Karin’s Response to “Refutation: Did God create evil?”
Disclaimer: This entry contains the views of an SSU member, and does not necessarily represent the views of the Secular Student Union.
This is a quick sketch of my responses, reading Jay’s refutation. Please, feel free to point out flaws in anything I say. If I’m snarky, Jay started it 
Jay makes many serious philosophical claims without much justification. In my opinion, his only worthwhile point is that this story didn’t actually happen.
“If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil.”
So the professor’s argument could be said to run like this:
1. God created everything.
2. Evil exists.
3. Character traits of a creation are present in a creator (or at least, if said creator was the only thing in existence at the time of creation, perhaps).
Therefore,
4. God is evil.
And, because I’m feeling snarky:
5. Christians say God isn’t evil.
Therefore,
6. All of Christian faith is a myth.
This is somewhat a strange formulation of the argument from evil, mainly because it is so easy to blow premise 3 out of the water (I have so many more problems I won’t bother, just use a decent formulation). There are numerous solutions to it more clever than the student’s. Read Plantinga, for example (if I may quote Wikipedia, “since the publication of Alvin Plantinga’s free will defence, the majority, though not unanimous, view among contemporary scholars is that logical arguments from evil are not successful.” Or read J.L. Mackie for a decent formulation of the argument from evil.
“A is the lack of B
C is the lack of D
Thus, E is the lack of F”
Arguments from analogy are a valid form of argument. They can never prove the conclusion, however, only make it more likely, and always are a little sketchy.
Oh, and darkness, it actually happens to be an absence of light. You can be very much in the dark surrounded by radio waves. While scientifically, complete darkness is impossible, and so darkness isn’t the complete absence of light, it is still the relative absence of light. In fact, I believe most theists would argue that, just so, it is impossible to have a complete absence of God. This was, in fact, a perfect metaphor for this student to choose for his argument
Furthermore, while temperature is related to average kinetic energy, Jay isn’t quite correct here. Degrees of freedom are also relevant.
Furthermore, while Jay is quite right that this student’s use of analogy may be partly flawed, you can’t simply dismiss the student’s definition of evil. It is quite Platonic, actually, that evil is only privatio boni. While this student’s answer is perhaps not sufficient to refute decent formulations of the argument from evil, it a valid argument against the 3rd premise of this professor’s “argument,” or at least could easily be made such if expanded slightly, following the natural course of the student’s reasoning.
“Good and evil imply action. A human, doing nothing, cannot logically be good or evil.”
This is highly debatable. However, I believe most philosophers would agree that there are situations in which inaction is unethical. Although Jay fails to define what counts as “action,” and it is unclear if a human can ever be “doing nothing.”
“Why aren’t all atheists pure evil?”
Throughout this argument Jay seems to feel that Christians appeal to a divine command theory of morality, something not present in the anecdote.
“Morality is subjective, not absolute. Thus, it has little to do with science. Even in religion, morality changes.”
Again, this is an incredibly, incredibly complex argument within philosophy which this refutation seem to entirely discard in a sweeping statement. While I believe most philosophers would agree that morality can change (one common example is that if alien overlords enslaved us and made it so that, upon a person feeling compassion, the subject of their compassion would be obliterated, then compassion would cease to be a virtue), I have yet to see a valid argument for the cultural relativism of ethics.
“According to this story, once I trip the old lady, I am then lacking God. It’s like God suddenly leaves? This is ridiculous.”
I’m not going to give this an in-depth analysis, however, I’ll just say that Jay and the author have very different concepts of God, and as neither of them have defined them, this is hardly a meaningful “attack” to make.
On the bright side, the philosophy in this rebuttal isn’t as bad as that of Dawkins. It has always appalled me how the atheists in the spot light have no grasp on philosophy, and always revert to simple (long since shown to be invalid) rebuttals for simple, ancient (often the oldest formulation that can be found) arguments. Probably because it is impossible to find real philosophy on the internet or in a public library.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Tags: Add new tag
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
“If I’m snarky, Jay started it”
Lol, I was rather harsh, wasn’t I?
“This is somewhat a strange formulation of the argument from evil, mainly because it is so easy to blow premise 3 out of the water”
I see your point here.
“In fact, I believe most theists would argue that, just so, it is impossible to have a complete absence of God.”
From my own experiences, many theists don’t believe that evil is the lack of good. Instead, they believe that all evil comes from Satan. (whom God created though) There are also many theists who believe that evil does come from God, since you can make a decent argument for this with the Bible.
“Arguments from analogy are a valid form of argument. They can never prove the conclusion, however, only make it more likely, and always are a little sketchy.”
