between the 4% sociopaths and the 96% rest of us.
Dawkins is saying that the truth *I do not exist, I am a neurological illusion* is hard to live with.
But as Descartes has taught us no one can doubt his existence. Everything one does confirms one’s existence:
I think, therefore I am.
I ….. (whatever), therefore I am.
I doubt my existence, but in order to do that I must exist, therefore I exist.
So, it is not the truth that is hard to live with, as Dawkins suggests, but rather it is intolerable to continually lie to yourself.
:))) Impressive logic. So God created the people that can be good( if they want to)but God Himself is bad.
PS: Flash News:We know the reason why God created this universe and humans. He told us.
No! God has created the perfect world.
Again. How could God not create the best of all possible worlds? Why would He do anything less? So what does that mean?
People like to use the term “evil” without understanding just what they are saying. There is apparently aspects of our world that are undesirable. They call these aspects evil.
But every aspect of our world is sub optimal so literally everything is evil. We tend to focus on the most temporarily undesirable but if they were eliminated then what remained even the seemingly positive things would then be undesirable or “evil.”
Whether it be moral acts committed by a person with free will or physical events theoretically under the control of God, they are sub-optimal and thus technically evil.
But are such acts/events then necessary for a meaningful world?
Do we live in a world of perfect seemingly apparent imperfects?
Christian apologists keep using the term “objective morality” when they mean “absolute morality.” Use of the term “objective” to suggest that it is a God-given universal is unnecessarily confusing. The oft-used statement by apologists that “without God there can be no objective morality” is misleading. All social groups have an objective morality, i.e. a set of behavioral dos and don’ts along with consequences for not complying which everyone is expected to understand. The source of that morality can be by fiat or by agreement. The highest level of objective morality humans have developed is codified jurisprudence.
Some apologists (including Egnor) keep referring to this as “subjective” morality because each group is different. But that is a misuse and misunderstanding of the term “subjective” which relates to solely individuals, not groups. Even more egregious is the simplistic “its just a matter of opinion” morality. That snappy phrase completely trivializes any discussion of morality.
So, the emotionally laden, set up question “is it objectively moral to rape babies” can actually only be answered “it depends.” The term “rape” itself does not even have an absolute or universal definition and has meant different things historically. What may be defined as rape in one culture may be acceptable in another (e.g. statutory rape vis a vis childhood marriage). That, however, does not make each of those culture’s rules “subjective” or merely a “matter of opinion.” Contrary to Egnor’s set up, it is not a simple yes or no question. But then questions of morality are never simple yes or no questions.
chuckdarwin confuses subjective morality with objective morality. A matter of opinion is what makes it subjective.
CD at 19, The only ones who are profoundly confused about morality is Chuck Darwin and Darwinian Atheists in general.
Morality for the atheist is not just the absence of morality, i.e. amorality, i.e. “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”, as Dawkins succinctly put it,,,
No!,,,, Morality for the atheist is not just the absence of morality, i.e. amorality, ‘pitiless indifference’, but turns out to be, (when you throw the precepts of Darwinian evolution on top of the atheist’s naturalistic worldview of ‘pitiless indifference’), a worldview that turns out to be downright ‘ANTI-Morality’.
Alturistic behavior of any sort is simply completely antithetical to the entire framework of Darwinian evolution.
As Charles Darwin himself stated, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
As should be obvious to everyone who is not a complete psychopath, not only is “let the strongest live and the weakest die” amoral, but it is completely ANTI-moral.
Adolf Hilter himself echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”
As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the Christian ethos of looking after the weak.
And as Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
Hitler was hardly the only genocidal maniac who based his worldview on the ‘morality’ of Darwinian evolution.
In fact all the Atheistic Tyrants of communist regimes of the 20th century based their murderous ideology on the ‘morality’ of Darwin’s theory
Moreover, not only is Darwinian morality at ‘war’ with Christian morality, but Darwinian ‘morality’ also happens to be at ‘war’ with the science itself.
For instance, if evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for? Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
The logic behind natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:
As you can see from the preceding graph, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially altruistic behavior (i.e. the ‘strong’ taking care of the ‘weak’), would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, and/or viruses, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction.
Yet, contrary to this central ‘anti-moral ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns.
The following researchers, since it directly contradicted Darwinian assumptions, said that they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the mutual cooperation that they had found among bacteria.
