What's the best way to talk about the devil to an atheist?

[Nixbits]

Arizona Mike:

. . . and thus, all good things originate from God, who is himself Goodness

Arizona Mike:

The Prime Mover as the origin of potentiality and action and creation also includes the origin of Good.

If one accepts that God created everything, then of course He created Good. But if that is so, by the same token, He also created Evil and everything in between (including mediocrity, procrastination, doubt, arrogance etc.). Not necessarily because He created these as things in themselves, but because He created things that could give rise to acts that could be good or evil or mediocre etc.

Why do you go on to assert that God is himself Goodness? Why single out this attribute? Why do you not equally conclude that He is himself Evilness, Mediocrity, Arrogance and all of the other attributes consequent upon His creation? There is a missing step in your explanation and it is one that I suspect puzzles many atheists.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

If one accepts that God created everything, then of course He created Good. But if that is so, by the same token, He also created Evil and everything in between (including mediocrity, procrastination, doubt, arrogance etc.). Not necessarily because He created these as things in themselves, but because He created things that could give rise to acts that could be good or evil or mediocre etc.

Why do you go on to assert that God is himself Goodness? Why single out this attribute? Why do you not equally conclude that He is himself Evilness, Mediocrity, Arrogance and all of the other attributes consequent upon His creation? There is a missing step in your explanation and it is one that I suspect puzzles many atheists.

As I wrote in my original post, the reply to the OP’s original question may not be fully satisfactory to many atheists because we lack similar foundational points in our worldviews. I doubt that it is possible to “prove” the existence of the devil, especially inasmuch as most atheists don’t believe in God. But the arguments I gave will help to explain to some atheists why most Catholics believe in the devil, and that such views do not lack a philosophical underpinning. It gives them some food for thought.

As to your question, to assert that God also has the attributes of Evilness, Mediocrity, Arrogance, and so forth would be to assert that God includes all created values in His nature, which would be to assert a form of pantheism… It would also be self-contradictory, as it would mean God includes attributes such as non-Godhood, Non-Omnipotence, Non-Omniscience, etc. We can safely ignore such self-contradictory assertions.

Regarding the forms of evil you cite, it is traditional Catholic theology that evil is non-creative. Evil (as a choice, or as a behavior) is ultimately a negation - it is turning one’s back, wllfully, upon the essential goodness of nature which is part of our makeup as creations in God’s image. Good and Evil, then, is not A and B, it is A and Not-A.

In the examples you cited, Mediocrity is not a positive value, it is the willful decision to not to fully employ the God-given gifts one was given. Procrastination is not a thing, it is willfully choosing to put off doing things that are our duties to God and our fellow man. Arrogance is not an inborn choice, it is the choice to regard our own needs above those of others, as an act of free will. Doubt may not be a sin or an act of evil at all, but simply part of the virtue of proper discernment.

God did not create Evil, but he created free will, which allows us to choose to act in accordance with our essential natures, or not to act according to our essential natures.

As C.S. Lewis wrote, the gates to Hell are locked from the inside. I suspect he was right.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Ordering Israelites to keep the virgins for their sexual gratification is a valid example. Ordering Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is another. All you “proved” is that you are unwilling to answer hard-hitting questions.

Is sexual slavery “evil”? Not, if God orders it. Is human sacrifice “evil”? Not, if God orders it.

Of course the point is that in your world there is no “absolute evil”… only relative one. Whatever God orders is fine and dandy, no matter how horrible the act itself might be. Why is it problematic for you to answer with a resounding: “Of course!”. Might be because that would negate the so-called “absolute” morality?

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this original post.

If one considers all accounts in the Old Testaments to be literalistic accounts (which many Catholics do not - Biblical literalism is a relatively recent movement), I would note the following:

God did not allow human sacrifice. He stopped it.

On one occasion, which is recounted as a momentous and unique event in human history (the founding of His chosen people), he tested the faith of one man to see if he was worthy to begin the Jewish faith. These were hard times, and testing a person in such an extraordinary seems harsh to us now, but the stakes were high.

As Kierkegaard (as I think plausibly) pointed out, the story of Abraham and Isaac makes no sense if God simply and cruelly ordered a father to slay his son to see if he would blindly follow the arbitrary dictates of a new deity. There were already pagan deities aplenty in the ancient pagan world that required the sacrifice of the young. The archaeological evidence of the tobits, containing the burnt bodies of children sacrificed to Canaanite gods, demonstrates this was not unusual at that place and times.

There was, based on the evidence, no lack of men willing to sacrifice their son or daughter for a place of power in a new religion. Although such men no doubt valued their children, they were willing to slay their own child for prestige, for power, or propitiation. God could have chosen any such men. Why Abraham?

