Excellent point Trevor. I once got into a conversation with a stranger sitting next to me on a jet: he didn’t like my using the term “evil,” preferring the specious term “not good.” I just plainly told him: “You eschew the term “evil,” because you know it implies that there’s some sort of objective standard of good, which in turn implies someone who’s able to determine those absolutes, and you don’t want to acknowledge that Someone.” He as much conceded I was right. (A little while later, I actually got him to read Romans 3! I’m hoping that worked on him in the long run…“My word will not return empty,” etc.)No one ever said atheist arguments were logically consistent, although Catholic theology is required to be. Many atheist arguments are inconsistent with the premises of other arguments they use.
The problem is that there seems to be confusion over the definition of ‘evil’, as to whether it is a subjective interpretation of events, or is an actual ‘thing’ in the world that would exist whether there were anyone to experience it subjectively or not.
Actually, several Catholic theologians would also use “not good” rather than “evil”. St. Irenaeus, for example, considered evil as merely a privation (absence) of good. St. Thomas Aquinas did not regard evil as something that exists in itself, but a relational concept we compare to something that is good. St. Augustine of Hippo believed along the same lines. To consider something “evil” is to think that evil exists in its own right, when it doesn’t. In the natural state of things, everything is good since you as Catholics hold that God is at the centre of everything. As soon as God departs from something or somewhere, it becomes evil.
Not necessarily. Immanuel Kant argued that objective morality alluded to God’s existence, but did not actually prove God’s objective existence.
Yes, you’re right in that sense. Though, evil is a reality in the sense of abstraction, only able by existing things. But I thought the modern definition of ontology incorporated concepts/abstracts/essence as realities, or is this still being debated? Regardless, I meant it in that sense, that evil is a privation of good.
I’ve heard the argument and the refutes. Why do you consider the rebuttals, “lame”?
I disagree. “Evil behavior” or “evil actions” are very much reality, not just an asbtraction.
Very much debated. Abstractions are not “realities” they are an image of reality. When you look into a mirror, you see a reflection of reality, not the reality itself.
Not accepteble. Evil is a term which is only appicable to conscious beings, who actively cause harm or passively allow harm - while knowing what they do. The drought is a privation of rain, and therefore “bad” for certain plants, but to call that “evil” only serves confusion. Something can be “bad” without “evil”. The term “natural evil” is a very bad misnomer. There is nothing wrong with a drought or a tsunami or an earthquake in a godless universe. They are natural catastrophies, and no malice is involved. They become problematic only if a benevolent and powerful god is assumed. That is when the contradiction arises.
Read the quoted link. Those are the distilled arguments - and they are ridiculous.
You are right with regard to physical evil but moral evil exists only if “gratuitously” is associated with free will. Otherwise it is an event for which no one is responsible.
Not at all. It would be perfectly reasonable for even a moral nihilist to talk about the problem of evil. An atheist does not need to prove what evil is and that it exists. She could merely grant the Christian definition for the sake of argument and show that it leads to a logical contradiction. For example, she could argue that it would be possible to have a world with less evil and more good (using Christian definitions of good and evil). She could then argue that an all powerful God could create such a universe and an all loving God would. If the premises of this argument are true, then Christianity is internally inconsistent and therefore false. Whether morality actually exists is irrelevant.
Well, Atheist, an all powerful God could create such a universe and an all loving God DID create such a universe.
I understand that that is Catholic teaching, but I respectfully disagree. Regarding free will, I don’t find the Catholic view of it to be very coherent.
Did he, now? Have you been there and seen it?
A really good God would not allow to have his creation to be “ruined”. We, in our imperfect way try to limit the “freedom” of those who wish to do harm to others. Why would God not act similarly? Why does God “value” the free will of a rapist more than he “values” the free will of the victim? What is so valuable about the freedom of criminals?
Wouldn’t the atheist have to argue:
You don’t understand that God couldn’t intervene because if you limit free will in any way, it won’t be free will. If I were to knock a gun out of a murderer’s hands, I would be taking away his free will.
No, an atheist would not have to argue that. An atheist just has to argue that things exist which Christianity considers evil, and they exist to a gratuitous degree.
To be precise, evil is “intentional causation - or passive allowance - of unnecessary harm”. There is no problem if a “caused or allowed” harm brings along some greater good, which justifies the suffering (though it might run afoul of the good secular and also catholic doctrine that the end does not justifies the means). But the assertion that any and all of the observed sufferings fall into this category cannot be sustained.
To be more precise, it would impose a limit of the freedom, though obviously our “free” will is not really “free” due to our physical limitations. But your point is important. Why is the free will or a rapist or murderer be more “valuable” than the free will of the victim, who merely wishes not to be raped or murdered? And it is more “valuable” to God, since if it were not, God would take the side of the victim.