Vividbleau: The Problem of Evil is More of a Problem for an Atheist than a Theist

_{Barry Arrington

April 3, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

VB sums his chain of reasoning below. And very nicely done reasoning it is too. And then comes this: The problem of evil is more of a problem for the atheist than for the theist. He is right of course. But can anyone tell me why his is right. EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS VB’S:

I am somewhat of an obsessive compulsive after a few months I started to ask uncomfortable questions. I know what I experienced but the mind is a funny thing and I recognized hey you are basing your life on this belief which is a serious commitment maybe I am deceiving myself “Am I sure?” and of course I was not sure I needed more.
One of my strengths, and is always the case can be one of my greatest weakness, is that I have a very open mind, its not empty but open. I also think that to confront ones doubts one must face the opposition and their strongest arguments honestly and without distortion. Its a blessing and a curse because it is very tough to engage arguments that are contrary to what you believe. This is important, I recognize that I am not objective, I am guilty of observational bias, by recognizing this I recognize that I have to fight that and the way to do that is to expose oneself to ideas opposite of your own. I remember once on this site I mentioned that I was prone to observational bias and someone was surprised by that (it was not you) and I thought “are you kidding me”? Its a human condition.

It took many years but in a nutshell here is where I have landed.

Evidence is a plastic word and needs to be defined, here is how I prioritize evidence.
1) My starting point is where all of us start, and where many are ignorant that they start there, which is a set of unprovable assumptions, everyone has them. Everyone starts with metaphysics! I assume the reliability of mind.

2) Reason and its sister Logic is superior to experience. Logic cannot tell us what is but it can tell us what is NOT.

3) Because everything starts with metaphysics faith is not unreasonable, nor is fideism the same as faith.

4) Every worldview is a set of faith assumptions about the nature of things ie is a metaphysical belief.

5) Every worldview has difficulties.

6) To echo KF we should adopt the worldview that has the least number of difficulties.

As to the materialist, atheist, agnostic I GET IT. I understand why when we look over history, the pain and suffering that exists in our world, the evil and mayhem, atheism to me is a reasonable position but entails more difficulties than theism.

Here is my answer as a theist to the problem of evil, I don’t have one nor does anyone else, Jonathan Edwards, one of the greatest minds America has produced, spent his whole life contemplating this question and could not answer it. Those who appeal to the free will of man etc, just demonstrate to me that they don’t gasp the extent of the problem, I am laying it all out here and I know this will rankle some theists here but that’s a fact. As an aside I think the problem of evil is more a problem for the atheist than the theist

Comments

Jerry “I have asked in the past on this site for a definition of evil. I haven’t looked at any answers here for a couple years but I never saw anyone who could actually define evil. Most define it as bad stuff or the lack of good. Whatever that is. And the more bad it is, the more evil it is. But it is always a relative thing. Any unpleasant thing in this world is trivial because it is finite.” I do think you bring up good points regarding the definition of evil,, obviously you have given the subject matter thought and I am not under any illusion that I might add something that you have not seen before. I think the reason that evil is tough to define is because evil , like good, is not a thing, it is nothing having no independent substance. Evil is an action, activity if you will, of something that has being. Evil cannot exist unless good exists, if there is no evil there is no good. Vividvividbleau_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

This is Richard Dawkins view of natural evil:
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. [...] In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. River out of Eden (1995) pp. 131–132
Notice how the Covid 19 virus seems to be targeting the infirm and elderly. Maybe viruses are just nature’s way of “culling the herd.” Maybe then we should just let nature take its course. The young and fit are going to survive and develop immunities. The elderly, sick and infirm-- well… That appears to be the view of bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel who has said he doesn’t to live beyond the age of 75:
Here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.
Though he wrote this back in October of 2014 he was thinking of how we should respond to pandemics like we’re in the midst of now
What about simple stuff? Flu shots are out. Certainly if there were to be a flu pandemic, a younger person who has yet to live a complete life ought to get the vaccine or any antiviral drugs. A big challenge is antibiotics for pneumonia or skin and urinary infections. Antibiotics are cheap and largely effective in curing infections. It is really hard for us to say no. Indeed, even people who are sure they don’t want life-extending treatments find it hard to refuse antibiotics. But, as Osler reminds us, unlike the decays associated with chronic conditions, death from these infections is quick and relatively painless. So, no to antibiotics.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-biden-coronavirus-adviser-ezekiel-emanuel-wants-to-die-at-75/ Sounds a lot like eugenics, doesn’t it? Eugenics in the early 20th was justified as way of just helping natural selection along. Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man argued that one of the downsides of civilization is that it inhibited the effects of natural selection making us all less fit and weaker. Indeed, the fact is that eugenics never went away. It just got relabeled with euphemisms-- something the secular progressive left is good at doing. For example, abortion is achieving most of the goals of the early eugenicists. Margaret Sanger, who abortionists still celebrate, was a eugenicist.john_a_designer_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Jerry “Most define it as bad stuff or the lack of good. Whatever that means.” In your life is there anything good in a moral sense? Vividvividbleau_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