Because Abraham, alone among men discerned that this God that he apprehended was not like the other false deities, and would not demand him to slay his own child. It was a test not of blind loyalty, but of faith and discernment - Abraham knew in his heart, even as he prepared to lower the knife, that this new God, his God, would not let it happen. And it did not.

That is the only means by which the story makes sense. God did not demand another father to sacrifice his son, until He himself made that decision; in essence, sacrificing Himself as the Godhead. He was willing to do to Himself what he would not make Abraham do,

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Did God order “sexual slavery” as you call it? No. There are numerous posts debunking that simplistic reading elsewhere on this site, and is a side-issue of this argument. But essentially, before and after the foundation of the Jewish faith, the Jewish people could be just as mean and hard-hearted as anyone else in the ancient world (or today). They rebelled and ignored the word and law of God throughout the Old Testament, even their greatest leaders. They, like all people in OT times, had people work off their debts as bond-servants, who were not considered property and would eventually be freed. Others, enemy Prisoners of War who had warred against the Jews, were kept as slaves and were expected to work for those who had captured them. This seems harsh to us now (but maybe not, if you look at the modern Prison Industries program) and had a different set of rules, some apparently quite harsh. By comparison to what other peoples may have done (like killing everyone who warred against them), the books of the Jewish law in the OT lay out what would be considered some quite compassionate and lenient rules - by ancient standards.

As Paul Copan wrote,

Old Testament legislation sought to prevent voluntary debt-servitude. A good deal of Mosaic legislation was given to protect the poor from even temporary indentured service. The poor were given opportunities to glean the edges of fields or pick lingering fruit on trees after their fellow Israelites harvested the land (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22; Deut. 24:20–21). Also, fellow Israelites were commanded to lend freely to the poor (Deut. 15:7–8), who weren’t to be charged interest (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36–37). And if the poor couldn’t afford high-end sacrificial animals, they could sacrifice smaller, less-expensive ones (Lev. 5:7, 11). Also, debts were to be automatically canceled every seven years. In fact, when debt-servants were released, they were to be generously provided for without a “grudging heart” (Deut. 15:10 NIV). The bottom line: God didn’t want there to be any poverty in Israel (Deut. 15:4). Therefore, servant laws existed to help the poor, not harm them or keep them down.

Copan, Paul (2011-01-01). Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Kindle Locations 2617-2624). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

If a person was forced into debt bondage by circumstances, they were granted rights by divine decree that protected them. They could not be physically abused, and had to be released if injured by their master. If they were killed by a master, the master was to be put to death (quite different from the Roman Law and the Code of Hammurabi, under which a slave owner could generally rape, beat, maim or kill slaves with impunity.). They were considered as persons, not property (Gen. 1:26–27; Job 31:13–15; Deut. 15:1–18), and retained their human dignity.

Slave-trading - kidnapping a person against their will to keep or sell as a slave, was forbidden under penalty of death: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16). St. Paul and St. John also later condemned slave traders in no uncertain terms. (As did St. Patrick and St. Augustine.)

The Israelites were required by Mosaic Law to help and shelter foreign runaway slaves (Deut. 23:15-16) - unlike other ancient cultures, or the American example, where it was a felony to help a fugitive slave.

It was not a perfect or a perfectly just system (no institution run by humans probably can be), and there were obvious inequities by modern standards, but it was superior to any other system of its time, and certainly to the American experience of chattel slavery.

Jesus said such practices, as the old Mosaic laws on divorce, were against what God wanted for His people, but were permitted in olden times because His people’s hearts were hardened, before establishing a new law. Jesus denounced slavery as practiced under the Roman Empire, as he did every form of oppression: Citing Isaiah 61:1, Jesus clearly said His mission was “to proclaim release to the captives, . . . to set free those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18).

A prevailing theme throughout the Bible (and as cited by Jesus) was that men’s hearts were hard and resistant to God - so to mitigate the damage done, they were gradually led to a greater and more compassionate way to treat people. God did not want his people to have kings, but they insisted on having kings, so God placed limits on their powers. God did not want them to divorce, but since they insisted on doing so, rules were imposed to at least make it more equitable. God did not want them to commit adultery by having sex with captured female slaves, but since they did so, they were given rules to at least treat them with some modicum of decency - again, for the times. It is rather like saying we don’t think anyone should have to work in an asbestos mine, but since people do, here are some OSHA regulations to minimize the damage. Throughout the OT and into the NT, God is trying to keep His people on the straight and narrow, and being people, they continually fall short.

As this concerns the Jewish laws (Jews were more likely to be slaves than slaveholders by the time of Jesus), if you’d like to read a Jewish perspective on this, go to: chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/305549/jewish/Torah-Slavery-and-the-Jews.htm

 

[e_c]

You are mistaken, I am not frustrated, I am astonished. When I was a believer, I rejected the concept the “devil”, precisely for the same reason I reject it now. For a good, loving “entity” to keep around the “evil” is truly a contradiction.

You confuse the “lack of understanding” with genuine disagreement. The “picture of God” as you “painted” (not just personally you) is fraught with contradictions. I am aware that the believers assert that these are not contradictions, but “mysteries”. But such “redefinitions” are also rejected.

And I am astonished at how little attention you pay… I am also frustrated, for the record. You would do well to address the example I gave with the bike. Supernatural realities are reflected by natural ones. It is a pretty simple idea that allowing certain bad things to happen lets greater goods come about. We can argue about specifics on how that works, but there’s the basic principle. The devil is an instrument of God’s glory working in creation. The devil, like evil people and evil natural events, allows for greater opportunities for the rejection of the world for the sake of loving God.

So the devil is good, inasmuch as he is useful in n that general way. (Glorious love, remember!) But he’s also good in himself, just as everything is. That’s because goodness is convertible with being (it is convertible with truth too, but that’s not so relevant here).

I get confused about things all the time, but I don’t think I’ve seen you even attempt to understand what it means for God not to be a “being,” which is critical to the level of discussion you are trying to have. Maybe ask a real sincere question about that to show you are making an effort at least.

I’ve done mostly natural theology with you. Mystery is reserved for revelatory dogma and does not mean impenetrability as much as inexhaustibility. I am prepared to defend almost all of my claims in my discussions with you with natural reason alone, as would Aristotle.

God loves contradictions. A burning bush that doesn’t dry up, are you kidding!? That’s great! Becoming a man and dying at the hands of your chosen people, now that’s even better. God addresses us through contradictions and entered into our misery… and allowed Himself to be tempted by the Devil, too.

 

[Frankenfurter]

To the OP, my suggestion about how to talk about the devil to an atheist is to be very clear about what you believe the devil is. Very much to the point is this comment:

I would expect that most atheists would readily accept that negativity (as a way of thinking and acting) exists and that people can have harmful or evil tendencies. But I doubt that many would agree that the Force itself actually exists. If the devil is just an allegorical embodiment, then most atheists would, I think, accept it as a possibly useful literary technique. But this approach will get you nowhere if you contend that the devil exists as an entity.

If any of these is your chosen approach, be ready to convince the atheist that entities of ‘pure spirit’ exist, that demonic possession exists and that a ouija board can be used to interact with spirits or demons. Good luck with that. I think that most atheists will be skeptical.

It’s funny really how atheists seem to scour the world looking for proofs - proofs of existence. But nobody claimed that was the topic?

Sometimes I feel that they are really looking, and assume, because of their bias of looking for proofs, that every statement is a potential proof. But in fact, for those who have already encountered God, proof is not the topic.

Atheists waste quite a bit of our time on these forums and discussions with their own agenda of looking for proofs everywhere. Perhaps they should build a space ship and go scour the universe. At least that way they will leave us in peace.

 

[mikekle]

The trouble is that the Catholic church never issued a definitive list of which chapters and verses are to be understood literally, and which ones should be read allegorically. Imagine… 2000+ years and no definitive analysis of the “holy scriptures”.

I have trouble with this too, while I am a catholic and believe God is God, who the bible claims him to be, I do think if the bibles intent was to point as many people in the direction of the faith as possible, it would not have been written in such a way, that is literally impossible to understand some of the verses, what they are trying to say, What I may believe to be literal, someone else may suggest its not, this could lead to SEVERE implications!!

Its almost like some parts of it were written in a way, so no matter what particular view you may have, it COULD be made to fit your belief.

Ive also thought it very strange the bible and many of its teachings ‘benefit’ the secular (and at times, an immoral) society to the degree it does.

 

[e_c]

I have trouble with this too, while I am a catholic and believe God is God, who the bible claims him to be, I do think if the bibles intent was to point as many people in the direction of the faith as possible, it would not have been written in such a way, that is literally impossible to understand some of the verses, what they are trying to say, What I may believe to be literal, someone else may suggest its not, this could lead to SEVERE implications!!

Its almost like some parts of it were written in a way, so no matter what particular view you may have, it COULD be made to fit your belief.

Ive also thought it very strange the bible and many of its teachings ‘benefit’ the secular (and at times, an immoral) society to the degree it does.

Since we are on the topic of the Devil… He uses Scripture too!