And as the following study found, “‘survival of the friendliest’ outweighs ‘survival of the fittest’ for groups of bacteria. Bacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole.”
Again, this is directly contrary to Charles Darwin’s central ‘anti-moral’ assumption of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
Moreover, and again directly contrary to Darwinian assumptions, we find that bacteria are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own ‘survival of the fittest’ concerns.
In fact, directly contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, bacteria are now also known to transform the entire ecosystem of the earth for the apparent benefit of multicellular organism.
As Paul G. Falkowski states, “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”
Likewise, contrary to popular opinion, viruses are also found to be essential to the ecosystem. As the following article states, “Viruses aren’t our enemies,” Dr. Suttle said. “Certain nasty viruses can make you sick, but it’s important to recognize that viruses and other microbes out there are absolutely integral for the ecosystem.”
Moreover, Charles Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
And yet, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species” or it would annihilate his theory, it is now known that ” “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”
Moreover, to dive a little bit deeper into the molecular level, the falsification of the ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. ‘selfish’ thinking occurs at the molecular level too.
Richard Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but selfish. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be exist in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (which is the very antithesis of selfishness).
Such ‘holistic cooperation’ between genes is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of genes being ‘selfish’ as Dawkins had falsely envisioned. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being basically a religion for atheists, count as another direct falsification of the theory).
In fact on top of genes existing in a holistic web of mutual cooperation, the genetic responses of humans are also designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonistic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness:
That the genetic responses of humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonistic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness is very interesting since Darwinian evolution cannot even explain the origin of a single gene and/or protein, much less can it explain how it is possible for highly integrated gene networks to produce such morally nuanced responses between hedonism and altruism.
Moreover on top of all that, (as if that was not already completely devastating to Darwinian evolution already), if anything ever went against Charles Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the notion that a single cell can somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism for the singular purpose of keeping that single organism alive.
To claim that one cell transforming into the tens of trillions cells, (of extremely cooperative, even extremely altruistic, cells that make up our ONE human body), is anything less than a miracle is either sheer arrogance and/or profound and willful ignorance. (Or perhaps a mixture of both)
As Jay Homnick put it, “Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
Thus in conclusion, as far as the science itself is concerned, the ‘ANTI-morality’ inherent in Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ theory is falsified on many different levels. Indeed life itself simply would not even be possible without extensive altruistic behavior being present at the molecular level of biology.
And thus the Christian can rest assured that we do indeed live in, as Dr. Martin Luther King put it, “a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.”
Verse:
The foundation of objective moral law is truth-telling.
Truth vs falsehood – and the moral commitment to tell the truth is at the heart of it.’
In your conscience, you have to tell the truth to yourself – you have to accept the truth about your own actions.
Truth is the foundation of rationality and logic also – objective, not a subjective matter of opinion.
Is it absolute or objective that the sun will rise tomorrow in the East? Or is it both? What is the difference?
I know in reality that the Earth is rotating so it just appears the sun is rising.
as to: “I know in reality that the Earth is rotating”
Yet, as the late Stephen Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’
And as George Ellis, (a former close colleague of Hawking), stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”
And as Fred Hoyle, who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis, himself stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
And even as the man himself, Albert Einstein, stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”
There simply is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, nor any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe.
As Einstein himself noted,
In fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be the ‘still center’ of the universe.
As the following article states, “You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,,”
So although you may know that “in reality that the Earth is rotating”, in ‘reality’ it all depends on whose model of ‘reality’ you are personally accepting as the true model of reality.
Jerry @ 18,
>But every aspect of our world is sub optimal so literally everything is evil.
If evil is equated with deviation from purpose, and if our ultimate purpose comes from God, then mere imperfections are not evil. But all sin is evil by this definition. (Evil is a superset of sin, in other words.)
This definition avoids the above problem of having to consider everything evil because it isn’t optimal in every possible sense.
Note that in Genesis 1, which is considered inspired and holy to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the go-to source of morality and ethics for 54% of the people on earth, we are told that after God finished the creation, He saw that it was “very good.”
The text doesn’t say perfect or optimal, only “very good.” The equivalent of a “B+” in the U.S. and China, a “6” in the U.K., a 2.0 in Germany, a 13.5 in France, yu in Japan, and so on.
Now, why would that be?
-Q
Silver Asiatic:
Is consciously lying to yourself and consquently convincing yourself of the lie, even possible?