An analogy never proves a point, but, when used correctly, is good for clarification. Eh, I think that’s basically the same thing you stated. I was outlining the student’s argument.
Why stating that darkness is the lack of light in any way helps prove that evil is the lack of good is still completely beyond me.
“You can be very much in the dark surrounded by radio waves.”
Hmmm, as a freshman, I’m not very clear on the science involved in this, but aren’t radio waves just based on the same phenomenon as light, except they have different wave lengths?
“Furthermore, while temperature is related to average kinetic energy, Jay isn’t quite correct here. Degrees of freedom are also relevant.”
Oh…………..okay.
“that evil is only privatio boni.”
But, again, how do we even reach this conclusion? What evidence is there for this? We can study light and heat, how are we supposed to form objective conclusions on morality? To me, saying that evil is the lack of something is a completely baseless assumption that only appeared because of religion. I mean, this is not even a tangible thing. It is not even a tangible “lack of a thing.” (sorry, I’m murdering these words.)
“Again, this is an incredibly, incredibly complex argument within philosophy which this refutation seem to entirely discard in a sweeping statement.”
Yes, I admit that I made several, mostly unwarranted, strong claims. I summarized multiple possible arguments, but I didn’t want to go into detail, because then I’d be writing a book.
“I’m not going to give this an in-depth analysis, however, I’ll just say that Jay and the author have very different concepts of God, and as neither of them have defined them, this is hardly a meaningful “attack” to make.”
The theists are the proponents, the ones who believe in some kind of “God,” thus they have the obligation of defining “God,” not me. Defining God in a refutation seems rather pointless since it wouldn’t be the same as the author’s interpretation.
But, here is my definition of God: I don’t know anything about God. I don’t know anything about his characteristics, his personality, his physicality, etc. He could be almost anything. For practical purposes, he is simply whatever theists believe he is, and I simply debate their specific version.
Unfortunately, what I have observed is that almost every theist has a completely different interpretation of God and the Bible, and virtually all of them refuse to even explain the details of their beliefs. I have two choices. I can either stay silent since the discussion will be filled with false assumptions and miscommunication or I can debate anyways. I prefer the latter.
October 16th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“From my own experiences, many theists don’t believe that evil is the lack of good. Instead, they believe that all evil comes from Satan. (whom God created though) There are also many theists who believe that evil does come from God, since you can make a decent argument for this with the Bible.”
If you’re going to criticize communism, you criticize communism as a socio-political theory. You don’t criticize the ranting of the guy on the street corner. Give religion the same respect.
The argument from evil doesn’t have much of a point against the theist saying God is above good or evil (although there are other many other excellent arguments against such a God).
“Why stating that darkness is the lack of light in any way helps prove that evil is the lack of good is still completely beyond me.”
He was never trying to prove that evil was the lack of good. That was one of his premises. That analogy (as I interpreted it) was for how evil is the absence of God.
October 16th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“You can be very much in the dark surrounded by radio waves.”
Hmmm, as a freshman, I’m not very clear on the science involved in this, but aren’t radio waves just based on the same phenomenon as light, except they have different wave lengths?
Yes. But they aren’t light waves. They are radio waves, and we can’t see them. If we had super-eyes, we could, and then we would call that part of the spectrum “light,” and the absence of rays from that part of the spectrum would be “dark.”
““Furthermore, while temperature is related to average kinetic energy, Jay isn’t quite correct here. Degrees of freedom are also relevant.”
Oh…………..okay.”
Yeah…temperature is a very complex concept. You could have an entire chemistry course on it. You could probably also have an entire philosophy course on it.
October 16th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
“But, again, how do we even reach this conclusion? What evidence is there for this? We can study light and heat, how are we supposed to form objective conclusions on morality? To me, saying that evil is the lack of something is a completely baseless assumption that only appeared because of religion. I mean, this is not even a tangible thing. It is not even a tangible “lack of a thing.” (sorry, I’m murdering these words.)”
Evidence? This is philosophy, not science. This view did not come about because of religion. Plato was a philosopher, not a theologian. This is a non-religious opinion on evil in philosophy.
We can’t form objective conclusions on morality and more than we can on light and heat. What you really need is a philosophy class, specifically an ethics class.
October 16th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
“The theists are the proponents, the ones who believe in some kind of “God,” thus they have the obligation of defining “God,” not me. Defining God in a refutation seems rather pointless since it wouldn’t be the same as the author’s interpretation.”
Basically, I was just saying that your criticism on that point was clearly not interpreting “evil is the absence of God” in the same way as the author.
