Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State

Nov

2011

Debating religion: The evidential problem of good and its implications

Author: admin / admin's blog

Log in or register to post comments

A Philosophically Informed Perspective, by Justin Vacula

In a recent debate with popular Christian apologist William Lane Craig, philosopher Stephen Law -- arguing against the motion that [the Christian] God exists -- presented an ingenious gambit known as 'the evidential problem of good.' Law's argument raises two main concerns. If belief in an all-evil god is rendered irrational by the presence of joy and happiness in the world, why isn't belief in an all-good god rendered irrational by the presence of egregious suffering in the world? If belief in an all-evil god is very unreasonable, why should belief in an all-good good be much more reasonable?

The gambit Law presented in his debate with Craig traces back to a Spring 2005 piece written by Law that was published in “Think” titled “The God of Eth.” Law notes that the traditional arguments for God reveal nothing about his moral character and the argument known as the problem of evil – “if God is all-powerful and all-good, why is there so much suffering in the world” – seems to cast tremendous doubt on belief in an all-good god. Religious thinkers have resorted to “the free will solution” (suffering is a consequence of God giving us free will), “the character-building solution” (suffering can lead us to be compassionate), the “some good require evils” solution (some goods that exist require suffering to exist), and the “mystery card” solution (we can't know the reasons God has for allowing evil) and Law believes these defenses profoundly fail [as, of course, do other atheists].

Law then presents an imaginary debate in an imaginary universe whose members largely believe in an all-evil god. Throughout the debate, the believer in an all-evil god uses the traditional defenses theists use to defend the all-good god, albeit 'mirrored' in a way. For example, a defender of the all-evil god argues “Good in the universe exists because all-evil god gave persons free will; “by giving us free-will, God can be sure we will agonize endlessly about what we should do. […] We end up torturing ourselves. The exquisitely evil irony of it all!” The defender of the all-evil God, in addition, plays the mystery card [similar to theists who defend an all-good god], “True, I may not be able to account for every last drop of good in the world. But remember that we are dealing here with the mind of God. Who are you to suppose you can understand the mind of an infinitely intelligent and knowledgeable being? Isn't it arrogant of you to suppose that you can figure out God's master plan?”

Ironically (or not), when Law presented these ideas in his debate with William Lane Craig, Craig 'played the mystery card' stating that we are simply not in a position to say that an all-good God [who is also all-knowing and all-powerful] could not have reasons for allowing evil in this world. Law responded, later in the debate saying something similar to, “Who are you know the mind of an all-evil god” clearly showing the absurdity of Craig's “mystery card.” Law, on his blog, noted “...that STILL doesn't help Craig at all, so far as explaining why it's more reasonable to believe in a good god rather than an evil god (the latter belief being absurd). The point is this: whether or not Craig plays the sceptical card, he's still left having to explain why belief in his good god is very significantly more reasonable than the obviously absurd belief that there's an evil god. […] Craig failed to explain why belief in his good god is significantly more reasonable than the absurd belief that there's an evil god.”

Law's ideas were so hard-hitting that someone who believes that Craig won every debate he has ever participated in admitted that Craig lost the debate with Stephen Law. This person formulates Law's argument which perhaps other atheists, including you, can use in future discussions with theists: “(1) There is just as much evidence from the goodness/evil of the world that the creator god is evil, as there is that the creator god is good. (2) We are justified in believing that evidence of goodness in the world demonstrates that there is not an evil creator god. (3) Therefore, we are equally justified in believing that the evidence of evil in the world demonstrates that there is not a good creator god.”

Law ends his “Think” article saying, “...belief in an evil god clearly remains downright silly. But then why isn't belief in a good God also silly? Aren't we justified in rejecting belief in a good God for the same very good reason that we are justified in rejecting belief in an evil God? If the problem of good is fatal to belief in an evil God (which it clearly is), why isn't the problem of evil similarly fatal to belief in a good God? That's the question the theist needs to answer.” The question still stands...and William Lane Craig has failed to adequately address it.

While atheists obviously believe that belief in any gods is irrational – and while some feel that religious belief is so ridiculous that it should only be ridiculed – it should be important for atheists to understand why theism is an irrational position and, for those who are able and willing to do so, present intelligent counter-objections to theism. Atheists, like Law, with a background in philosophy can often do a great service by presenting an intellectual defense for fellow atheists and we would do good to learn from them instead of simply outright dismissing religious belief without providing effective arguments and informed rebuttals. While I detest gangster rap music, nothing seems worse to me than atheists 'losing' debates with theists. Don't be a victim because you weren't prepared.

Take time to listen to this great debate. I could not possibly cover the entire debate in this post – and did not intend to – so enjoy Law's refutation of Craig's arguments.

—————

Justin Vacula, author and owner of justinvacula.com — a blog about atheism, theism, philosophy, and much more — is an active outspoken atheist in Northeastern Pennsylvania who is the co-organizer, spokesperson, and board member of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society, a secular discussion and activist group of non-theists. Justin received a large amount of media attention in his 2009 church/state battle in Northeastern Pennsylvania and graduated from King’s College in Pennsylvania with degrees in Philosophy and Psychology in addition to receiving a distinguished award in Philosophy and a minor in Professional Writing. He regularly publishes articles for Examiner.com as the ‘Scranton Atheism Examiner’ in addition to authoring blog posts.

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 12/16/2011 - 14:11

Jaharp26, I agree with you for I was raised in a bible believing home but there was no questioning the bible just believe.I was the only one in my family who began to use critical thought on the bible and discover there no reality in the scriptures it is all fiction.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 12/23/2011 - 20:08

OK, help me out here. Seems to me that the best one can do philosophically regarding the existence of God is agnosticism, since one cannot prove a negative, i.e., there is no rational way to disprove the existence of a god. This is not a defense of religion at all but I think a reasonable person would have to concede that there is a finite probability that there is what would by our standards be a diety out there somewhere. Do atheists deny the possibility that there may be a culture out there somewhere that is infinitely more advanced than us? I sometimes think atheism and religion are just two sides of the same worn coin. Seems that reason might lie somewhere in between, no? I do not believe that we can know, with any degree of certainty, whether a god does or does not exist. How do atheists define god, anyway? Responses greatly appreciated.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/24/2011 - 10:52

Seems to me that the best one can do philosophically regarding the existence of God is agnosticism, since one cannot prove a negative, i.e., there is no rational way to disprove the existence of a god.

Let's dispense w/the niceties - philosophy & religion are NOT remotely on the same playing field. Philosophy explores the ontological significance of our existence: religion only pretends to have answers.
& no, I don't need to disprove it. Onus is on the believer.

This is not a defense of religion at all but I think a reasonable person would have to concede that there is a finite probability that there is what would by our standards be a diety out there somewhere.

A. the word is 'deity' not 'diety', &
B. 'concede' is too tricksy - is it possible? There's a thin astronomically small chance something that ridiculously narcissistic as a 'gawd' is out there.

Do atheists deny the possibility that there may be a culture out there somewhere that is infinitely more advanced than us?

Don't be ludicrous. Do you have evidence? Solid evidence? If you do, I'm up for looking at it. If you don't, idle speculation isn't even remotely close to being philosophical.

I sometimes think atheism and religion are just two sides of the same worn coin.

Yes, in the same way my NOT collecting coins makes me a numismatist.

Seems that reason might lie somewhere in between, no?

No.

I do not believe that we can know, with any degree of certainty, whether a god does or does not exist.

What anyone believes is irrelevant. This is an appeal to ignorance. You have evidence? No? Then why should I entertain an ignorant, morally bankrupt concept like this 'gawd' character?

How do atheists define god, anyway?

Have you tried looking it up in the dictionary?
God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.

Responses greatly appreciated.

Yeah well you sound like Yet Another One of those Stealth Evangelists, the folks who bombard this site trying to milk a concession of any sort from the resident atheists, & then try to worm the 'idea' of 'gawd' into people's skulls via use of logical fallacies that religious folks do so love to use.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 12/26/2011 - 21:20

RandyK,

Let's start out a little farther back. We're discussing the existence or non-existence of one or more gods in our universe or, if you prefer, outside it and ruling over it. Any god(s) who just put things in motion and left or died is not worthy of discussion since she/he/they are no longer relevant.

So, we're looking into a physical property of the universe.

Philosophy is the wrong subject for this. This is a scientific inquiry. As such, in order for there to be any reason to give credence to the god(s) hypothesis, there would have to be some hard, physical, scientific evidence.

There is none.

Therefore, at least some of us atheists, simply fail to consider the hypothesis. When a shred of evidence is found for the god(s) hypothesis, it will get all the consideration it deserves. At present, the amount of consideration such a hypothesis deserves is exactly the same amount of consideration we give to the existence of fire-breathing dragons, i.e. none.

As for how atheists define god, we look in a dictionary, same as for any other word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

A universe in which such a creature existed would be demonstrably different than the one in which we live. Laws of physics would occasionally be suspended as one or more gods intervened. As yet, no such exceptions to the laws of physics have been observed.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:54

To Randy k; 12/24/11 @ am 1:18

So Randy, your preference to this predicament's to give the answer of, agnosticism?
Only because you say you can't prove a negative, or to say, there's no way to disprove the existence of gods?