I haven’t a clue what you are saying.
I said God created the best of all possible worlds. So what is evil in it?
I also gave examples. Why is the little girl with a painful brain tumor evil? Why isn’t stubbing your toe evil?
Remember the OP is about evil and God.
#27: Querius
So what is it, the best of all possible worlds or just a very good, but not the best, possible world? Why do Christians have to parse ancient Hebrew myths to try and exonerate their God from his authorship of evil?
I have looked high and low through the great Church Doctor’s works trying to find a justification for this exoneration of God. As best as I can determine, it is simply a naked claim…
Origenes
Exactly – it’s not possible.
CD
The great Doctor built that statement on the teaching from St John: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
To say that God is the cause of all our sins and moral failings is to claim that we, ourselves, have not sinned ever.
It’s pretty rare to find someone who says that he’s not guilty of any moral fault.
But that’s what you end up with if you think that St. Augustine was wrong about God being blamed for our sins and immoral behaviors.
The truth is within us – we know what we have done. We can hide from it or try to forget and ignore it, but on the question “did you do that?” We know we did or didn’t.
Silver Asiatic/32
If by “sin” you mean behaving in ways of which God disapproves then from whence came the capability for such offensive behavior?
Nothing happens but by His will. If we fall short of moral perfection, whose fault is that?
Besides why was eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil such a heinous offense that it warranted casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden and punishing not just them but also their descendants in perpetuity.? What was wrong with about knowing about good and evil? It would have been nice to get a rationale for why it was forbidden. But, as usual, we don’t get that.
We have no idea what constitutes the best of all possible worlds. My guess a zillion trade offs.
Maybe producing doubt is a necessity. Faith is meaningless without doubt.
But postulating there is evil is not a valid criticism of it.
Seversky
The capacity for good and evil were created by God as a part of the gift of human freedom – the capability to grow from ignorance to knowledge, the capability to learn how to give of oneself in love – to be humble and repent of evil actions – and ultimately to make up for the evil that other people do (as Jesus did in His redemptive act).
So, the capability to sin came from God. The choice of sin does not come from Him – that’s on us.
Seems like you were taught standard Protestant theology or even hard-core Calvinism. The doctrine “Nothing happens but by His will” was taken by Calvin will imagine that God is actually forcing “the elect” into heaven, and the non-elect are created to go to Hell. So, God is seen as a deterministic force (pre-determination).
From the Catholic perspective human beings have been given the power to reject God’s will. They can commit sin and choose a path that conflicts with what God desires. This explains sin and repentance and this explains Jesus’ sacrificial death as a redeeming action for the sins of people.
The choice of the fruit of the tree was a deliberate choice for evil. That’s the worst of what sin is.
Since God is the fullness of Good – the most worthy of our attention, honor, love and care — then to do what God wills is to do good. To directly choose against God, is to directly choose against good – and to choose evil. It’s based on self-idolatry, where we choose our own self, instead of God who gave us life and actually suffered to give us grace and freedom. So that’s why it’s a serious sin directly against God and it carries a lot of guilt.
First, human life is a gift from our creator. We didn’t make it ourselves – so we are recipients, and have gratitude for the gift of intelligence. Rational intelligence is the highest feature – making us “like God” because we can think of God, think of the greatest things – and our thoughts can actually change the world and change life for people around us for the better. We can pray to God and learn about infinite majesty,beauty, truth, goodness — kind of an overwhelming reality of magnificence and excellence. That’s God’s relationship with us.
But because in order to show sincerity, commitment and true love of God – human beings were given a test of loyalty. Would we choose the greater good or the lesser good? So, the test or trial was the tree of knowledge.
Knowing evil, is to choose a “different god” – it is to give love and attention to something unworthy.
Knowing evil is “knowing how to sin” – it’s a corruption of the purity of soul.
The term “knowing” also, is not merely an academic knowledge. In the biblical term, “knowing” is closer to “experiencing”. So, committing sin is “knowing evil” by actually doing it. Obviously, that damages the virtue and excellence of a human person – as all sin and evil will do.
The test of obedience to God – avoiding the knowledge of evil, was the test for Adam and Eve. Their loyalty, gratitude, commitment, integrity was tested. That’s the test for every person – atheist, pagan, Christian, pantheist – everyone. We all have to choose good and resist evil – in this life – and that proves us.