@19 EDTA:
Harm must be defined, and I define that as “deviation from purpose”. Something is harmed when it is pushed off-course. We do harm to ourselves and/or others when we willingly go away from our intended path through life. _Fully_ knowing what that path is, is not possible for us as finite selfish beings. Only God fully knows what our purpose(s) in life are. Only He knows fully why we’re here, what we are supposed to do, and how we are supposed to be. If we are willing and seek it, we can approach it, but because we are finite (and sinners), we will not (in this phase of life) actually get completely on that path.
Beautiful words. Thank you.Truthfreedom_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

As I have said here, many, many times before, moral subjectivism is a rationally indefensible position.
What the moral subjectivist is really trying to argue is that there are no moral truths about anything. However, it is self-refuting to say there is “no ‘moral truths’ about anything,” because in doing so you’re making a universal truth claim about truth which takes the legs out from under the very argument you are trying to make…
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-atheists-deny-objective-morality/#comment-648486 Arguments with self-refuting premises don’t prove anything. So an atheists who subscribes to moral subjectivism (not all atheists do) has no argument. That’s a big problem. Again, very succinctly what the subjectivist is really trying to argue is:
I don’t believe that there are any objective moral truths. Therefore, there are no objective moral truths for me or anyone else.
I wouldn’t have a problem if the subjectivist simply claimed, “there are no moral truths for me.” Fine. If you want to believe nonsense that’s your choice. But your subjective moral beliefs are not morally binding on me or anyone else. And it’s not only irrational but hypocritical for you to push the beliefs on anyone else if they are not morally binding on anyone else. It would be better if the atheist followed Wittgenstein who wrote, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”john_a_designer_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Nobody--no human philosopher or theologian or ethicist--has an airtight definition for either good or evil. There simply isn't one that fully and perfectly delineates good from evil, such that we could understand or make use of it unambiguously in all circumstances. Having said that, my best definition is that evil equates to harm. There are several kinds of harm: natural harm (natural evil), which includes diseases that we do not intentionally acquire, and hurricanes, etc. There is unintentional harm, which comes through us (our will), yet we did not intend it. This includes such things as mis-treating a disesase because we mis-diagnosed it--something we cannot completely avoid because of our finite knowledge. Then there is intentional harm, which is what we commonly think of when we think of evil: people knowingly hurting other people. Harm must be defined, and I define that as "deviation from purpose". Something is harmed when it is pushed off-course. We do harm to ourselves and/or others when we willingly go away from our intended path through life. _Fully_ knowing what that path is, is not possible for us as finite selfish beings. Only God fully knows what our purpose(s) in life are. Only He knows fully why we're here, what we are supposed to do, and how we are supposed to be. If we are willing and seek it, we can approach it, but because we are finite (and sinners), we will not (in this phase of life) actually get completely on that path. Of course this definition is not perfect either, as it won't allow us to perfectly delineate good from evil. But it does cause the definition to rely on God and His knowledge, rather than ours. And it does appear to encompass every form of evil philosophers have uncovered. This leads to the ultimate theodicy. If only God fully knows the reasons we are here and why evil is allowed to exist, then nobody can successfully argue that "because we can't think of a reason, God must not have a good one." For every such argument against a theodicy, it can always be countered that God may have reasons we are not aware of, and maybe that we can't even comprehend! This undoes the most sophisticated arguments from evil that anyone as so far devised.EDTA_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Barry @ 12 - no, I don't think I've discussed it with Vividbleau. So I don't.Bob O'H_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

