The question of evil

[bambam12]

Through my life I have followed discussions and debates between atheists and theists. A popular point that seems to be brought up by atheists is that evil being present in the world proves or at least is evidence that God does not exist. As a Christian I have spent time contemplating how to approach this question not only for myself but I have also thought deeply on how I can speak with others about the issue.

I have come to realize that a major gap between me and a skeptic is that we define the word ‘evil’ differently. I do not, as even many other Christians seem to, necessarily accept the classic dictionary definition of evil. I believe evil is correctly defined as that which separates us from God or that which is apart from Him. To discuss or debate the nature of evil with any other definition is to accept the world’s incomplete view of a supernatural concept.

It is a wonder to me that the argument from evil is put forth without any sense of irony. For what is evil without objective truth? Whatever we want it to be? Whatever we as a society feel is really bad? Can evil truly be a subjective matter?
For those who believe in objective truth outside of any ‘higher power’, where does it come from? Again, is it whatever we as a species have agreed on for long enough? Is that not also open to subjectivity over time?

The question shouldn’t be ‘why would God allow evil?’ It should be ‘what makes something evil in the first place?’

 

[Thief]

Through my life I have followed discussions and debates between atheists and theists. A popular point that seems to be brought up by atheists is that evil being present in the world proves or at least is evidence that God does not exist. As a Christian I have spent time contemplating how to approach this question not only for myself but I have also thought deeply on how I can speak with others about the issue.

I have come to realize that a major gap between me and a skeptic is that we define the word ‘evil’ differently. I do not, as even many other Christians seem to, necessarily accept the classic dictionary definition of evil. I believe evil is correctly defined as that which separates us from God or that which is apart from Him. To discuss or debate the nature of evil with any other definition is to accept the world’s incomplete view of a supernatural concept.

It is a wonder to me that the argument from evil is put forth without any sense of irony. For what is evil without objective truth? Whatever we want it to be? Whatever we as a society feel is really bad? Can evil truly be a subjective matter?
For those who believe in objective truth outside of any ‘higher power’, where does it come from? Again, is it whatever we as a species have agreed on for long enough? Is that not also open to subjectivity over time?

The question shouldn’t be ‘why would God allow evil?’ It should be ‘what makes something evil in the first place?’

Creation....as if one begets the other.

Check around the forum. There are dozens of threads about this.

But basically evil is the doing of harm.
Ever see a need to do harm?

 

[punkdbass]

Hmm good points. I think most atheists tend to use the word "suffering" rather than evil however. I think the concept of suffering is a lot less subjective than the concept of evil. If we define suffering to be - physical or mental pain, then it is indeed a real thing that we can somewhat measure.

So a better question would be, why does God allow for so much suffering? And there have been many threads here on that question

 

[arthra]

A popular point that seems to be brought up by atheists is that evil being present in the world proves or at least is evidence that God does not exist.

"Evil" can be seen though as a lack of Good...just as shadow in relation to light..It has no positive reality. Education is positive..ignorance is eliminate when we're educated..

Abdul-Baha explains:

"Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence -- that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.

"Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind -- that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements -- that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.

"The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 261)

 

[9Westy9]

Oh goodie, another thread on evil *rubs hands together in glee*. Been a while since I've had a discussion on evil here.

Through my life I have followed discussions and debates between atheists and theists. A popular point that seems to be brought up by atheists is that evil being present in the world proves or at least is evidence that God does not exist. As a Christian I have spent time contemplating how to approach this question not only for myself but I have also thought deeply on how I can speak with others about the issue.

I'm not a fan of the word proof but I'd say that it's unreasonable for a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being to exist because there is suffering/ evil.

I have come to realize that a major gap between me and a skeptic is that we define the word ‘evil’ differently. I do not, as even many other Christians seem to, necessarily accept the classic dictionary definition of evil. I believe evil is correctly defined as that which separates us from God or that which is apart from Him. To discuss or debate the nature of evil with any other definition is to accept the world’s incomplete view of a supernatural concept.