As for the perpetual punishment on Adam and Eve’s ancestry – that’s from the nature of parentage. As children inherit the good that parents have, they also inherit evil. In this case, the human soul was damaged by sin – the knowledge of evil was retained for all future generations. It’s like “once you commit sin you can’t just pretend that you didn’t”. So, that’s the “tendency to sin” that every human is given. That’s the evil that pervades the earth.
But that sin can be and is remitted – by sacramental grace and also by repentance and good deeds in life. We can be gradually purified and made better through our life. Sin is the obstacle that we fight against – it does not have to be victorious and it never should be.
Jerry: define evil
Two related definitions: harm, suffering. And intentionally causing harm, suffering.
So a stubbed toe is evil. How about a mosquito bite?
This is the unwanted stuff definition.
Jerry: So a stubbed toe is evil. How about a mosquito bite?
Yes and yes. But not as evil as raping babies.
“Morality” pertains to the intentional causing of harm/suffering.
If a rock falls off a cliff and hits me in the head, I will suffer evil. If someone intentionally throws a rock at my head, I will suffer evil, and the person who did it has performed evil. People who intentionally perform evil as a matter of course, are called “evil persons.”
So evil is relative. How evil can something get?
I could just as easily said “So bad stuff is relative.” So how is evil different from bad stuff? Or unwanted stuff?
So if I have an uncomfortable chair, am I suffering evil? And if someone makes a disparaging comment about another here or anywhere, are they being evil?
And what has all this to do with God? That’s what the OP is about.
Aside: all this has been discussed many times before. It always ends up with the person giving up trying to rationally use the term evil. But everyone wants to use the word. It’s not the most frequent word used here because Darwin wins that. But it is up there.
Jerry: So evil is relative.
Harm/suffering is relative, so yes.
How evil can something get?
I don’t know. I don’t really want to find out.
I could just as easily said “So bad stuff is relative.” So how is evil different from bad stuff?
“Bad stuff” is a bit imprecise for me. Harm/suffering nails it.
So if I have an uncomfortable chair, am I suffering evil?
Yes, but probably not much.
And what has all this to do with God? That’s what the OP is about.
Whether there is a Creator or not, it doesn’t make any sense to me to define “evil” in terms not linked to harm/suffering. And as previously stated, “morality” pertains to intentions and choice of entities with the power to do evil (and good.)
Aside: all this has been discussed many times before. It always ends up with the person giving up trying to rationally use the term evil. But everyone wants to use the word.
I have no idea what “evil” could possibily mean outside the context of harm/suffering. Can you provide an example of something you consider “evil” that does not pertain to harm/suffering?
Takehome: Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against [raping babies]; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
Dillahunty wins this little debate, actually. Because Egnor is, in fact, using his human judgement without establishing why raping babies is “wrong.” No doubt that raping a baby objectively causes great harm/suffering to the baby. The real issue is why should the rapist care that he is causing the suffering.
Making some claim, “there is an objective morality against this because the Creator doesn’t want you to harm the baby in such a manner!” hardly makes a difference to the rapist who disagrees that your putative morality is “objective.” The rapist cannot “see” this “objective morality”, so how “objective” can it be? Perhaps the rapist’s brain is defective. He cannot “see” what everyone else “sees.”
That’s about the best Egnor is going to be able to come up with, sans ripping the curtain open and dragging Dillahunty to the foot of the Creator. But maybe what Egnor “sees” is a delusion. And around and around it goes.
Until the Creator shows up in person, the debate will never end.
-Ram
Takehome: Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against [raping babies]; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
To continue, I said Dillahunty won this argument, but only in the sense that Egnor has not established his claim of an objective morality. But Dillahunty is wrong about it being “human judgement.” Yes, Egnor is attempting to argue using reason, but his claim is not actually coming from judgement or reason, but rather from feeling, which, of course, is a subjective source, not an objective one.
-Ram
now the 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil?
I don’t know. I’ll ask Her when I see Her.
But my first impulse given everything I think I know is to answer: because the nature of Reality has a tension between Yin and Yang in eternal stuggle and reconfiguration for each new Game which is about balancing bliss and suffering (good and evil), and finding their equilibrium point within the current Game. At the end of the Game, it’s “ollie ollie oxen free!”, and everything resets for a New Game. Lila. It’s as good an answer as any. [Shrug]
-Ram
Everything you can point to could be described as harm/suffering for someone. When everything is theoretically an example then it is a useless definition.
