About Evil

American Thinker ^ | October 16, 2007 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

Man has long asked how a loving God could allow evil to exist in the world.  It's an age-old philosophical question that can cause those who want faith to doubt and those who want to doubt to mock faith.  A Christian's answer to this question is "free will," a concept critics may regard as something reduced to a convenient cliché.  The truth is, though, that this is a most fascinating subject to inquisitive minds.

The two qualities that make us like God are intellect and free will, despite the fact that the former can seem as lacking as the latter is abused.  Why intellect has prerequisite status is obvious, but why free will?  If God is omnipotent, He can prevent the immeasurable pain and suffering we inflict on one another with the blink of an eternal eye.  Why doesn't He do it?  Perhaps this problem is what caused people such as Thomas Jefferson to embrace deism, the belief that God set the Universe in motion but then receded into the background, indifferent to our plight.  So let's examine free will.

Imagine you have a child, and technology has advanced to a point where you can implant a computer chip in his brain, one that would ensure he never acted wrongly.  If everyone were thus controlled, we would have a world in which everyday transgressions were unknown.  Yet, would you view this as an acceptable remedy for your child's human frailty?

A good father certainly would not, for it would render the child something less than human.  He would then be nothing more than an organic robot, an automaton, controlled by an outside agency whose will has supplanted his own.  Just picture the Borg in Star Trek.

After all, what of love?  While a child thus controlled would behave in ways that may seem loving in a superficial sense, he would not be acting out of love at all.  We only exhibit love when we could be hateful,  but choose to be loving instead.

As to this, think about how much more we appreciate aid rendered voluntarily than that which is coerced.  When starving, we may certainly be happy to receive a meal from a man who has a gun to his head, but it sates our soul as well as stomach when he helps us with a happy heart and of his own accord.  Likewise, it's considered a mitigating circumstance when a person is coerced into committing a crime.  (Note: these examples involve incomplete consent of the will due to duress, not the elimination of free will, as my computer-chip hypothetical does.)  Or, think about dolphins trained by the military to detect mines in the ocean, attack enemy divers or plant explosives on ships.  While we certainly may appreciate what these animals can do, it cannot be compared to the conscious decision made when a man accepts the risk to life and limb on a bomb squad; the dolphin acts in accordance with his training -- or programming, as it were -- whereas the man has made a decision to risk his life with full knowledge and consent of the will.  Intellect and free will are what separate us from the animal kingdom.

Getting back to our hypothetical child, a good parent wants him to be more than just controlled.  Sure, when he is young, he may be watched continually and his life micromanaged, owing to his immature state.  As he grows, however, we can loosen the reins commensurate with his increasing capacity to govern himself from within.  And we look forward to the day when he will exercise his free will rightly, for only then will he have come to full flower as a human being.

If we fail in this task of moral formation and the child goes astray, he may end up in prison, a place where his ability to exercise his free will is limited.  From a moral standpoint, we then may consider him to be a malformed human being.  Were he to not have free will in the first place, however, he would be something less than a human being.

Then, when saying that we cannot believe in God because of the existence of evil, we accept a contradiction.  If God doesn't exist, how can we label a position evil with credibility?  If man is the author of what we call right and wrong, if morality is all a matter of opinion, then there is no evil in any real sense.  In other words, if we are judging some things to be good and others evil, we have to ask what standard we're using as a yardstick.  If the standard is simply consensus opinion, then what we call morality falls in the realm of taste.  And if 90 percent of the world liked chocolate ice cream and disliked vanilla, we wouldn't think this rendered chocolate good and vanilla evil; it's simply a preference.  So, should we think murder was evil simply because 90 percent of the people said they didn't like it?  If there is nothing outside of man and his emotions that deems it so -- if it is not objective reality -- then it also is simply a matter of taste. 

"Oh, but it involves death, not dessert.  C'mon, it's morality!" say the critics?  Sure, your feelings may tell you this distinction is significant, but if it doesn't accord with external reality, those feelings are in error.  They are then simply biases, ones powerful enough to evoke passion, but biases nonetheless.  And those very different terms, taste and morality, would be nothing but semantics.

So, for "good" and "evil" to truly be reckoned as such, the standard we use cannot merely be taste masquerading as "values."  And since man is being judged (we are, after all, talking about our actions), he cannot be the standard, for a standard cannot judge itself any more than a board can be used to measure itself for a carpentry project.  For a standard to judge what is good and evil, it must be both outside and above them, in which case that standard starts to sound an awful lot like God.