@16 Barry Arrington:
Every person is his own god and defines good and evil as he please.
Exactly. And the fact that every person has an instinctual perception of these abstract realities, is very telling. Where is the real standard of 'goodness' then? Hidden in the atheist's neurochemicals? Sure. :)Truthfreedom_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Seversky
No, evil is not a problem for atheists. If there is no God then evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and we, as beholders, are better-placed to decide what is evil than some mythical deity who doesn’t even deign to explain his reasoning concerning his morality to his most devoted followers.
Sev disagrees. Every person is his own god and defines good and evil as he pleases. And if Mao defines good as murdering sixty million? Well, Sev wouldn't define it that way, so isn't he better than Mao? Of course not. Under Sev's "different strokes" approach, there is, by definition, no standard by which to define "better." Sev must admit that his conception of good is just different from -- not better than -- Mao's. Note that Sev can't seem to maintain this nonsense in the course of the same sentence in which he espouses it. Note his use of the word "better." Given his premise, he has no logical right to use that word. Barry Arrington_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Why did God create a world in which the possibility of evil was part of its structure from the very beginning
Why don't you define evil? If it doesn't exist, then the theodicy argument falls apart.jerry_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

No, evil is not a problem for atheists. If there is no God then evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and we, as beholders, are better-placed to decide what is evil than some mythical deity who doesn't even deign to explain his reasoning concerning his morality to his most devoted followers. On the other hand, the very existence of theodicy as a well-established discipline in Christian scholarship is a measure of how seriously the problem of evil is regarded as a challenge to the faith. How do you reconcile the existence of evil with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent Creator who, by definition, has the knowledge, power and disposition to prevent it? Why did God create a world in which the possibility of evil was part of its structure from the very beginning and has been allowed to persist to this day? How can any rational being offer the Fall as an explanation when Adam and Eve were behaving and could only behave as their Creator designed them to behave and, even further, being omniscient He must have known that they would behave? Verse: "You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." -- Marcus Cole, Babylon 5Seversky_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Jerry, you really need to work on honing your sarcasm detection skills.
Barry, why don't you try to define "evil." You were touting coherent approaches above. How is it possible to discuss something that has no definition. We can then go from there. I have posted numerous times on the lack of a clear definition starting over 12 years ago. No one else has defined it in any coherent way. I have. If they have, point these definitions out. Your "icky stuff" just reflects my objections over the years to all the uses of the term. By the way thank you for restoring the editing function. It makes for more consistent posts with less typos and grammatical errors. Both of which I excel in.jerry_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Bob
So why does Vividblue think “I think the problem of evil is more a problem for the atheist than the theist”?
Do you seriously have no idea?Barry Arrington_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Likewise, viruses are also found to be essential to the ecosystem. “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.”
Trillions Upon Trillions of Viruses Fall From the Sky Each Day - Jim Robbins - April 13, 2018 Excerpt: Whatever the case, viruses are the most abundant entities on the planet by far. While Dr. Suttle’s team found hundreds of millions of viruses in a square meter, they counted tens of millions of bacteria in the same space. Mostly thought of as infectious agents, viruses are much more than that. It’s hard to overstate the central role that viruses play in the world: They’re essential to everything from our immune system to our gut microbiome, to the ecosystems on land and sea, to climate regulation,,,. Viruses contain a vast diverse array of unknown genes — and spread them to other species.,,, In laboratory experiments, he has filtered viruses out of seawater but left their prey, bacteria. When that happens, plankton in the water stop growing. That’s because when preying viruses infect and take out one species of microbe — they are very specific predators — they liberate nutrients in them, such as nitrogen, that feed other species of bacteria.,,, Viruses help keep ecosystems in balance by changing the composition of microbial communities. As toxic algae blooms spread in the ocean, for example, they are brought to heel by a virus that attacks the algae and causes it to explode and die, ending the outbreak in as little as a day.,,, The beneficial effects of viruses are much less known, especially among plants. “There are huge questions in wild systems about what viruses are doing there,” said Marilyn Roossinck, who studies viral ecology in plants at Pennsylvania State University. “We have never found deleterious effects from a virus in the wild.” A grass found in the high-temperature soils of Yellowstone’s geothermal areas, for example, needs a fungus to grow in the extreme environment. In turn, the fungus needs a virus.,,, Tiny spots of virus on the plant that yields quinoa is also important for the plant’s survival. “Little spots of virus confer drought tolerance but don’t cause disease,” she said. “It changes the whole plant physiology.” “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.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/science/virosphere-evolution.html Viruses: You've heard the bad; here's the good - April 30, 2015 Excerpt: "The word, virus, connotes morbidity and mortality, but that bad reputation is not universally deserved," said Marilyn Roossinck, PhD, Professor of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology and Biology at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park. "Viruses, like bacteria, can be important beneficial microbes in human health and in agriculture," she said. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150430170750.htm
Moreover, 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.”
“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. 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.” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species
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.”
Plant Galls and Evolution How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017 Excerpt: in the case of the galls, 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. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf
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).
What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/ Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016 Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,, The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,, “Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,, The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,, http://www.icr.org/article/9747
Such ‘holistic cooperation’ is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Dawkins had 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:
Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” - per science daily
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.
Stephen Meyer (and Doug Axe) Critique Richard Dawkins's "Mount Improbable" Illustration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8
Moreover on top of all that, (as if that was not completely devastating to Darwian 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 a mixture of both)
One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4
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.”
"It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. 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.” - Jay Homnick - American Spectator - 2005
Thus, vividbleau's claim that "I think the problem of evil is more a problem for the atheist than the theist" is a severe understatement. First, the 'pitiless indifference' of the amorality that is inherent in Atheistic materialism and/or naturalism itself is directly contradicted by what we intuitively know to be real and true, Namely, we intuitively know that objective moral values and duties really do exist. In fact, it is impossible for anyone to consistently live their lives as if they did not. And secondly, (and more importantly as far as science itself is concerned), the 'anti-morality' that is inherent when atheistic materialism is coupled with Darwin's theory, namely when it is coupled with the core assumption of 'survival of the fittest', is directly contradicted by the scientific evidence at every turn. The empirical and scientific fact of the matter is, (the ravages of Corona virus not withstanding), that we live in a world of profound mutual cooperation and altruistic behavior. Indeed, life itself, especially the life of multicellular organisms, would not even be possible without such profound mutual cooperation and altruistic behavior. Thus in conclusion, and in short, the problem of evil is far, far, more of a problem for the atheist than the theist. It simply is devastating for the atheist. Verse:
Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
bornagain77_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

vividbleau:
I think the problem of evil is more a problem for the atheist than the theist
I think that statement is a severe understatement. Moreover, the problem of evil is far more of a problem for atheists when you throw Darwinian evolution into the mix than when you just look at materialism and/or naturalism by themselves. First off, materialism and/or naturalism, when taken by themselves, without Darwinian evolution thrown into the mix, is simply amoral. As Richard Dawkins put it, it is a world of "pitiless indifference.”
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
And while the problem for straight up materialism and/or naturalism in its denial of objective morality is bad enough, since it denies the very existence of something that we all intuitively know to be true and real, namely the existence of objective morality itself,
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 2. Objective moral values do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. - The Moral Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
,,, And while the problem for straight up materialism and/or naturalism in its denial of the reality of objective morality is certainly bad enough, the problem of evil for atheists gets far, far, worse when we throw Darwinian evolution into the mix. Morally noble altruistic behavior of any type is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. red in tooth and claw, theory. As Darwin stated, "let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
As should be obvious to everyone who is not a psychopath, not only is "let the strongest live and the weakest die” amoral, but it is completely ANTI-moral. Specifically. it is a direct violation of the golden rule, i.e. love your neighbor as you love yourself, and is in direct contradiction to how that ethic plays out in the Christian worldview. Namely, it is in direct contradiction to the Christian ethos of looking out for those who are less fortunate and/or 'weaker' than you are.
Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Darwin himself bemoaned the fact that "the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind."
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Thus, clearly there is an inherent "ANTI-morality" that is central to Darwinian theory that is completely at odds with the Christian ethos of looking after those who are less fortunate and 'weaker' than yourself. As Sir Arthur Keith, wrote in his book Evolution and Ethics, "the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: 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.” Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15 (Note the year that this was written was shortly after the German ‘master race’ was defeated in World War II)
And indeed, as Hitler himself stated, "Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”
"A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf - pg 248
Moreover, not only is Darwinian evolution at 'war' with what we intuitively know to be true, namely that we ought to look after those who are less fortunate and/or 'weaker' than we are, but Darwinian evolution is also at 'war' with what we now know to be true scientifically. Namely, (in a point that is made especially crystal clear by the current Corona virus scourge), 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:
Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
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;”
“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66
The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:
The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308
As you can see, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially altruistic behavior (such as 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, 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 said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the mutual cooperation that they had found among bacteria.
Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html
As the researchers’ surprise made clear, apparently mutual cooperation is completely contradictory to the central assumption of ‘survival of the fittest’ that is core to Darwinian thought. As the following article states, "'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."
Friendly bacteria collaborate to survive - 10 October 2019 Excerpt: New microbial research at the University of Copenhagen suggests that '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. The discovery is a major step towards understanding complex bacteria interactions and the development of new treatment models for a wide range of human diseases and new green technologies. https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2019/10/friendly-bacteria-collaborate-to-survive/
Again, this is directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution. Moreover, and again directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, 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:
NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.” http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs
In fact, directly contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thought, bacteria are now known to transform the entire ecosystem of the earth for the apparent benefit of multicellular organism. A 'miraculous' transformation which certainly does not have anything to do with the bacteria’s own immediate 'survival of the fittest' concerns. 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.”
The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.2161&rep=rep1&type=pdf – Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers
bornagain77_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Barry, You called it "icky stuff" https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-evil-explained/ Barry: Jerry, you really need to work on honing your sarcasm detection skills.jerry_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Perhaps it's that "evil" is subjective with respect to atheists. After all, their morals are subjective. If Darwin was right it is all just living, reproducing and then dying. Everything else just is what it is- a means to that end.ET_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Barry, Without a definition how can something exist? Define evil. I have actually defined evil. It is the eternal separation from God. I have never seen anyone else do it here except to indicate it is just bad stuff happening to people. I believe you have agreed with me in the past that evil other than my definition does not exist. But since I am here so seldom in the last few years I do not know what has been said by you or others recently. Now for atheists, who say they don’t believe in God, the issue becomes whether God exists or not. If God does not exist, then evil does not exist, just temporary unpleasant unwanted circumstances. Of course they might say death is eternal and their non-existence is highly undesired. If God exists, then evil does exists depending on the nature of this God. Similarly for a believer, evil only exists if a certain type of God exists. That’s all for the moment. Doing this on an iPad early in the morning. I am sure there are some minor points that need to be restated for clarification but I am sure you get my reasoning. I can try to find the past discussion I am talking about but you could probably do it easier. By the way uncertainty about the existence of God and His nature is an absolutely necessary condition for a meaningful life. Otherwise we would be nothing but automatons.jerry_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