Sir., you're the one trying to persuade everyone here how your invented story's true, only because you said so, & without any creditable evidence brought forth for confirmation. Correct?

Since that's the case, then you've already dispoven your own story & aren't to be taken seriously on such matters. Sorry.

Probability of a deity out there somewhere?
No. If there is, then provide the evidence, please?

An advanced civilization?
Yes.

A civilization of gods?
No. For no civilization would be around that long.

Let's keep on the topic, please?
You're supposed to be on the supposition of gods, not the Q continuum.

Religion & atheism are the same?
No. And you've illustrated nothing to say otherwise.

Define gods?
0

I don't believe in synthetic religions.

Well. Hope I've helped you, & have a good year.
Erebus

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/09/2012 - 18:39

For the John 3:16 mythers, here is your true god:

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth

7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man

7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry and, died. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive and they that were with him in the ark

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 01/10/2012 - 03:13

Genesis 6:7 / 7:4 / 7:21 - 7:23............. Bible verses you will not see any religionist quote, wear on their t-shirt or paint on their eye black.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 01/31/2012 - 05:22

Dear Misanthropic Scott, and Latin atheist gal:

I'm 46 & living in a small town in WV
Believe me when I say that I think you two are so inspirational I thank you so much for your kind words, you've no idea how happy you've made me feel.
& if I'd any way in doing so, I'd hug you both! ;)

Latin atheist gal :
To have been through what you have, & still pick yourself up, brush yourself off, move on to become a teacher, & the information you contribute to the site is a wonderful testament to your character, & truly inspiring.
You are indeed a beautiful gem my friend & never forget that.
I don't know you personally, but from what I've been reading I wouldn't say you're a buzzard.
You have a very beautiful & intellectual mind.
That's if it's okay for me to say that, as wouldn't want you & beat the hell out of me too.
Peace my friend

& now to the Misanthropic principal:

Thanks kind sir, I needed that.
Why this old dog's feeling much happier now!
Wag tail.
I've taken your advice, as you were right about the meaning of life & what we choose to make of it.

& I'm going to order those two books you've recommended.
Although I've studied some on evolution, relativity, quantum machanics, & particle physics, but I don't know the full aspects of those topics yet.
With that being said, I do think the universe is very fascinating, beauty & complexities of it, the wonder of stars & how they fuse atoms to make different elements.
Truly amazing.
How four hydrogen atoms make one helium atom.
Two hydrogen atoms are explled in the form of energy, & the other fuse to form the helium atom, by gravity alone is truly astounding.
This all makes the universe our true mother because without it the earth would never be possible.

I'd love to discuss the topic of (black holes) with you sometime.
Perhaps when I can make the time & log into your blog, we can discuss the matter?
Your insight in that topic would be most appreciated.

Oh, & atheism predates both Christianity, & Judaism, simply because we're born with it.

To give you an example on the subject at hand I'll state just the facts.
I was three &already asking my mother guestions about God, for which she couldn't provide me any real answers.
& for questioning her book, & her god, I got a slap in the face.

It comes down to this.
As a child, you look for your parents for guidance & will except their information as literal truth.
so when they take you to their church, & you learn their religion the same as you would in any school.
What does that imply?

It implies that you were conditioned, that religion was absent from you, so you're a born atheist.
And no gods need apply.

Well. I'll leave you both now, & again,, I thank you so much for your kind words as it was truly meaningful, &appreciated greatly.

Your old hound, & best friend

Cerberus

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 01/15/2012 - 01:50

Law's argument is entirely unconvincing. Its fundamental inaccuracy lies in the ethics the reader must adopt to be a part of Law's scenario. Law states that man defines good and evil, thus man's definition of good and evil in the Good-God universe is the same as in the Evil-God universe... i.e. in the good universe, murder is morally evil, in the evil universe; man still considers murder morally evil but the Evil-God does not. However, I would argue, a fundamental tennent of faith is that God is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil (ethics) thus in the evil universe murder would in fact be good, and thus the evil-God would in fact be a Good-God based upon his morals. To introduce an outside observer which further qualifies which God's morals are good and which are evil makes the observer (philosopher/reader) God, then reiterating the skeptic's initial question (why do evil things happen in a universe -- multiverse? -- created by a Good God) makes even less sense as an argument against God.