So it's ironic: Some find the existence of evil to be convincing proof God doesn't exist, but the Truth is that the existence of evil would prove God does exist.

When we look around us at man's inhumanity to man, it may seem a high price to pay for free will.  Yet, when pondering how much we value freedom and have often sacrificed for it, the matter is illuminated.  Our Founding Fathers and many others were willing to shed blood, both theirs and others, and risk their wealth, land and status for that cherished value.  If in our finer moments we are willing to endure hardship and misery so that we will not be puppets of the worldly, it should surprise us not that He who has only fine moments would allow us to endure same so that we would not be puppets of the divine.  The difference is that what man offers his brother only when there is a full flowering of the human spirit, He grants without reservation so that the spirit may be truly human.

Contact Selwyn Duke

[woollyone]

wrong!

you are explaining the “hey were all just a bunch of animals anyway” crap. Hey a man is a bear is a pig....riiiight? and all are morally equal...riiiight? BS!

Animals do not care one second to cut in line in front of others to satisfy their needs. But ask any human if it this is acceptable and nearly all will say it is not. Man has a higher moral law than the animals.

When cutting in line, and confronted, nearly every time, the person committing the offense does NOT declare that the unwritten "it is rude to cut in line" law is wrong, but always defends why in that particular instance it was permissible for them to violate the law. In essence, they have declared the law to exist, but have stated that they are exempt from obeying it for a particular reason. In that method of defense and by implication, they declare that the law is good.

So too with liars, adulterers, coveter's, murderers (in thought and deed) etc. For in the animal realm these laws are violated constantly, without conscience. Only in man are these laws which we hold to be truee and noble. And the law doesnot come from governemnt (ecept murder), but form somewhere else...and that "somehwere" did not give that law to the animals.

So if we are just like the animals, why do we feel compelled to obey a moral law that they do not feel compelled to obey?

Your moral relativism is not well thought out! We are no more like the critters than your arguement was well thought out.

[Psycho_Bunny]

They do.  The Latin phrase for it is Notiones Communes.  It's the idea that societies having no interaction will generally come up with the same basic concepts of morality.  For instance, having sex with your mother is pretty much universally considered immoral.  Murder, rape, theft, etc...are pretty much condemned universally.

There are exceptions to the rule:  Islam being a biggy, but Notiones Communes pretty much holds true.

[Rutles4Ever]

You're not the first to postulate the Prime Mover argument but even still, it doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's an argument in circles because it's ultimate nature is incomprehensible.

What does, "it doesn't prove or disprove anything" mean, exactly? If you want me to prove the existence of a spiritual realm with human apprehension, it's not possible. I can't necessarily prove that the moon isn't made of cheese, but I can somewhat assume it isn't because there aren't any mice trying to get there. I can't draw you a picture of God, but I can assume He exists because the Big Bang (or whatever it was) didn't just accomplish itself. If you disagree with the First Mover theory, then you need to present reasons why it's not tenable. Saying "it doesn't prove or disprove anything" is just cognitive dissonance, nothing more. That's an easy position to take in order to escape a difficult reality. ("I can't prove or disprove this raging fire exists, therefore I need not throw any water on it.")

And exactly how is the intellect non-corporeal?

What elements are it composed of? How many atoms? Neutrons, electrons, protons? Can you hold it in your hand, see it with your eyes, sense it by touch, smell, sound, color. If you went to the police and said, "I just got mugged by some guy's intellect!", how would you identify it in a lineup?

[Gene Eric]

>> The two qualities that make us like God are intellect and free will,...

Oh, really? Can Selwyn Duke then advise what’s required to be better than God?

Evil exists and not one conscious ‘intellect’ thinks otherwise. The meaning of ‘evil’ is an issue of semantics and the imaginative formation of its center whether in the soul, the dark of night, or some place in outer space. The descriptive examples used to teach children about good and evil too often become the definitive entities that embody both. In order for evil to exist, does it first need to take physical form as in a violent act? Or, is it enough to think evil thoughts alone, and if such thoughts are never expressed, whose to say evil exists? Are good thoughts the same thing as good deeds? Is it evil to think about helping a victim yet fail to provide real assistance? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

>> When we look around us at man’s inhumanity to man, it may seem a high price to pay for free will.

In other words, the cost of evil is justified to achieve free will?

One man’s evil is another’s right to free will.

[Gene Eric]

ping

[49th]

“If you disagree with the First Mover theory, then you need to present reasons why it’s not tenable.”

The major problem with the First Mover argument is that it begs the question “Who moved the mover?”

“He exists because the Big Bang (or whatever it was) didn’t just accomplish itself.”

This is a huge assumption on your part considering that it is actually impossible to know what existed before the Big
Bang. Also, it has been shown that events on the quantum scale actually do not require causes in order for those events to occur.

“Saying “it doesn’t prove or disprove anything” is just cognitive dissonance”

This is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the ability to believe or hold two contradicting thoughts simultaneously.

[Psycho_Bunny]

What does, "it doesn't prove or disprove anything" mean, exactly?

My assertion was that evil is comprehensible with or without a belief in God.

You stated that Evil is only comprehensible if there is a God.

I asked you to prove that.  You haven't.

 If you want me to prove the existence of a spiritual realm with human apprehension, it's not possible. 

But you just stated in absolutes that God does exist.  

I can't necessarily prove that the moon isn't made of cheese, but I can somewhat assume it isn't because there aren't any mice trying to get there. 

False analogy. 

I can't draw you a picture of God, but I can assume He exists because the Big Bang (or whatever it was) didn't just accomplish itself. 

I wouldn't presume to know. 

If you disagree with the First Mover theory, then you need to present reasons why it's not tenable. 

"The universe is closed" - I don't necessarily believe that but, that's the rebuttal.  

Saying "it doesn't prove or disprove anything" is just cognitive dissonance, nothing more. 

Look up "cognitive dissonance."  

That's an easy position to take in order to escape a difficult reality. ("I can't prove or disprove this raging fire exists, therefore I need not throw any water on it.")  

Again, a false comparison.  But to use your analogy for my original statement:  I don't need to know how the fire started to recognize it's there....and that I should put it out.

[wjcsux]

My church group is currently doing The Truth Project video series. It is produced by Focus on the Family. They answer many of these arguments. I highly recommend this program.

[Rutles4Ever]

My assertion was that evil is comprehensible with or without a belief in God.

Evil is not a proper object. Evil is the privation of good. If you recognize evil, then you are recognizing a contrary good that should properly exist in its place. The ultimate evil is absence of the ultimate good. The ultimate good is God. The word we use to describe that absence from the ultimate good is called "hell".

I asked you to prove that. You haven't.

I can't prove the beauty of music to someone who's deaf, either.

But you just stated in absolutes that God does exist.

He does exist because there is nothing provable which is contrary to His existence. Because I cannot apprehend it perfectly in the corporeal realm does not make it less true. Do you reject gravity, too?

I wouldn't presume to know.

That's too bad. Are you saying the definition of an atheist is one who prefers ignorance?

"The universe is closed" - I don't necessarily believe that but, that's the rebuttal.

That's nice. Where's your evidence? I have thousands of years of theological history to draw from, philosophical thought, logic, and inexplicable, supernatural phenomenon in my holster to support the opposite. Between the two stances, which has a foundation in reason?

Look up "cognitive dissonance."

Ignorance of facts in evidence. I don't see a problem with applying that to your stance.

Again, a false comparison. But to use your analogy for my original statement: I don't need to know how the fire started to recognize it's there....and that I should put it out.

Exactly. I don't need to know how God started to recognize He's there. If I were one of only a relatively few people who couldn't recognize fire, I'd be worried. If I were one of only a relatively few people who couldn't recognize God, I'd be even more worried.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

That is the origin of empathy. Not protecting the brood or nuzzling with a mate. An animal, insect, etc., cannot apprehend the emotion or condition of another as its own.

Insects can be dismissed immediately - their thought processes consist of some basic neurological functions and a few survival and reproduction instincts. But we certainly can see examples of empathy in the case of animals which possess a certain minimum level of intelligence. When we see a chimp in a lab attempting to help a strange human reaching for an object, we're seeing an animal comprehending the need of the human and responding to it. When we see elephants standing guard for days over an unrelated fallen comrade against people attempting to sedate and collar it, we see animals comprehending and responding to the plight of their fellow. These are the beginnings of the thought processes which humans, with our greater levels of intelligence, eventually developed into the concepts of compassion and morality.

Such concepts always boil down, in the end, to treating our fellows as we would wish to be treated. And these concepts are not always fostered by religions, which may decree death for non-believers, subjugation of non-believers, promote unfair hierarchies among the believers, etc.

Who said they're the same? Acting under fear of punishment is anxiety.

Acting under fear of punishment is at the heart of the argument of those who claim religion is the source of human morality and ethics. Such claims always boil down to the belief that without the fear of God's punishment (corporal or spiritual) to keep them in line, people would abandon all morality and run amok. This is simply not true and ignores the reality of human nature and human societies.

[numberonepal]

The good can live without evil. Evil cannot live without the good. Simple logic.

[Rutles4Ever]

But we certainly can see examples of empathy in the case of animals which possess a certain minimum level of intelligence. When we see a chimp in a lab attempting to help a strange human reaching for an object, we're seeing an animal comprehending the need of the human and responding to it.

Empathy involves emotion. What emotion is the chimp displaying? Pity? How do you know the chimp isn't reaching for it in competition? Did the chimp think, "oh, that poor, strange human. Let me give him a hand"?

When we see elephants standing guard for days over an unrelated fallen comrade against people attempting to sedate and collar it, we see animals comprehending and responding to the plight of their fellow.

No they're not. They're instinctively protecting the species. I don't see elephants banding together to protect the antelope population from cheetahs, do you? If they comprehend that, why aren't they banding together to hunt and kill poachers?

These are the beginnings of the thought processes which humans, with our greater levels of intelligence, eventually developed into the concepts of compassion and morality.

How do these thoughts make the leap from instinct to "compassion and morality". If it's possible, why are there no species "in transit", so to speak, from mere brutes to Hallmark Greeting Card designers? If you're postulating that this takes place, you must have an opinion of what agent affects the change, don't you? Since the earth is alive, does it have instinct? Can it develop instinct? Why or why not?

Such concepts always boil down, in the end, to treating our fellows as we would wish to be treated.

Terrifyingly simple, isn't it? Unfortunately, the tack of human history has been to treat others in ways we would never want to be treated, which makes the concept of a God who preaches something different an idea worthy of crucifying to a cross.

And these concepts are not always fostered by religions, which may decree death for non-believers, subjugation of non-believers, promote unfair hierarchies among the believers, etc.

Depends on the religion. That's why moral relativism is a sham. There can only be One Truth.

Acting under fear of punishment is at the heart of the argument of those who claim religion is the source of human morality and ethics.

They argue wrongly. The source of human morality and ethics is nature's desire to mimic what created it. Thus, the child yearns on one level to mimic his/her parent. At a deeper level, the soul yearns to mimic God, in Whose image - perfect goodness - it was created. When teenagers decide to stop mimicking their parents, it's called rebellion, and often leads to imprudent decisions and dangerous outcomes. The same happens when the soul decides to stop mimicking God by rejecting morality, and always leads to sin. The Prodigal Sin returned to the Father out of anxiety, but it didn't make the Father less worthy of his love. It wasn't until he had something to fear that he recognized the error of his ways. The element of fear in Religion is simply the acknowledgment (to whatever degree) that we are all Prodigal children who need the Father that created us.

without the fear of God's punishment (corporal or spiritual) to keep them in line, people would abandon all morality and run amok.

The reason people fear God's punishment is because they do abandon all morality and run amok. The saints had great peace of heart. Why's that I wonder?

[Doomonyou]

Later read

[mamelukesabre]

On what do you base your opinion?
~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, some social creatures(dogs for instance) will protect eachother from enemies. Sometimes they will give food to eachother. Sometimes they are visibly sad when a fellow packmate is injured or killed. These are examples of rudimentary empathy, aren’t they?

[mamelukesabre]

Such claims always boil down to the belief that without the fear of God’s punishment (corporal or spiritual) to keep them in line, people would abandon all morality and run amok. This is simply not true and ignores the reality of human nature and human societies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the fear of god’s punishment or repercussions of some kind in an afterlife, very clever individuals will endeavor to secretly commit heinous acts for selfish gain if they believe they can do so with a reasonable certainty of not being found out. No evidence/witnesses=no crime/sin. But at the same time, these individuals will all along take great pains to make sure all their acts of good will are readily noticed by their neighbors. A person that believes in god or an afterlife has less incentive to make his/her acts of good will readily noticeable to neighbors and will take some pains to resist secret selfish acts that cause harm to others...or at least suffer emotional pain from giving in to such selfishness.

