Problem of Evil based on a stealed concept?
Posted on: December 28, 2010 - 6:33pm
Offline
Problem of Evil based on a stealed concept?
Hello there!
When theists are challenged with the problem of Evil by atheists, they defend themselves by claiming:
"saying that it's evil for God to create natural disasters and sickness is
making a moral judgement about God which requires knowing ABSOLUTE moral standards,
but such knowledge can only be given by God,
so atheists accept implicitly God to disprove Him, which is an illogical reasoning
so the so-called problem of Evil is biased"
What are your counter-arguments?
- Login to post comments
I think the answers may be:
1) God is a antropomorphic myth created by very ignorant, superstitious people. Therefore, he is not absolute and anyone can make moral judgement about him and about people who made it all up.
If they mean a supreme form of God, such as the universe itself, then theists are not more entitled to make any judgements on such topic than atheists.
2) If you talk to any narrow-minded hardcore theist... Let's say that God created us knowing about our small local moral absolutes (like that we prefer not to die in natural catastrophes) - and then violates them by sending natural catastrophes at us. If that's not evil, then it's at least mischievous
3) God can not give anyone ABSOLUTE moral standards, because we are imperfect people incapable of obeying them, or even comprehending them. The only thing that so far resembles an absolute moral standard, is the Golden rule, not sets of dietary, clothing, social, administrative, political and sexual rules.
4) It's "stolen", not stealed.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
FYI, these are the actual considerations behind the 'problem of evil':
If God is the absolute standard of morality, then either:
Actions which cause massive injury, death, and sickness are not evil;
or:
God is not causing those things, and does not have the power to stop them, so is not omnipotent.
or:
Pain is good, and we should pursue it...
If God does not exist, the problem does not arise.
We do not require an 'absolute standard of morality" for adequately 'moral' behavior, just evolved mental predispositions to cooperation, which is advantageous for a social species, as we are.
The Golden Rule, or something like that, is all we need for morality, and it is independent of absolute morality or a God. There are better Rules, but that is a reasonable start, and establishes that secular morality is perfectly adequate.
We have identified the brain structures which play a fundamental role in helping us guide our dealings with others by understanding their feelings and reactions. They are called 'mirror neurones'.
We see cooperative behaviour, a sense of fairness, in other social species.
Even altruism has been observed in chimpanzees.
EDIT:
Those other arguments are irrelevant - all we need to know is that things happen that are not caused by man which cause great harm and distress.
Your 'arguments' are the typical theological sophistry we see as they try to find a way to wriggle out of an insurmountable problem.
Theists create the problem for themselves by insisting that God is good and benevolent, whereas all the evidence is that, if he exists, he is evil, or doesn't care about us.
Since they don't even have any way to actually 'know' anything about the nature or attributes of any Supreme Being purely by logical argument, the empirical evidence is all we have. So any assumption that God is 'Good', for example, is totally speculative, and against logic, because of all the unnecessary created evil in the world.
The "problem of evil" really is the stake thru the heart of the standard God concept.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology