Monday, November 2, 2015
Evil? No Problem
In sections X and XI, Philo and Demea catalogue human misery and Philo uses this evidence to prove that either God does NOT exist or He is NOT benevolent. Is this argument sound? If not, where does the argument fail? What about the possibility that suffering is part of some great good like free will or character development (a theodicy)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The argument that Philo presents is not sound due to the fact that the premises listed are not all true. The argument is as follows. There is evil in the universe, whether it is internal suffering or inflicted misfortune. God is I control of all things in the universe. If God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent then he should not allow evil in the world. Therefore, he does not exist. Yet, this argument has its faults. First, if there is evil in the universe created by god then god may not exist as he is traditionally known. There may still be a God just not omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. God could be omnibenevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent, he doesn’t have to be all three. There could be a higher power that is responsible for all things in the universe, which is not the God that is traditionally thought of. God could also just not be as powerful or all-knowing as we think. Humans may have free will and God just doesn’t know of the evils being committed on Earth. Or there are more important things in the universe that require the power and attention of God. Also, there is the argument that everything God wills to happen is done for a reason; meaning that all evils that are cause by God in the world are done for a reason. These meanings could be unknown to humans but the reasoning lies within God. If God does not exist there has to be a cause for everything that happens in the universe. Therefore, this argument fails.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a world where evil is present; that is a fact that goes without any negotiation. This evil is what many atheists grab a hold of and use in their arguments to prove the lack of God's existence. The argument proposed by Philo (technically Hume) in books X and XI goes as follows:
ReplyDeleteI) God contains the “three-Omnis” (omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient).
II) If God is omnipotent then he has the power to get rid of evil (ability).
III) If God is omnibenevolent then he would not allow the presence of evil (will).
IV) If God is omniscient then he would know of the existence of evil, and how to get rid of it (knowledge).
V) If God exists, he would prevent any and all forms of evil.
VI) But evil exists in our world.
VII) Therefore, God does not exist.
The argument has a logical flow, making it “sound” in the sense that the final conclusion is supported by the premises. However, the argument, and more specifically, the conclusion contains flaws that make the argument overall “unsound.”
Firstly, it is insufficient to say that the presence of evil automatically proves God’s lack of existence. It does, however, disprove one of the common notions that many theists have about God: that he is omnibenevolent. It may be a hard pill to swallow for those who believe in this perfect view of God, but the possibility of God’s lack of omni-benevolence cannot be ignored. It’s entirely possible that God does not actually contain this perfection that we so often associate with him. He could still be omnipotent and omniscient, but he does not necessarily have to be omnibenevolent. This means that God is either imperfect (in the sense that he is not omnibenevolent), or he disregards any care for humans whatsoever, and evil happens to be a product of this lack of consideration. This second possibility is, of course, a much more radical approach. To summarize, it’s is possible for God to be both omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnibenevolent, making his existence still possible despite the presence of evil.
Secondly, it is also possible that the presence of evil has specific intentions that have been purposefully proposed by God for the sake of the “greater good.” This comes down to a matter of the “four worlds.” One with both free will (FW) and evil (E), one with neither FW or E, one with only FW, and only with only E. Both the world that contains the “only” situation (only FW or only E) cannot exist because preventing evil prevents free will, and preventing free will is way too radical, and God would not put us in a world of pure evil. The best choice is a world of both FW and E. To prevent E would prevent FW and therefore the presence of E is plausible and justified in God’s case of aiming for this “greater good.” Thus by process of elimination, we can come to the conclusion that a world that contains both FW and E (the world in which we live in) is the best option, and one that God would choose for the “greater good.” There is also another way of looking at it that I’m sure many of us can relate to. When we come face to face with evil, we often want to turn our heads. When we come face to face with goodness, we smile back with gratitude. The presence of evil allows us to be grateful for goodness, and almost serves as a lesson that teaches us to value whatever goodness that comes along our way. Of course this “lesson” becomes absurd when we introduce events like cancer or tsunamis, but it’s just a thought.
In the end, we can conclude that Philo’s argument lacks in its intended goal: to prove God’s lack of existence.
Philo’s argument that God cannot exist in the form imagined in religions such as Christianity is absolutely valid. It’s valid because omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence can’t possibly be traits simultaneously belonging to one being in an imperfect universe. If there were such a being, of course, there would be no trace of evil, and few reasonable people would argue that is the case in our world currently. It never has been, and never will be. There are a couple of holes in Philo’s argument, sure, but ultimately, it’s not all that difficult to craft a defense for the argument which trumps any counter argument that might highlight these flaws. For starters, it can be said that a being that possesses all three of the aforementioned characteristics is worthy of worship, yet fails to guarantee the complete absence of evil, because it lacks a fourth omni-word: omnipresence. Perhaps, the hypothetical argument would go, god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and genuinely good, yet can’t attend to all small matters. In other words, he/she has the power to solve each and every individual situation imaginable, but not all at once. God could certainly be forgiven for allowing me to stub my toe when its focus is on healing the victim of a serious car crash, right? Here’s the issue: Using omnipresence, or lack thereof, to excuse god’s inability to prevent our first-world problems, contradicts either the idea that god is omnipotent, or that god is omnibenevolent. Omnipresence is a necessary component of true, unmatched omnipotence, as to be unable to be everywhere at once, is to lack absolute power. With this in mind, the other possibility is that god actually is omnipresent, in which case, allowing me to stub my toe is proof of god’s evil. Small scale evil, no question, but why not stop all bad things, even if some are relatively insignificant, if given the capacity to do so. To permit even the most minor unfortunate events then makes it impossible to be omnibenevolent. Another potential qualm with Philo’s stance is the possibility that things that we perceive to be bad actually are not, and a part of a “greater good” that can only be recognized by a supreme being such as god. I’m willing to accept this claim when it comes to me stubbing my toe, because even if it’s unclear how it contributes to this “greater good”, it is equally unclear how it does the opposite (working towards the ultimate evil). However, it’s silly, and honestly rather offensive, to suggest that tragic events like mass shootings in movie theaters, or illnesses such as depression, addiction, and Alzheimer’s, or periods such as slavery and The Holocaust, are well-disguised blessings that we are too simple-minded to see. Not many would, but to those people, it needs to be said that evil isn’t always subjective or overly complicated. It exists, it just does, and not everything happens for a reason. Not a very good reason, anyway.
ReplyDeleteIn the times of great tragedy people often ask themselves the question "if god exists why did he do this". Philo reflects with confusion upon this as he develops the following argument in premise form. Firstly Philo starts with the foundation that god does in fact exist. Then he decides to recognize god in the traditional form of being omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Furthermore, under these traits god would remove all evil from the world. Resultantly there must be no evil in our world. But through common logic we know that their is evil in our society. Due to the conclusion of Philo's argument not matching the reality of our world the argument must be flawed. The first error could lie in the first premise as it is plausible that god does not exist. If atheism did prove true that would mean that due to are infinite free will we are able to decide to create our own evil and good out of our own naturally developed reason. Though, if a god were in fact existent the other flaw in the argument would be the traditional conception of god. Firstly, god may been not be omniscient. If this was in fact true then god would not be able to know the existence of all reason and how to remove all evil from the world. Thus, instead of the traditional sense that god always know the solution to a problem he perhaps acts out of his own reason and does not know every outcome to an act. Secondly, god could not be omnibenevolent and lacks moral perfection. If god were in fact not an infinitely moral being he could choose to create a society with evil in it out of his own desire for his actions. Thirdly, god could in fact lack omnipotency and not actually have infinite power. If he was in fact a finite being, god could be constantly attempting to fix all evil but his limitations prevent him from doing so. Each traditional conception of god could be false or even multiple aspects of the traditional god could be false. Fundamentally, if even one of the commonly thought of features of god was wrong the conclusion could be disavowed. Another possible issue is with the classification of omnipotent. Omnipotency is commonly thought of as limitless but as demonstrated with the possibility of god producing a stone that is too heavy for him to lift. Sometimes even with invite power situations may become paradoxical. Thus, a situation that has two options god may have to use his omnipotency to achieve the better of two evils as appose to canceling out both the evils to produce a good. Under this realization it is possible god produces the best reality possible and the bad is the best case result. Under these issues it becomes evident that the traditional god is flawed in at least one respect.
ReplyDeleteIn sections X and XI, Hume expresses his skepticism in God’s existence through Philo. In this argument, Hume bases his argument on the fact that God is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnibenevolent (all good). Hume believes that if God really exists, he would know all evil, hate all evil, and have the power to eliminate all evil. Hume looks at the world and points out that suffering and evil exist everywhere. There is sickness, pain, and immorality. This causes Hume to question God’s existence. Like Hume, many people also share the belief that because God can prevent evil and evil exists, God must not exist. This concept causes many people to ask the question “If I still experience pain and suffering, why should I believe and/or worship a God that is supposed to eliminate my pain and suffering?” In the end, those people, including Hume, conclude that God must not exist. However, this argument is not sound. It is unreasonable to conclude that God does not exist just because evil exists. There are many other scenarios that can end with a God and evil filled world. For example, when we think of God, we usually think of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being. However, we could be wrong. To prove Hume wrong, all we have to do is to disprove that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Even if God is 2 out of the 3, evil will exist and so will God. Just because the most common assumption is that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent does not mean that it is true. Another scenario could be that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. However, he chooses not to eliminate evil even though he can. Perhaps God wants us all to have free will. These are just two of many possible scenarios that end lead to a world with God and evil.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletePhilo uses the argument that because there is a lot of evil and suffering in the world and God is supposed to be omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, God cannot exist. The argument is based on the fact that if God exists and is all three of those things he would have the power to end suffer, know how to end suffering and want to end suffering. The problem is evil exists in the world, so how can God also exist? This problem calls for a definition of what it really means to be omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means to be all good and all loving and although it may seem impossible for God to have those qualities and have suffering in the world however; God gave use free will. Free will means that we have the power to make our own decisions and choose our own path. God can still be all good and all loving because he knows that having free will will make our lives better and happier in the long run, even if there is suffering and evil in the world because of it. Another possibility is that God knows better what is good and what is not. God may be trying to build our character and make us better people in the long run. Without any type of suffering how can you learn to be empathetic or even responsible. It is impossible to have responsibility if there is no chance of suffering because there would be no worry that something could go wrong. Without those types of traits, how can we find meaning in our lives? God may not prevent evil but he might be doing what's best for use without us even knowing.
In sections X and XI of David Humes’ Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, an argument concerning Gods existent is questioned because of the prevalence of evil. The argument can be summarized as such: If evil exists, then God cannot exist or God is not either omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient. If god were the traditional God that we preserve him as, which would mean evil could not exist. Although Philo makes intriguing points, I do not believe that his argument is sound. Evil can be caused by free will from humans, and only caused by humans. People like Hitler and Dictators are the cause of human actions, but what about things such as disease and natural disasters? If you look at the bible, God made no evil and yet Adam and Eve still had free will. As it says in the bible, the original sin was the cause of all human suffering. Also in Genesis, the story of Noah shows the bad choices humans made and the immoral actions they took. Therefore God made a flood because of the choices humans made with free will. The Bible explains why evil exists, and evil does not exist because god is malevolent. Rather God is still omnibenevolent because he does not cause human suffering, it us, humans that cause our own suffering.
ReplyDeleteAnother flaw in Philo’s argument is that the world we live in is the best God could have made. There are four types of possible worlds; a world with no free will and evil, a world with free will and evil, a world with free will and no evil, and a world with no free will and no evil. A world that has free will and no evil is impossible so we can cross that one out even though it sounds the most ideal. A world with no free will and evil is just terrible so we can cross that one out. It is now down to free will and evil and no free will and no evil. No one would want to be a puppet, and a world with evil is better than a world in which we have no control over anything. Therefore the world God created is the best possibility out of the four worlds. Thus proving God exists and he is benevolent disproving Philo’s argument.
While Philo’s argument that evil’s plain existence in our world is proof of a non-existent or of an non-omni-benevolent God seems like sound reasoning, it actually has flaws in it which can invalidate either result. The argument goes something like this:
ReplyDeleteGod must be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
The omnipotence of God should allow him to rid the world of all evil.
God’s omniscience should allow him to know of the existence of evil in the world, and know the methods to rid of it.
God’s omnibenevolent nature should make it absolutely necessary to use this power to eliminate evil in order to maintain the perfect world.
If God exists, he would take into account all these factors and eliminate evil and suffering from our world
But there is observable evil in our world (genocide, rape, etc.)
So God must be non-existent or not universally good
This argument can be picked apart by looking at its two individual conclusions separately. The definition of God should be subject to change, one could argue, because humans have no higher knowledge to confirm the exact values of a being as powerful as God. While the possibility that God may not be omnibenevolent still exists and forces us to reevaluate how we view religions that praise him, he could still be omnipotent and omniscient, and certainly no one would dispute that those are truly characteristics of a higher power. If God was both of these values but not omnibenevolent, the possibility of evil seems all more real now due to the fact that their is possibility for both free will and evil to coexist in our world. Our world could not be based on only free will since that prevents evil actions, and preventing free will is impossible due to the Cogito argument by Descartes. This means either both free will and evil coexist or they both are non-existent, and so we arrive at the conclusion that both free will and evil coexist in this world, possibly at the design of a God. It can be argued that the existence of evil (at least on a smaller scale) is needed for a functioning society, since it forces us to use our good human nature to resolve problems caused by evil such as immoral actions or bad internal thoughts. This means that the world is more perfect with evil in it then it is without evil, since humans can reach a higher plane of being through the realization of their own morality at the cost of evil existing. The one thing that Philo’s argument does prove 100% certain is that evils so powerful such as tornados and hurricanes, which are not manmade but clearly destructive, have no form in which they can be rationalized.
Hume's argument follows a logical order. The argument starts with the statement that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and since he is all of these things he must know the existence of evil and how to fix it, and have a wish to rid the world of evil. The conclusion is that since evil exists, God must not exist. Though the argument itself is sound, the conclusion is too quick: there are ways for God to exist simultaneously with evil. Why is it automatically assumed that if there is a God who has the power to rid us of evil that he would? What if evil plays a specific role in our lives? If god truly is omnipotent and exists, then he has the power to get rid of evil, but also to make the decision to keep evil as part of the elegantly designed universe. The truth is, evil can be looked at as a necessary part of life. Without evil, we cannot have the opposite; we cannot learn to be good and compassionate without an understanding of what it looks like to be bad and immoral. Good and evil both play specific roles in humanity, and if there was some god who chose to eradicate evil, the world would be vastly different. It isn't as simple as stopping bad things from happening: many things are dependent on the evil which occurs. The elimination of evil would greatly alter all human interaction, but also would be impossible: evil is relative, meaning that if evil as we have come to understand it was eradicated, it would take a new form. Perhaps there is some evil which is prevented by a god, which defines what is currently known as evil. Therefore, nothing can be proved regarding the existence of God based on evil in the world.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHume debates whether or not the classical depiction of God can be possible if evil exists in the world. The classical God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Hume argues if God is omnipotent, He has the power to prevent evil. If God is omnibenevolent, He has the will to prevent evil. And if God is omniscient, He knows evil exists and how to prevent it. According to this line of thinking, evil and God cannot coexist. However, the argument fails because it is still possible for the classical depiction of God to exist in this situation. It is not logically possible to have free will exist without the possibility of evil, so God must choose between them in His creation of humanity. Therefore, free will can be considered the greater good and the existence of evil is a byproduct of it. The argument also fails if we consider God may not exist in the classical sense. If God is the creator of the universe, this does not necessarily mean He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. He may not be omnipotent if the universe does not need a creator who is all powerful, only much more powerful than man can comprehend. God is also not required to be omnibenevolent if we only view Him as the creator of the universe, for an engineer does not have to be perfectly moral to create. And finally, God may not be omniscient, He may only know enough required to create the universe. There are multiple possibilities in which Hume's argument is broken. This dialogue does not prove the classical God cannot coexist with evil, nor does is it valid if God differs from the classical perception.
ReplyDelete