This is where that cliché about the Bible being a living document comes in. In some way the meaning of verses can change with the situation.

In any case, it’s far too large to be An Official Project Of The Church. The Church instead just issues guidelines and occasionally corrections to the project of biblical theology.

 

[Solmyr]

I have trouble with this too, while I am a catholic and believe God is God, who the bible claims him to be, I do think if the bibles intent was to point as many people in the direction of the faith as possible, it would not have been written in such a way, that is literally impossible to understand some of the verses, what they are trying to say, What I may believe to be literal, someone else may suggest its not, this could lead to SEVERE implications!!

Its almost like some parts of it were written in a way, so no matter what particular view you may have, it COULD be made to fit your belief.

Ive also thought it very strange the bible and many of its teachings ‘benefit’ the secular (and at times, an immoral) society to the degree it does.

I am glad to see your post. The truth is that no matter what you wish to assert, you can do some quote-mining and find some verses that will support your position. Among other things, this is a very good evidence that the bible is just a human concoction.

 

[Solmyr]

So the devil is good, inasmuch as he is useful in n that general way. (Glorious love, remember!) But he’s also good in himself, just as everything is.

What nonsense. The devil as the protagonist, the “good guy”? The world without it would be “worse off”?

 

[Nixbits]

e_c:

I don’t think I’ve seen you even attempt to understand what it means for God not to be a “being,” which is critical to the level of discussion you are trying to have.

Permit me to jump into your discussion with Solmyr, if I may. I’m confused by this too. I refer to God as ‘a being’, meaning an ‘intelligent entity’. Are you asserting that God is not an intelligent entity in this context? Perhaps you could explain.

 

[Nixbits]

Frankenfurter:

Atheists waste quite a bit of our time on these forums and discussions with their own agenda of looking for proofs everywhere. Perhaps they should build a space ship and go scour the universe. At least that way they will leave us in peace.

I’m confused by your comment. You seem to be saying that atheists’ desire for proofs is off-topic. But the discussion is about how to discuss the devil with atheists. Surely the atheistic view of evidence and belief is precisely the topic.

If you wish to be left in peace without concerning yourself with what atheists think, then I don’t understand why you are involving yourself in this thread.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I have trouble with this too, while I am a catholic and believe God is God, who the bible claims him to be, I do think if the bibles intent was to point as many people in the direction of the faith as possible, it would not have been written in such a way, that is literally impossible to understand some of the verses, what they are trying to say, What I may believe to be literal, someone else may suggest its not, this could lead to SEVERE implications!!

Its almost like some parts of it were written in a way, so no matter what particular view you may have, it COULD be made to fit your belief.

Ive also thought it very strange the bible and many of its teachings ‘benefit’ the secular (and at times, an immoral) society to the degree it does.

The essential truths of the Bible - contained in the Apostolic Creed - are literal. God created the earth and men’s souls, He created a Covenant with mankind through his Chosen People. and through them was brought the fruition of the Son of God, who was born, suffered, and died for our Salvation, and through Him, we can achieve eternal life.

The other truths are no less true for possibly being written in a lyrical or even metaphorical style. Did Job or Jonah exist and did their stories happen exactly as told? The lessons we learn from them are no less true, even if they could have been meant as teaching stories… The signs by which the books of the Old Testament point to the coming of the Lord are true. We have outside evidence for much of the events described in the Old Testament.

Are the Gospels and Epistles literally true? I say yes.

 

[Solmyr]

Permit me to jump into your discussion with Solmyr, if I may. I’m confused by this too. I refer to God as ‘a being’, meaning an ‘intelligent entity’. Are you asserting that God is not an intelligent entity in this context? Perhaps you could explain.

You are always welcome, and I am interested in this, too. Whether one speaks of an “object”, an “entity” or a “being”, the result is something or someone that exists in reality, and not just an idea.

One could use the expression: “Supreme Being”, and it would designate a “special” being, which has more or deeper abilities than some other, lesser “beings”. But basic concepts, like “goodness” and “love” and “evil” cannot be specifically defined for this “supreme” being. If it is evil to cause or allow a catastrophe for us, “simple” beings, then it is also evil for the “supreme” being. The funny thing is that the apologists insist on an “absolute” morality. Of course “absolute” morality would be applicable to everyone - that is what “absolute” MEANS. And then they immediately shoot themselves in the foot, when they attempt to exclude God.

Of course I heard the phrase “Being” with capitals, and it is supposed to be “ipsum esse subsistens”, or “existence itself”, but that is nonsense. Existence is a “concept”, not a “being”. To mix them up only serves confusion.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You are always welcome, and I am interested in this, too. Whether one speaks of an “object”, an “entity” or a “being”, the result is something or someone that exists in reality, and not just an idea.