Suppose several people listed everything that they thought was evil. It would be a long list. If you could theoretically eliminate everything on that list, then people would invent things not on that list that they would consider evil.
Because It doesn’t exist. He made the best of all possible worlds.
But there is just one thing!
Interesting that your question, “If God exists, why evil?” can be recast as a statement:
God exists: therefore suffering.
Or the more complete:
God exists: therefore bliss and suffering and everything in between.
-Ram
Jerry: Everything you can point to could be described as harm/suffering for someone. When everything is theoretically an example then it is a useless definition.
Are you saying when I am enjoying noodle salad, someone is suffering? Maybe so. But I don’t understand your point. Suffering exists as a range, obviously.
Suppose several people listed everything that they thought was [suffering.] It would be a long list.
Okay.
If you could theoretically eliminate everything on that list, then people would invent things not on that list that they would consider [suffering.]
People are funny that way. But I don’t understand your point.
If God exists, why [suffering.]
Because [suffering] doesn’t exist. He made the best of all possible worlds.
The way you use “evil” doesn’t really make any sense. Suffering, however, is a reality. (“Evil” is a synonym for suffering/harm/destruction, etc. It’s right there in the dictionary.) So is bliss. And everything in between.
As for “the best of all possible worlds”, I can think of better worlds than this. I hope to live on one some day. Maybe hop around a few million of the better ones. This world is closer to a prison camp than a World of Bliss. Believe me, the Creator can do better. I believe you’re a Christian. Don’t you expect New Jerusalem to be a much nicer existence than your current world? No toil. No pain. No suffering. All Bliss All the Time. “In my Father’s house, are many rooms.” And all that.
-Ram
Chuckdarwin @30,
This is a good question. A lot of this sort of thing had its roots in Gnosticism and philosophy. It’s not in the scriptures, but shows up in various books and doctrines and confessions and so on. There’s also a power aspect in our social life and institutions–politics, religion, and relationships that can often be abusive and evil. This is a choice people make as well.
The scriptures indicate that humans were made “in God’s image.” Animals were not. So, what’s profoundly different in humans from regular animals?
There are a lot of candidates, but what makes sense to me is having a deep moral and ethical dimension. We’re somehow like God on a small scale. I believe it has to do with free will to make significant choices such as rejecting self-centeredness for self-sacrifice, mercy kindness, and justice.
The result is the freedom to choose to have a loving relationship with God or to choose to reject God for other priorities.
Originally, humans were given a mission to rule and care for the planet in a respectful and beneficial way, which we’ve mostly chosen to reject. We see the results all around us!
When you ask about our “trying to exonerate God from his authorship of evil,” how did you decide that some things are “evil” and by implication other things are “good”?
I believe that God created only the potential for evil in allowing true free will, such that we’re capable of non-coerced, non-robotic love for our loving Creator. God also provided a way out for us from our failures by somehow wrapping Himself in a human body and dying on our behalf.
While attitude is the key to success and happiness in life, it’s been suggested that perspective is the key to understanding God.
-Q
Ram, one who dismisses or belittles or evades cases such as sexual assault on a baby as manifest evil, expose themselves; they do not undermine the patent force of such a moral sanity — yes, sanity — yardstick. Regrettably, nowadays, moral insanity is rife. KF
Kairosfocus,
Good point.
It seems that such people are willing to belittle and evade manifest cases of evil for a reason:
They enjoy the way they’re living and don’t want to feel guilty about it.
I think it would be more effective if you ask a person how they would honestly react if, for example, someone raped and killed their own mother, wife, child, etc. Revenge flicks are popular for a reason.
-Q
KF: Ram, one who dismisses or belittles or evades cases such as sexual assault on a baby as manifest [harm/suffering], expose themselves; they do not undermine the patent force of such a moral sanity — yes, sanity — yardstick. Regrettably, nowadays, moral insanity is rife.
My brain agrees with your sentiment. But not because there is “some force out there” called “evil.” Evil is harm/suffering, and people who intentionally cause harm/suffering to others are “evil persons”, by definition, and should be suppressed. That most people agree (but can disagree on some particulars, such as going to war), is a solid basis for society, in my opinion. Humans should not ignore their natural revulsion to the causing of harm/suffering to others.