“Unfortunately, what I have observed is that almost every theist has a completely different interpretation of God and the Bible, and virtually all of them refuse to even explain the details of their beliefs. I have two choices. I can either stay silent since the discussion will be filled with false assumptions and miscommunication or I can debate anyways. I prefer the latter.”
In some ways you are right, yes, no two people will think exactly the same on God. However, there are certain major philosophical definitions floating around. Traditionally; omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent. Modern definitions get a little more complex. Those are all qualified (you have to philosophically define those words, eliminate contradictions, etc.) Then there are further ideas such as outside of time, all traits are essential, free will, etc. Read a book on perfect being theology.
October 17th, 2008 at 2:08 am
The original glurge set up a strawman and knocked it down. The Straw Professor’s argument is not worth defending, I think: “evil” is a concept so abstract and nebulous that it can be defined away with something like “absence of God”, and furthermore implies agency, which makes it vulnerable to the free will arguments. Something like harm and suffering would have been harder, though, I am sure, not impossible, to explain away.
So, not to belittle Jay’s and Karin’s hard work, but I think that Jay should have focused on the fact a) the story never happened; b) Einstein didn’t believe what the fictional student did; c) the story’s author is a dishonest hypocrite who didn’t even have the decency to let his strawman phrase his argument well; and d) the story never happened.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“If you’re going to criticize communism, you criticize communism as a socio-political theory. You don’t criticize the ranting of the guy on the street corner. Give religion the same respect.”
What do you mean? Don’t criticize the person that wrote this article?
“The argument from evil doesn’t have much of a point against the theist saying God is above good or evil (although there are other many other excellent arguments against such a God).”
This is true. I wasn’t really supporting the veracity of the professor’s argument; I was attempting to debunk the student’s.
“However, there are certain major philosophical definitions floating around. Traditionally; omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent. Modern definitions get a little more complex.”
“Then there are further ideas such as outside of time, all traits are essential, free will,”
I already know all of these things. Or, at least, I have dealt with these topics before.
“We can’t form objective conclusions on morality and more than we can on light and heat. ”
I’m not sure what you’re saying.
Are you suggesting that we cannot form more objective conclusions on light and heat than we can on morality? If this is your claim, then I still disagree.
“Evidence? This is philosophy, not science.”
Yuck! I’m a physics major. If the theists want to prove that evil is the lack of God without utilizing science, then they better have some strong philosophical arguments to back it up. So far, I haven’t seen anything worthy of a high school level argumentative paper.
Oops, okay, yes, we can make the philosophical argument that evil is a lack of something, but to make the specific claim that evil is a lack of God, the person is inevitably a theist.
“What you really need is a philosophy class, specifically an ethics class.”
……………..Are you trying to help me or are you throwing insults?
“Oh, and darkness, it actually happens to be an absence of light.”
Hmmm, I don’t think I explained this well enough, so I want to reiterate my point that the writer is arguing with secondary qualities. (I’m implying that you missed it, I just wanted to explain it again.) Photons exist, but light and darknesses are simply terms that we use to describe what we see with our eyes. This is same with heat and cold. Motion obviously exists, but heat and cold are simply subjective terms that we use to describe how our bodies feel when subjected to it.
Perhaps this kind of argument has been floating around much longer than the writer, but it’s still completely flawed. He’s just deceptively forcing different scientific processes to fit some specific morphology and then combining that with the assertion that evil is the lack of God to form some analogical argument that has no philosophical or scientific merit whatsoever.
Temperature and light are, in no way, related to morality. The most you can do with such an analogy is as a clarification tool, if even that. But, how much clarification does one need for the short claim that evil is the absence of God?
Instead, by mutilating linguistics and science, this writer has led gullible bloggers and surfers into believing that “Albert Einstein” has actually proved something.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Aaah, I’m NOT implying that you missed it. Sorry.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“What do you mean? Don’t criticize the person that wrote this article?”
I was referring to your citing the views of “many theists.” (Yes, sadly, I consider much of our nation’s understanding of religion and philosophy on par with that of Joe ranting on the street corner.
“Yuck! I’m a physics major. If the theists want to prove that evil is the lack of God without utilizing science, then they better have some strong philosophical arguments to back it up. So far, I haven’t seen anything worthy of a high school level argumentative paper.”
That evil is the lack of God isn’t something you can prove. You don’t prove much in philosophy, other than proving that someone else’s views are contradictory or lead to absurdity. The goal is to have non-contradictory, non-absurd, acceptable views in whatever specific areas your argument relates to (ethics, metaphysics, whatever).
“Oops, okay, yes, we can make the philosophical argument that evil is a lack of something, but to make the specific claim that evil is a lack of God, the person is inevitably a theist.”