One could use the expression: “Supreme Being”, and it would designate a “special” being, which has more or deeper abilities than some other, lesser “beings”. But basic concepts, like “goodness” and “love” and “evil” cannot be specifically defined for this “supreme” being. If it is evil to cause or allow a catastrophe for us, “simple” beings, then it is also evil for the “supreme” being. The funny thing is that the apologists insist on an “absolute” morality. Of course “absolute” morality would be applicable to everyone - that is what “absolute” MEANS. And then they immediately shoot themselves in the foot, when they attempt to exclude God.

Of course I heard the phrase “Being” with capitals, and it is supposed to be “ipsum esse subsistens”, or “existence itself”, but that is nonsense. Existence is a “concept”, not a “being”. To mix them up only serves confusion.

This is one thing atheists don’t get. Why is there suffering if God doesn’t want it? Well, most of the suffering has been caused by people. God wants people to choose good, not force them to.

 

[NM505StKate]

This is one thing atheists don’t get. Why is there suffering if God doesn’t want it? Well, most of the suffering has been caused by people. God wants people to choose good, not force them to.

Yet God has the power to do anything. If all power and all loving is part of your portfolio but you do nothing about suffering then you are neither all powerful nor all loving. That is why the “problem of evil” is a sticking point. God, in the story of the Garden of Eden, didn’t want “free willed” beings. If it did then them eating the fruit is a meh ordeal but instead, despite being all knowing as is claimed, we got this concept of being ruined because we got this “free will”.

 

[e_c]

Of course I heard the phrase “Being” with capitals, and it is supposed to be “ipsum esse subsistens”, or “existence itself”, but that is nonsense. Existence is a “concept”, not a “being”. To mix them up only serves confusion.

DING DING DING DING DING! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! Solmyr, come on dowwwwwwn! This is the root of your misunderstanding. I won’t bother discussing any Divine Attributes with you until you come around on this.

No, it’s not merely “existence itself,” (though that works for shorthand discussion,) that would be “ipsum esse,” the “subsistens” bit is important. There is a distinction in the fact of subsistence as opposed to mere existence.

If existence is only a concept, then… that things exist is a function of you thinking them? Or, do things not really exist at all but we just “conceptually” discuss them as existing? Or something else? You are right that existence is not a being, but not only are you wrong about it being “a concept,” I don’t even think you’ll find many friends in the history of philosophy on that point. (It is also not at attribute, despite what the faithful Scotist will say.) If you’d like to make another thread for this, that would be great. However, I suggest taking the attitude and spirit of Nixbits with you when you go… Notice the differences between your posts and his. He is more likely to get something out of the discussion.

If all power and all loving is part of your portfolio but you do nothing about suffering then you are neither all powerful nor all loving.

That’s a self-refuting argument. You’ve denied your own premise. You mean to say that if God is all powerful He can’t be all loving or if He is all loving He can’t be all powerful. Or, perhaps He’s just not all knowing. This is an old, old argument, going back to Athens. It’s rhetorically very powerful, but logically very weak, once we put aside our feelings and think… we play with the metaphysical hand we’ve been dealt, conclude that God must possess those Attributes, and then we are left with the challenge of reconciling apparent contradictions. Maybe about half of Scripture is about this very problem!

No suffering, no glory. No glory, no perfection. No perfection, no heaven. God knows what it is like to suffer more than you or I, by the way.

 

[e_c]

Permit me to jump into your discussion with Solmyr, if I may. I’m confused by this too. I refer to God as ‘a being’, meaning an ‘intelligent entity’. Are you asserting that God is not an intelligent entity in this context? Perhaps you could explain.

Yes, I am asserting that, and it is a pretty basic idea in Catholic philosophy (and in the history of the philosophy of God).

Also, for the record, I suppose this thread is an example more of how NOT to talk about the devil etc.! Oops.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Yet God has the power to do anything. If all power and all loving is part of your portfolio but you do nothing about suffering then you are neither all powerful nor all loving. That is why the “problem of evil” is a sticking point. God, in the story of the Garden of Eden, didn’t want “free willed” beings. If it did then them eating the fruit is a meh ordeal but instead, despite being all knowing as is claimed, we got this concept of being ruined because we got this “free will”.

He wanted them to choose to obey Him. But you know the rest…

 

[mikekle]

He wanted them to choose to obey Him. But you know the rest…

Yes, this is what God wanted, but in creating beings with free will, its 50/50 whether they will choose to obey their creator or not, if it were ‘true’ free will, there would be no punishment (hell, suffering for eternity), for simply exercising it (imo anyway).