To answer the inevitable antagonistic response: "disproving this argument does not prove God"; I will mention the fundamental tenants of science to which most athiests would point to as the source of their reasoned disbelief in God. Science is based upon two stipulations, 1) Natural phenomenon have natural explanations, 2) an explanation of a natural phenomenon can never be proven true rather it can only be disproven if observations are made to contradict the explanation (e.g. Scientific theory). Applying this logic to the philosophy of religion (or atheism): by your own logic, nice try ; )

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 01/15/2012 - 17:25

There are those who do not or will not condemn the evil genocide perpetrated on innocent men, women and children by Hitler. Moreover, these people wish to indoctrinate their children to 'raise up' a new generation in these beliefs to return to the old ways of their leader who they worship. These people are known as fascists, neo-nazi’s and sociopaths.

There are also those who do not or will not condemn the evil genocide perpetrated on innocent men, women and children by God. Moreover, these people wish to indoctrinate their children to 'raise up' a new generation in these beliefs to return to the old ways of their leader who they worship. These people are known as Jews, Christians and Muslims.

And then there are those who do not make any distinction between the two groups listed above and see both as morally repugnant and dangerous. Moreover, these people wish to educate their children to use reason, logic and commonsense to ensure genocide, racism, bigotry, misogyny and hatred are not part of their belief systems. These people are known as humanists, nonbelievers and atheists.

You may label me as a humanist, secularist, atheist and even godless if you wish. I will wear that badge with honor and with head held high. For if being labeled as such means that I will call evil that which demands the moniker, and never shirk from this responsibility as a human being; then I am okay with my place and my label in the world.

Can you say the same?

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 01/17/2012 - 17:24

Buckeyenonbeliever,

I strongly agree with most of what you have said and applaud the message.

However, I have an issue with your analogy that will probably take me many words to express.

There is a reason for Godwin's Law (which you escape by not being the first to mention Hitler or the nazis on this thread). Here's a link in case anyone is unfamiliar with this ancient rule of net debating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

The reason is that the holocaust was truly a unique event in history. Though Hitler was only the second largest mass murderer in history, second to Stalin, there was an element of institutional cruelty unmatched even by the crusades, inquisitions, and other ethnic cleansings of the world. Gas coming out of showers, ovens, forcing children to choose which parent will be shot before their eyes, medical experiments such as how many sterilizations can be performed during specified times, how many times the bones of 3 year olds can be be broken before they will not heal as compared with 3 month olds, and others are simply beyond compare.

Any comparison to the holocaust is potentially insulting to the remaining survivors and family members of the victims of this particular event as the actual holocaust is inherently made to seem less severe by any comparison to any other event in human history.

Second, Hitler was a particularly odd case. The Catholic church treated him as a Catholic in good standing right up to his death. While only half of his 12 million victims were Jewish, there is no hint that the population of the countries he occupied were 50% Jewish. Couple this statistic with the yellow star requirement and the bulk of his rhetoric and there is no doubt that he preferentially targeted Jews. Further, he was writing his own bible to remove the Jewish influence in the existing bible.

That said, he also made some very derogatory remarks about the church. So, it is by no means clear whether his was a case of religious killing or killing based on the ideology of fascism. Religion certainly played at least some part.

So, for future arguments, I would say to keep the argument you have made but select someone other than Hitler for your example of a case of non-religious genocide. You might try replacing him with Stalin or Pol Pot, both of whom killed for the ideology of Communism. But, whoever you choose as your non-religious mass-murderer, please pick someone other than Hitler.

Thanks. And thanks for otherwise making an excellent point.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 01/17/2012 - 11:56

All arguments are only as sound as the initial assumption they are based upon. C-delta conductor states: “ a fundamental tenement of faith is that God is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil…” Therefore he concludes that Laws argument is invalid because he a human is declaring what is good and what is evil. BUT who tells us what God’s intentions are? Why other humans of course. Some declare the Bible is “Gods word” and tells us what God’s intentions are. YET it is full of contradictions, errors and has been used to justify what most sane people would agree are terrible atrocities, from rape, to genocide, slavery, to total destruction of all living things. Then you have to ask is it God’s word as revealed in the Bible, in the Koran, in the Upanishads, in the Tao teh Ching, in the writings of Greek philosophers or modern humanists? For a human to declare one is and others aren’t Gods word is a matter of belief not fact and no basis for a sound argument or proof.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/30/2012 - 02:05

To Blair Scott, Krystalline Apostate, Ken, Misanthropic Scott, Buckeye nonbeliever, Latin atheist gal,
& anyone else it may concern or cares to read this:

Like many atheists, I sometimes feel very alone, meaningless, without purpose, because where I live atheists are few & far between.

I stumbled upon this site & had seen the wonderful intellectuals lighting the postings with (clear facts ) making your cases with intense convictions towards the opposition, & I must say you know your stuff.
I mean, wow!
The way in which some would through in the gauntlet & the comradeship that ensued ensured any with their incontestable book a quick & memorable defeat.
I don't have the level of education that everyone here has, as I'm a little slow, but it doesn't keep me from trying.

However, I can never except someone that cloaks themselves under pretence with three words so no one can question them as Humphrey did.

So please forgive me? I feel as if I have a family now & was only concerned with helping my family members.
It was never my intention to harm any one of my fellow ((Atheists, Anti-theists, & if I've done that in any way, then I hope you'll except my most sincerest apologies, & I'm at your mercy.

Your friend, the hound from Hades
Cerberus

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/30/2012 - 05:16

Cerberus,

I don't officially have anything to do with this site, other than that I read and comment on it. But, for my part, welcome you old dog!

I'm glad you're finding ways to connect here. I often feel very bad for atheists living in the highly god-infested portions of the country. We can certainly make you feel less alone knowing that there are so many atheists around. The ones who comment on blogs are likely only a very small subset.

I've been lucky working as a programmer in New York City. NYC has a reasonable number of atheists and agnostics. Programming as a profession also seems to specifically select for it, being a profession that requires logical thought. So, I've been very lucky to generally be able to express my opinions even in the work place. Or, perhaps I'm just a loud, boorish, and opinionated asshole. Or, more likely both are true.

I do understand that most atheists are not so lucky. It's one of the reasons I blog. My hope is to improve the memepool and increase tolerance.

However, regarding feeling meaningless and without purpose, I will say that atheism for me is a very empowering viewpoint. I do not rely on the external validation of an imaginary friend in the sky to give my life meaning.

My life has exactly the meaning I choose to give it.

Read that again. It's one of the things I truly love about my personal relationship with reality. I get to choose what meaning my life has. I get to fill my life as I choose. It may be harder to embrace your atheism in the god-infested backwaters of this once great non-nation. But, if you do so, I think you will find your life more meaningful than many around you. Yours will be the meaning associated with being a free human being (or free three-headed dog, if you prefer) rather than an enslaved sheep.

As for your education level, I'd say two things. First, I highly doubt the atheists on this site will judge you on education rather than critical thinking, which is strangely not taught in schools. Second, if you feel you want to learn more, schooling is not required.

Much can be learned from independent reading.

There are also a great many science books out there now that are written for a general audience (i.e. lay people like me). I have some of them listed on my books page on my own blog. I'm sure there are many others. My local library will order books that it does not keep in stock, by request. You may want to look into how the selection is at your own local library and ask whether they will order books for you. Ours even has a way to order the book online, be notified by email when it arrives, then I just pick it up. This can save a lot of money over buying a large quantity of books.

I would suggest starting with either Gould (almost anything) or Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker may be better than God Delusion) for evolution and possibly Hawking's Brief History of Time for a physics overview up to and including relativity and quantum mechanics.

http://misanthropicscott.wordpress.com/books/

Of course, that reading suggestion is only if you want to feel more educated. If you're happy where you are, that's fine too. You've already got better critical and veridical thinking skills than most.

Of course, the most important thing really is that you are not alone in non-belief. There are many of us out there. And, atheism has a rich history that predates Christianity, though possibly not Judaism.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 01/17/2012 - 14:32

bravo,

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/30/2012 - 17:22

Dear Cerberus,

Your insights are much appreciated and valued...No atheists where I live either but I've learned to appreciate the natives until they begin to cannibalize...I live in a tiny Texas town where I was told that if I joined the local Baptist church and the gun club and was seen chatting at the VFW Post, I could become sheriff notwithstanding a Hispanic last name and the naturalization papers. Well, five years of hollering in a Baptist choir earned me an awful fight with a groping deacon which ended up with someone getting kicked in the shins (the deacon) and someone getting kicked out of the church (me---not the first time I've been removed from or left a religious organization/cult). I'm still in the gun club but I found out that I'd never be elected sheriff so I gave meaning to my life by becoming a school teacher/school librarian which in these parts are jobs filled by glorious church ladies: my 24/7 colleagues...Yes, there's a Hell but they've learned right quick that they'll never win a puking contest with a buzzard... I enjoy reading this blog because the only time I interact with other atheists is when I go to Austin or during summer vacation when I leave the U.S. with my daughter. I hope you keep posting here where no one bites and there's no censorship. Peace, :-)

P.S. What Misanthropic Scott said about libraries is very important...also ask about their electronic resources, you'll be surprised at what you can find.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 01/31/2012 - 05:48

Ps. I'll be back!

stephenix1015 / Tue, 11/06/2012 - 17:12

The demand for everyone to be

The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights.-Markus Lattner