The Problem of Evil: An Internal Inconsistency?
I have written two posts already about the problem of evil. In the first post I pointed out that the problem of evil cannot be posed without assuming that there are moral truths. Without a defense of some kind for the existence of moral truths in atheism, the theist can avoid the problem by casting doubt on the existence of such a defense. In the second post I refuted the strategy refers to one's ordinary concepts without defending anything in the metaphysical realm. Now I am going to deal with the last avoidance strategy. This is the strategy of claiming that the problem of evil is an internal problem for the theist. This strategy is difficult.
There are several reasons why this particular strategy is difficult. In order for an atheist to show that a problem of evil arises from theism several things have to be shown. First off, the atheist must show that there are evil acts of the kind that he wishes to use, according to what the theist believes is evil. Then he must show that if God was good, according to the understanding of theism, then he would not permit that if he could. Finally, he must show that God, according to the understanding of theism, is powerful enough to prevent that sort of evil. Once the atheist has done that, he would have created a problem of internal consistency for the theist.
The problem is that he cannot begin this project inside a generic form of theism. According to some forms of theism, capital punishment is good. According to pacificist strains, however, it is evil. According to some forms of theism, being the creator of something means that you also own it and can do whatever you please with it. According to other forms of theism, such as process theism, God only influences the world. So any atheist must restrict his critique to a particular subset of theism.
Let's suppose that the atheist states that he is restricting himself to traditional forms of theism. He points out that they all believe that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good. He also points out that they have a common agreement on what is right and wrong. So far he would be correct. However, they also have a common belief in creator-ownership. This belief states that if someone makes something then they own it. So if we make a treehouse, then it is ours and we are morally permitted to anything at all to it. These traditional theistic beliefs also believe that God was the creator of everything. Therefore, he is morally permitted to do anything he pleases with it. Whether you like it or not, these beliefs make it very difficult to show that there is any sort of inconsistency in theistic belief.
It will not work to say that these beliefs are horrible, or that they are out of step with our common concepts of right and wrong. If the atheist wishes to make an internal critique, then she must deal with everything in theism. She cannot avoid the parts of theism that make her argument difficult simply because she is offended by them or thinks that they are wrong. She has to remember that it is an entirely separate argument to claim that traditional theism is immoral. At this point, any internal argument for the problem of evil for traditional theism will have to take account of the belief in a Creator-Owner.
There are several reasons why this particular strategy is difficult. In order for an atheist to show that a problem of evil arises from theism several things have to be shown. First off, the atheist must show that there are evil acts of the kind that he wishes to use, according to what the theist believes is evil. Then he must show that if God was good, according to the understanding of theism, then he would not permit that if he could. Finally, he must show that God, according to the understanding of theism, is powerful enough to prevent that sort of evil. Once the atheist has done that, he would have created a problem of internal consistency for the theist.
The problem is that he cannot begin this project inside a generic form of theism. According to some forms of theism, capital punishment is good. According to pacificist strains, however, it is evil. According to some forms of theism, being the creator of something means that you also own it and can do whatever you please with it. According to other forms of theism, such as process theism, God only influences the world. So any atheist must restrict his critique to a particular subset of theism.
Let's suppose that the atheist states that he is restricting himself to traditional forms of theism. He points out that they all believe that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good. He also points out that they have a common agreement on what is right and wrong. So far he would be correct. However, they also have a common belief in creator-ownership. This belief states that if someone makes something then they own it. So if we make a treehouse, then it is ours and we are morally permitted to anything at all to it. These traditional theistic beliefs also believe that God was the creator of everything. Therefore, he is morally permitted to do anything he pleases with it. Whether you like it or not, these beliefs make it very difficult to show that there is any sort of inconsistency in theistic belief.
It will not work to say that these beliefs are horrible, or that they are out of step with our common concepts of right and wrong. If the atheist wishes to make an internal critique, then she must deal with everything in theism. She cannot avoid the parts of theism that make her argument difficult simply because she is offended by them or thinks that they are wrong. She has to remember that it is an entirely separate argument to claim that traditional theism is immoral. At this point, any internal argument for the problem of evil for traditional theism will have to take account of the belief in a Creator-Owner.
posted by Matthew at 12:23 PM
4 Comments:
your detailed philosophical arguments are impressive. however, what about the "gut feeling" a person has when they witness some horrific act (like the genocide in rwanda and sudan, just to name a few)and thinks "God? WHERE is God?" and what is God feeling? if i could intervene to save a million people from being hacked to death, i surely would. if we view God as a parent who loves his children, why would he permit them to be victimized? freewill, you say? then why is freewill more important that a world without suffering? i'd gladly give up freewill to save just one being from suffering.
i'm not sure how i found your blog, but it sure is interesting.
i just paged through your blog. you have really well-thought out arguments. nice site.
haikupoet,
The "gut feeling" a person has when witnessing evil is something a plan to post about sometime. That "where is God" feeling that you expressed is definitely a part of the problem of evil. It just isn't a merely intellectual problem.
Hmmmm. Stumble on your site. Will be back. Ultimately I think the solution is found in our concept of God's transcendence.
Recommend Jack Crabtree's "The Most Real Being" available through Gutenberg College in Eugene, OR (GC has a web site). The book purports to be a biblical and philosophical defense of Divine Determinism.
Post a Comment
<< Home