Put simply, a god fearing individual has a greater sense of right and wrong and a minimized self centered view of the world. The picture gets seriously muddied, however, when one considers the possibility that a very clever individual could possibly falsify his/her own piety in order to deceive neighbors and disguise acts of selfishness.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

[SaltyJoe]

(Demons) “are the ultimate predator...”

Humans are their prey.

[SaltyJoe]

To hear the Almighty’s rebuke in the Book of Job might stand down our questioning (Job 40),

“1
The LORD then said to Job:
2
Will we have arguing with the Almighty by the critic? Let him who would correct God give answer!”

It’s an age old question in the valley of decision to ask, “Why is evil allowed to exist?”, and “Why do bad things happen to good people?”

Pain and suffering are oportunities for holiness. God shows that His Power and Mercy are stronger than the wickedness of evil. Satan cannot sustain his attack in spite of his mastery of sin and misery. The devil will eventually quite. But, the Spirit does not fade. Faith must sustain us and knowlege of God gives us Hope to accept the eventual transition of mortal life to Life Everlasting. We share in Christ’s Passion to know that even Jesus prayed through agonizing pain to wonder why He suffered abandonment from His Father.

We know that Psalm 22 has a happy ending as does the Passion of the Christ.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm22.htm

We know that we, too, will have a happy ending:

Revelations 7:17
For the Lamb who is in the center of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to springs of life-giving water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”

[TASMANIANRED]

Nailed me there...

[OB1kNOb]

Rom 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools......

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Empathy involves emotion. What emotion is the chimp displaying? Pity? How do you know the chimp isn't reaching for it in competition? Did the chimp think, "oh, that poor, strange human. Let me give him a hand"?

Apparently it did. These were controlled experiments to see if chimps would help humans they'd never seen before. Some did.

No they're not. They're instinctively protecting the species. I don't see elephants banding together to protect the antelope population from cheetahs, do you?

I wouldn't expect to. Simply because some of us see all animals as the same doesn't mean they do. Elephants sometimes band together to protect individual members of their kind, as we do in our better moments. To expect elephants to protect members of other species when we ourselves, with all our intelligence and morality, fail to do so often is not realistic.

How do these thoughts make the leap from instinct to "compassion and morality".

I think it's clear that these thoughts aren't instinct. A survival instinct would direct the elephants to flee, as most herd animals do when a member of the herd is attacked. Instinct would prompt a chimp to either ignore the efforts of a human or other chimp, or steal the object being striven for.

If it's possible, why are there no species "in transit", so to speak, from mere brutes to Hallmark Greeting Card designers? If you're postulating that this takes place, you must have an opinion of what agent affects the change, don't you?

Thanks, but I'll decline this offer of another debate on evolution. Boring, and not the immediate topic of this thread.

Since the earth is alive, does it have instinct? Can it develop instinct? Why or why not?

Um...what? The earth is a sphere made of nickel and iron surrounded by a viscous mantle and topped by a relatively thin solid crust, the whole mass in orbit around a yellow dwarf star. While the earth's surface and near-surface play host to a large variety of inter-related life, the earth itself is not "alive" in any generally accepted sense.

Terrifyingly simple, isn't it? Unfortunately, the tack of human history has been to treat others in ways we would never want to be treated, which makes the concept of a God who preaches something different an idea worthy of crucifying to a cross.

In historical terms, Christ was apparently crucified because he challenged the Jewish and Roman religious and political authorities of the time. In the terms of the Christian religion, Christ was crucified as a sacrifice to absolve humanity of it's sins and to offer a path of salvation from those sins. I have yet to hear that Christ was crucified because he urged people to treat others as they would wish to be treated - it's a notion far older than Christianity.

At a deeper level, the soul yearns to mimic God, in Whose image - perfect goodness - it was created.

You're positing a motivation for an entity whose existence can't even be proven, based on the existence of another entity whose existence can't be proven. This is faith, and as such it can't be debated nor is it a valid argument.

The reason people fear God's punishment is because they do abandon all morality and run amok. The saints had great peace of heart. Why's that I wonder?

Perhaps because the histories of the saints usually aren't written by them, but by hagiographers. Certainly a soon-to-be saint, Mother Teresa, expressed her lack of such peace in her own words. In any event, I don't doubt that some people find tranquility in religious beliefs. I do doubt that those religious beliefs are required for a system of ethics and moral behavior.