Saying that evil is a lack of God without further clarification is a theological, not a philosophical, statement. I can, however, think of several nice ways to philosophically lay the argument out. It’s all in definitions. That’s more or less what philosophy is; defining things into existence (I’m joking, it’s somewhat true, but I’m joking).
““What you really need is a philosophy class, specifically an ethics class.”
……………..Are you trying to help me or are you throwing insults?”
Oh no, I was just saying that you’re touching on a lot of basic ideas in philosophy, and you seem to be unfamiliar with philosophy as a field, and since you seem to be really interested in the topic, it might be nice for you to take a class.
“the writer is arguing with secondary qualities…Photons exist, but light and darknesses are simply terms that we use to describe what we see with our eyes.”
This is same with heat and cold. Motion obviously exists, but heat and cold are simply subjective terms that we use to describe how our bodies feel when subjected to it.”
This is a major metaphysical claim. So…basically, you’re arguing that the only way to understand the world is through exactly what is going on in terms of physics (I won’t get into the philosophy of science…). I don’t really want to write a book on metaphysics here. Read a book, take a class…(if you can, the philosophy of science classes here are really good…)
“He’s just deceptively forcing different scientific processes to fit some specific morphology and then combining that with the assertion that evil is the lack of God to form some analogical argument that has no philosophical or scientific merit whatsoever.”
Again, major metaphysical claim, but…
When we see “light,” it is because there are these little energy packets. When we don’t see light, it is because there aren’t. When we “see” “dark,” it is because there aren’t any particles. We don’t “see” dark, we see an absence of “light”. When we experience good, it comes from God. There is nothing that by its existence makes us experience evil, only an absence of God. I worded that poorly, but it really is an excellent metaphor.
“Temperature and light are, in no way, related to morality. The most you can do with such an analogy is as a clarification tool, if even that.”
It’s an argument from analogy. Basically, he’s saying that something we sometimes conceive or speak of as existing, dark, can actually just be the absence of something else, light. It’s not a clarification. He’s asserting the validity of defining a concept as an absence.
“But, how much clarification does one need for the short claim that evil is the absence of God?”
If you actually wanted to take the time to turn the statement into a philosophical argument, it would probably take a short book.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
“I think: “evil” is a concept so abstract and nebulous that it can be defined away with something like “absence of God”, and furthermore implies agency.”
I can’t actually claim to have much of an idea what you’re talking about, but…
The concept of evil doesn’t imply agency in that you need an agent to perpetrate evil. Differing conceptions of the good will vary on whether or not there must be an agent affected for something to be evil. Clearly, these needs to be an agent for any concept to exist, evil included. Most modern philosophers in ethics will believe in evil, as in they’ll believe in normative moral standards, but hey, every generation has its nihilists.
“which makes it vulnerable to the free will arguments. Something like harm and suffering would have been harder, though, I am sure, not impossible, to explain away.”
Evil is vulnerable to the free will arguments? Hmm, I’m assuming you’re talking about the free will defenses (in response to the evidential arguments from evil), most famously Plantinga’s transworld depravity, which most philosophers will concede as proving it is possible that it is necessary for evil to exist in a world with God. I fail to see how defining evil as the absence of God has anything to do with this, however.
Most people consider harm and suffering “evil.” Actually, every conception of the good I am aware of (every sane conception…someone could theoretically think bat dung is the only good, in which case pain and suffering aren’t particularly relevant).
“So, not to belittle Jay’s and Karin’s hard work, but I think that Jay should have focused on the
fact a) the story never happened; b) Einstein didn’t believe what the fictional student did; c) the
story’s author is a dishonest hypocrite who didn’t even have the decency to let his strawman phrase
his argument well; and d) the story never happened.”
Oh, I don’t know, I have to say, this strawman was far more reasonable than those propped up typically by the atheist community. And, unlike the atheist community, this author actually propped up a strawman he knew an argument against. Anyone ever read Dawkins? Sure, the guy isn’t a philosopher. So he didn’t have to try and cover it in his book. And has anyone ever heard an atheist arguing against the cosmological argument (of course they’re arguing against the most basic, ancient formulations…)? It’s just hilarious. They generally say things like, well, if everything moved needs a mover, then God must have been moved by something, endless regress, etc. It’s pitiful, and is in no way properly addresses the argument (there are very good ways to address the simpler formulations…but eventually you get into the different definitions of the principle of sufficient reason, and whether or not that is true, and it gets somewhat embarrassing for atheists who like to outright squash theists). But my point is, atheist actually tend to be worse at setting up strawmen than theists.