BTW, Barry, in the OP did you mean Vividblue or vividbleau? Thank you Bob. BABob O'H_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

So why does Vividblue think "I think the problem of evil is more a problem for the atheist than the theist"?Bob O'H_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

Atheists do not believe in absolutes, at least that's what they tell themselves and others. To the atheist, everything comes down to either/or. Either you support gay marriage, or you are a homophobe who hates homosexuals. It does not matter to the atheist that there could be a whole host of reasons for the opposition, including the dislike of redefining a word that has been around since at least ancient Egypt, which means it predates Christianity. All that matters is they believe they are on the side of right and anyone who disagrees must be on the side of wrong. They have picked their villains and heroes. War trials were held against National Socialists and Imperial Japanese, but no Soviet was ever put on trial for doing to Berlin what the Imperial Army did to Nan King. Che is held up as a hero, even though he was a mass murderer before he ever met Fidel Castro. Stalin was largely ignored and became the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world. Xi has been given absolute power in China. He has the same title and power that Mao held. There is silence on the crackdowns that started the moment he rose to power. The CCP is one of the most brutal governments in existence today and they ensure North Korea survives. Without China, North Korea falls into an economic abyss. They make excuses for the failure of socialism in Venezuela, since it is never the fault of socialism. They blame everyone except those responsible for the misery that currently exists in what was the wealthiest country in the region.BobRyan_{April 3, 2020
April
04
Apr
3
03
2020
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Jerry,
Evil does not exist. Or at least for an atheist it does not exist.
The existence of a thing is independent of whether one believes it exists. If evil exists, it exists for atheists and theists alike. If evil does not exist, it does not exist for atheists and theists alike. So your statement that "at least for an atheist evil does not exist" is incoherent. Unless, of course, what you really mean is that an atheist does not believe evil exists. Assuming that is what you mean, then you are just wrong. All sane people, including you, live their lives as if they believe evil exists. Granted, a person may say they do not believe evil exists, and indeed that conclusion may even be compelled by their metaphysical premises, as it is in your case. But no one believes it.Barry Arrington_{April 3, 2020
April
04
Apr
3
03
2020
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

Genesis 2:9
And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Revelation 22:11
Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.
PaoloV_{April 3, 2020
April
04
Apr
3
03
2020
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Evil does not exist. Or at least for an atheist it does not exist. I have asked in the past on this site for a definition of evil. I haven't looked at any answers here for a couple years but I never saw anyone who could actually define evil. Most define it as bad stuff or the lack of good. Whatever that is. And the more bad it is, the more evil it is. But it is always a relative thing. Any unpleasant thing in this world is trivial because it is finite. For a Christian who believes in heaven, there is only one evil and it is absolute. That is deprivation of a direct relationship with God for eternity. So I guess I do not agree with the OP. PS - I am aware of the differences between natural and moral evil but since I am arguing that evil does not exist, the distinction just means how bad things to people originate.jerry_{April 3, 2020
April
04
Apr
3
03
2020
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply