Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Most Forms of the Argument From Evil Are Incoherent

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a comment to another post StephenB noted that atheists often argue as follows: “evil exists; therefore God does not exist.” That is true. Yet, the incoherence of the argument should be immediately obvious. Let’s see why.

The argument to which Stephen alluded is an abbreviation of a more formal argument that goes like this:

Major Premise: If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being (i.e., God) existed, he would not allow evil to exist.

Minor Premise: Evil exists

Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

The problem with the argument is in the word “evil.” What does it mean? If metaphysical naturalism is true – if particles in motion are the only things that exist – then the word “evil” must necessarily have no “objective” meaning. In other words, if there is no transcendent moral lawgiver, there is no transcendent moral law. It follows that all moral choices are inherently subjective, choices that we choose because evolution has conditioned us to do so. Therefore, for the atheist, the word “evil” means “that which I personally do not prefer because evolution has conditioned me not to prefer it.”

Now, let’s reexamine the argument, but instead of using the word “evil” let us amplify it by using the definition.

Major Premise: If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being (i.e., God) existed, he would not allow that which I personally do not prefer because evolution has conditioned me not to prefer it to exist.

Minor Premise: That which I personally do not prefer because evolution has conditioned me not to prefer it exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

The argument in this form is plainly blithering nonsense.

We see then that the atheist makes an illogical leap. His argument is true only if it is false. The word “evil” has objective meaning only if God exists. Therefore, when the atheist is making his argument from the existence of evil he is necessarily doing one of two things:

1. Arguing in the nonsensical manner I illustrated; or

2. Judging the non-existence of God using a standard that does not exist unless God in fact exists.

Either way, the argument fails.

More problematic for the theist (at least theists who believe God is omnibenevolent) is Ivan Karamazov. Readers will remember that Ivan’s argument took the following form:

Definition: We will call the “omnipotent being” God

Major Premise: If God is omnibenevolent he would not allow evil to exist.

Minor Premise: Evil exists

Conclusion: Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent.

Keep in mind the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. A valid argument is an argument in which the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Valid arguments do not necessarily result in true conclusions. They result in logical conclusions. An argument is said to be “sound” when it is valid AND its premises are true. A sound argument results in conclusions that are both logical and true.

The first argument that I set forth is not even valid. Ivan’s argument is a better argument in this sense – it is valid, meaning the conclusion at least has the virtue of following from the premises.

But is Ivan’s argument sound? That is another question altogether, the answer to which is beyond the scope of this post. Suffice at this point to say that Christians believe Ivan’s major premise is not true. They believe an omnibenevolent God might allow evil to exist in order to give the gift of free will to the beings he creates.

Comments
F/N: The onlooker should know that in another discussion thread, MF twisted my response above into an accusation that I accused him of supporting murder of children. I replied in brief there and note here on that. KFkairosfocus
December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
I don’t according to your definition. I do according to my definition which is something like “a need to act for altruistic reasoons”. So – to return – do you believe me?
I wasn't defining conscience as "moral sense", I was describing "moral sense" as that which most people refer to as their conscience, defined by Merriam-Webster as:
the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good
"Moral" is defined thusly:
concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
So, are you saying that you have no sense whatsoever that something is right or wrong in terms of how you ought to behave? If you are claiming that you do not have a conscience, then no, I don't believe you, but I can accept it arguendo for the purpose of discussion.William J Murray
December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
MF: Strawman. You have in front of you an explanation of why I hold that the testimony of conscience reflects accurately the OUGHT and its root in a world foundational IS. As well, you see the problem of general delusion leading to a cascade of Plato's cave delusional worlds, if one holds that the testimony that we are under moral government does not reflect reality. That strongly suggests to me that you do not have a good answer to the problem of general delusion and a cascade of delusional worlds. Other than, perhaps to replace an infinite regress with a circular one. KFkairosfocus
December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
KF
I am sorry, I am not impressed by the switch to emotional terms.
This from the person who writes:
No morally sane person of sufficient maturity can but understand MY #1 and its corollary. Nay, our consciences scream out: WRONG, EVIL, HORROR — ACT NOW TO RESCUE! OR ELSE, YOU TOO ARE GUILTY OF BEING AN ACCESSORY AND ENABLER.
Mark Frank
December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
PS: I have read the note you have on using moral language. Sorry, it boils down to saying morality is a circle, influenced by family resemblances. Coherence and sharing the same core values -- the resumed underlying assumptions, fail. The IS-OUGHT gap remains, and there is but one way to found a genuine ought, an IS at foundation level capable of bearing that weight. This surfaces the issue that a worldview and a world alike need foundations.kairosfocus
December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
MF: I am sorry, I am not impressed by the switch to emotional terms. And, the very point is that OUGHT is binding and rooted in a world-foundational IS, or else it is delusion. Where, if it is delusion, you face immediately the problem of the no-firewall between the faculties of mind, and thence the cascade of Plato's cave worlds, a form of reduction to absurdity. Let me clip:
At the pivot of the skeptical objections to objective moral truth, notwithstanding persistent reduction to absurdity, is the pose that since we may err and since famously there are disagreements on morality, we can reduce moral feelings to subjective perceptions tastes and preferences, dismissing any and all claims of objectivity much less self evidence. So, there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, game over. Not so fast, as there is no better reason to imagine that we live in a moral Plato’s Cave world, than that we live in a physical or intellectual Plato’s Cave world . . . . Now, the skeptical question is, do we physically live in such a delusional world (maybe in another form such as the brains in vats or the Matrix's pods . . . ), and can we reliably tell the difference? The best answer to such is, that such a scenario implies general delusion and the general un-trustworthiness of our senses and reasoning powers. So, it undercuts itself in a turtles all the way down chain of possible delusions -- an infinite regress of Plato's cave delusions. Common good sense then tells us that the skeptic has caught himself up in his own web, his argument is self referentially incoherent . . . . So also, the proper stance in response to such is that this sort of appeal to general doubt or general delusion about major aspects of reality and the mind reduces to absurdity. In response, we should hold that it is senseless to assume or imply the general dubiousness or delusion of any major faculty of mind, precisely because of that absurd result. Instead, until and unless we can find evidence of specific error, we will confidently hold to what seems to be reliable, common sense reality; beginning with the bench-mark truths that are self-evident and foundational (e.g. first truths and first principles of right reason . . . ), which we will use as plumb-lines to test the systems of thought we hold. Yes, as finite, fallible, intellectually and morally struggling creatures, we must live by faith, but there is no reason why such faith should be blind, hopeless and/or absurdly irrational. Thus, we proceed on common good sense and solid first principles, until and unless we see specific good evidence and reason to acknowledge and turn from specific error. Which, we pledge to promptly do, out of our sense of a duty of care to seek and follow the truth through good reasoning on credible evidence. H'mm -- isn't that an OUGHT? Yes it is. No surprise. And, a big hint on the nature of the underlying foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. So also, we see the absurdities implied by attempted denial of moral reality through reducing it to mere [potentially] delusional subjective perceptions. Even the much prized or even vaunted rationality is in the stakes! For, if our minds are that delusional on so important a matter, we have decisively undercut the mind, period. Which should be patent, once we give it a moment’s thought in light of our experience and understanding of the world we live in. It is reasonable to hold and accept instead that: just as we have minds that allow us to make sense of the signals of our external world accessed through seeing and hearing, forming a coherent picture of the world, we have a generally [as opposed to absolutely] trustworthy sense -- conscience -- that is detecting and responding to duty in light of the value of those we interact with.
So, is morality -- OUGHTNESS -- grounded in a foundational IS or is it not? If not, then how do you escape the reductio? Or, do you simply try to ignore and distract from it by saying how strong your tastes, preferences and feelings are? KFkairosfocus
December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
KF Corrected link http://www.markfrank.me.uk/home/writing/What%20do%20we%20mean%20when%20we%20use%20moral%20language.docx?attredirects=0&d=1 I don't have a problem with the definitions of wrong that you supply but they don't help much because they are defined in terms of moral language (immoral, unethical) and we are debating the nature of moral language as a whole. Your accusations are absurd to the point of being unbalanced. We are all just as incensed by the acts you describe in MY 1 and just as motivated to prevent it. It is deeply insulting to suggest we are not.Mark Frank
December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
F/N: Merriam-Webster online: >> wrong noun \?ro??\ : behavior that is not morally good or correct : a harmful, unfair, or illegal act Full Definition of WRONG 1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause [--> and frankly, I am fearing that none of these words carries the same meaning on the two sides of the divide we are seeing] b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially : tort 2 : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law 3 : the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect note the echo of error exists] b : the state of being guilty . . . Origin of WRONG Middle English, from Old English wrang, from *wrang, adjective, wrong First Known Use: before 12th century Related to WRONG Synonyms bad, evildoing, ill, immorality, iniquity, sin, villainy, evil Antonyms good, morality, right, virtue Related Words atrociousness, atrocity, badness, balefulness, darkness, depravedness, devilishness, diabolism, enormity, evilness, heinousness, iniquitousness, satanism, sinfulness, vileness, wickedness; devilry (or deviltry), fiendishness; cancer, canker, decay, rot, squalor; corruption, debauchery, degeneracy, depravity, indecency, malefaction, perversion, pervertedness, scurrility, scurrilousness; abomination, anathema, taboo (also tabu) Near Antonyms decency, goodness, honesty, integrity, probity, rectitude, uprightness; goodness, righteousness, virtuousness >> My specific concerns are that an imposed radical relativism and/or subjectivism influenced by evolutionary materialism is distorting the term into something else in minds deeply influenced by that system of thought, whether the influence is conscious or not. Especially, on the implications of might and manipulation make 'right.' This concern is driven by the sort of reactions that are and have been coming up to the yardstick example:
MY #1: It is self-evidently evil, bad and wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child, with corollary: should one encounter such in progress, it is a duty to intervene to save the child from such a monster.
This case [and sadly, it is not merely theoretical], first confronts us with the inherent value, worth and precious significance of innocent life and person, in the form of one unable to exert the strength or persuasive eloquence to save herself or himself from such a Nero. So, it isolates the key issue of inherent right rooted in nature as a human being, thus the force of the demand that that quasi-infinite worth has to be confronted, and the issue of OUGHT as a properly binding expectation that the right to life, liberty and person be respected. In turn, this raises the issue that we are under moral government, and live in a world with a foundational IS that grounds such an OUGHT. (Like unto it, it by immediate extension also raises the issue of the even more vulnerable child in the womb, and how we respond to this case.) The case is also clear-cut. No morally sane person of sufficient maturity can but understand MY #1 and its corollary. Nay, our consciences scream out: WRONG, EVIL, HORROR -- ACT NOW TO RESCUE! OR ELSE, YOU TOO ARE GUILTY OF BEING AN ACCESSORY AND ENABLER. So, I find myself deeply, deeply troubled by the pattern of evasions, side-tracks, rhetorical devices and general want of proper response as has been evident here at UD for weeks now, once this specific yardstick case was put on the table. And, recall, this is NOT a hypothetical. There is a still grieving father, X, out there. So, I think I have reason to be increasingly deeply troubled about the moral state of our civilisation and where that points. Frankly, just like Amos of old, I am seeing and troubled by a vision of One standing on a wall with a plumb-line in His hand, and finding that that which ought to be straight and upright is instead both crooked and out of alignment. And, I am increasingly led to tremble at the terrible implications of thus being weighed in the balance and found sadly wanting. KFkairosfocus
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT
MF: At this stage, I am inclined to think on track record -- error, reify, etc -- that you are NOT using terms with the same meaning as is commonly understood, complete with 1984 newspeak overtones; leading to a breakdown. And the link provided seems to have an error. KFkairosfocus
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
WJM: MF:
Great. So next step. I say I use that process when I make moral judgements. Do you believe me?
WJM:
Since I consider conscience = “moral sense”, are you saying you have no conscience?
I don't according to your definition. I do according to my definition which is something like "a need to act for altruistic reasoons". So - to return - do you believe me?Mark Frank
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
KF
MF: Pardon, but please explain to us what “wrong” means to you as a card-carrying evolutionary materialist thinker. We need to be clear that we are speaking the same language, given what we saw done with the terms “reify” and “error” in another thread. KF
Well to some extent that is what we are debating. I am pretty sure we mean the same thing (or our argument could be settled with a dictionary) but it is hard to articulate it briefly without a circular use of other moral language. In particular we confuse the meaning of the word and the reasons why we apply it. For a more detailed explanation look here.Mark Frank
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
WJM: Since you admit you act as if morality is objective anyway, what is the pragmatic value in believing that it is not objective?
Try to answer that question as if you were me. Just try. It's getting boring. Take care. Happy Holidays!CentralScrutinizer
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
KRock, Back at ya!CentralScrutinizer
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
@CS "WFJ asked me if I was a solipsist. I answered yes (the epistemological kind.) Other than that it is irrelevant to any issues of morality and I’m not interested if anyone takes my ES position seriously or not. Quite frankly, it’s a boring topic for me to discuss." From the sidelines, I find it fascinating. Non the less, understood! Cheers!KRock
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Box, Hehe, nothing you say is interesting. Let's leave it at that.CentralScrutinizer
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
WJM: Since you admit you act as if morality is objective anyway, what is the pragmatic value in believing that it is not objective?
Do you really need to ask? Or are you just having fun? At any rate, the horse is near death. Let's let him die in peace. Happy Holidays!CentralScrutinizer
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
CS, More on your inconsistency ….
Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question rather than actually false. [my emphasis]
[I]dealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. [my emphasis]
The above shows that epistemological solipsism is virulently anti-materialistic. Now some statements by CS which show a totally inconsistent metaphysical bias:
CS: It’s just the way our brains happen to be programmed.
CS: Because it’s not “out there” at all. It’s wired into your brain.
CS: Your sense of moral repugnance is not “out there”, but rather it is wired into your brain.
Box
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
If you like, I will say, “for the sake of discussion I am a pragmatist”, and I will promise to argue as if I am one, every day, all the time, if it makes things easier for you.
Since you admit you act as if morality is objective anyway, what is the pragmatic value in believing that it is not objective?William J Murray
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
CS: I already understand your position. Your analogies only illustrates (or attempts to illustrate) that same position; it doesn't make a rational case for it or offer evidence for it. Your analogy is deliberately set up to represent morality as something that doesn't objectively exist. I can offer up any number of analogies that represent morality as something that does objectively exist. I don't see the point, seeing as I understand your position and argument.William J Murray
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
MF: Pardon, but please explain to us what "wrong" means to you as a card-carrying evolutionary materialist thinker. We need to be clear that we are speaking the same language, given what we saw done with the terms "reify" and "error" in another thread. KFkairosfocus
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
WJM: your “epistemological solipsism” – is a makeshift construct erected only to allow you this core belief, all of which is expendable in service of that one belief.
My epistemological solipsism is irrelevant to any issues of morality, since I give the benefit of the doubt to the thing that I'm unsure of. (Really and truly I do. So never fear. See @196.) So I'd appreciate it if you would keep that clear when addressing any issues of morality with me given it's irrelevancy, if you're interested in further discussion. If you like, I will say, "for the sake of discussion I am a pragmatist", and I will promise to argue as if I am one, every day, all the time, if it makes things easier for you.CentralScrutinizer
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
MF:
Great. So next step. I say I use that process when I make moral judgements. Do you believe me?
Since I consider conscience = "moral sense", are you saying you have no conscience?William J Murray
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
WJM, See @225 for a clearer example.CentralScrutinizer
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
CS: The initials are WJM. There is no such thing as a "blue sky" or "blue light" when there are only the color-blind available to observe. The light is not blue; the light is simply a wavelength that most human physiologies interprets as blue. Cross a few neurons, and the same wavelength that in most people is interpreted as blue, will be green, or gray, or in some cases it will register as a sound. Color doesn't exist "out there", even for an objectivist. However, when you abandon your own examples when I show they are equally applicable to morality, and instead of accepting that by your own arguments, worldview and behavior morality should be considered as objective as anything else you consider objective, you instead set aside your worldview, change your argument and shrug off your behavior, it is clear that you have some sort of psychological or emotional commitment against the idea that morality should be considered an objective commodity. So much so that your worldview, behavioral standards and even your own arguments and examples are expendable just so you can keep believing that morality is not an objective commodity. IMO, the fundamental requirement of your belief system and worldview, then, is that morality is subjective in nature, and everything else - your "epistemological solipsism" - is a makeshift construct erected only to allow you this core belief, all of which is expendable in service of that one belief. Interesting stuff.William J Murray
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
WJM
Sure, that process seems fairly easy to understand. I probably use the same process about many decisions I make.
Great. So next step. I say I use that process when I make moral judgements. Do you believe me? And to save to many Qs and As I will anticipate your possible replies. * If you don't believe me then why not? * If you do believe me then it would appear we use totally different processes for making moral judgements and yet come up with broadly the same results. How come? Is it a coincidence?Mark Frank
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
KF #217 How many times do you have to be told: Everyone here agrees that it is clearly wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child, and corollary: if one sees such in progress s/he is duty bound to intervene to try to save the child from the monster. (I only change self-evidently to clearly because there is some philosophical dispute about what self-evidently means). We are all moved and sorry about your friend and anyone else who suffers this way. We would all do everything we can to prevent it. In fact that's the paradox. In spite of heartfelt differences about the nature of morality, on a vast range of issues including this one we would come to the same conclusions and act with the same passion. However, the debate here is not about the wrongness of the action. It is a philosophical debate about the nature of morality. It has been debated hundreds of times on UD alone generating thousands of comments without any sign of anyone shifting their position or learning anything. Yes I am tired of going round in circles and I am sorry that you don't want to join me in trying move beyond it. But to suggest I am doing it to “evade the force of MY 1” thus implying I do not wholeheartedly condemn the assailant of your friend is a nasty accusation without any foundation. Mark Frank
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
KRock: but Solipsism is workable only as a completely private belief. So just don’t be offeded [sic] if nobody takes you seriously, thats [sic] all.
WFJ asked me if I was a solipsist. I answered yes (the epistemological kind.) Other than that it is irrelevant to any issues of morality and I'm not interested if anyone takes my ES position seriously or not. Quite frankly, it's a boring topic for me to discuss.CentralScrutinizer
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
@CS "See @196" Right, but Solipsism is workable only as a completely private belief. So just don't be offeded if nobody takes you seriously, thats all.KRock
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
F/N 4: The dark triad -- we've been here before. KFkairosfocus
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
F/N 3: WHO ICD-10 statistical profile:
It is characterized by at least 3 of the following: Callous unconcern for the feelings of others; Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations; Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them; Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence; Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment; Marked readiness to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
KFkairosfocus
December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
1 2 3 9

Leave a Reply