Is there evil/ suffering in the world? If yes then the God above, probably, doesn't exist

It is a wonder to me that the argument from evil is put forth without any sense of irony. For what is evil without objective truth? Whatever we want it to be? Whatever we as a society feel is really bad? Can evil truly be a subjective matter?
For those who believe in objective truth outside of any ‘higher power’, where does it come from? Again, is it whatever we as a species have agreed on for long enough? Is that not also open to subjectivity over time?

Evil is subjective. If you want to discuss this we have separate threads for objective vs subjective morality discussions . However, to get out of the problem of evil you have to admit that God is pleased with this world, which not many Christians do.

The question shouldn’t be ‘why would God allow evil?’ It should be ‘what makes something evil in the first place?’

seemingly unnecessary pain, injustice, a lack of freedom and probably some more things too.

 

[Skwim]

I have come to realize that a major gap between me and a skeptic is that we define the word ‘evil’ differently. I do not, as even many other Christians seem to, necessarily accept the classic dictionary definition of evil.

And I suspect the reason is that if you did accept a classic definition of evil (which I consider to be, "purposely harmful") is that it makes the nature of your god hard to reconcile with your belief in him.

I believe evil is correctly defined as that which separates us from God or that which is apart from Him. To discuss or debate the nature of evil with any other definition is to accept the world’s incomplete view of a supernatural concept.

No, it's to saddle yourself with the duality of your god; a being both good and evil.

It is a wonder to me that the argument from evil is put forth without any sense of irony. For what is evil without objective truth?

Is there something difficult about objectively recognizing a purposefully harmful act? I certainly don't think there is.

Whatever we want it to be? Whatever we as a society feel is really bad? Can evil truly be a subjective matter?

I suppose it could be, however, using my definition, purposely harmful actions, I don't see it.

The question shouldn’t be ‘why would God allow evil?’ It should be ‘what makes something evil in the first place?’

I think if one agrees to the definitions of "harm,"

harm (härm)n.1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong;
​

and "purposeful"

pur·pose·ful (pûr

p

s-f

l)adj.1. Having a purpose; intentional: a purposeful musician.
2. Having or manifesting purpose; determined:
​

there should be little question as to the nature of evil. As to why god allows it, it would appear to be because he is an evil being. The way I see it, one can either accept this conclusion or, as you need to do, redefine "evil" so as to whitewash god's nature and rest comfortably in your faith. Personally, such a "fix"---lying to myself--- would bother me as much as god's evil nature.

 

[waitasec]

Through my life I have followed discussions and debates between atheists and theists. A popular point that seems to be brought up by atheists is that evil being present in the world proves or at least is evidence that God does not exist. As a Christian I have spent time contemplating how to approach this question not only for myself but I have also thought deeply on how I can speak with others about the issue.

I have come to realize that a major gap between me and a skeptic is that we define the word ‘evil’ differently. I do not, as even many other Christians seem to, necessarily accept the classic dictionary definition of evil. I believe evil is correctly defined as that which separates us from God or that which is apart from Him. To discuss or debate the nature of evil with any other definition is to accept the world’s incomplete view of a supernatural concept.

It is a wonder to me that the argument from evil is put forth without any sense of irony. For what is evil without objective truth? Whatever we want it to be? Whatever we as a society feel is really bad? Can evil truly be a subjective matter?
For those who believe in objective truth outside of any ‘higher power’, where does it come from? Again, is it whatever we as a species have agreed on for long enough? Is that not also open to subjectivity over time?

The question shouldn’t be ‘why would God allow evil?’ It should be ‘what makes something evil in the first place?’

how do you know it's incomplete?
how do you qualify the bibles definition of evil as the complete definition?

i agree with you that there are many definitions of evil.
but why must one settle with thinking they have the complete understanding of it? doesn't that stifle growth?

 

[idea]

...I believe evil is correctly defined as that which separates us from God or that which is apart from Him. ...

I like your definition, and would add to it that evil is that which separates us from God and from one another. For inasmuch as ye ado it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me. I think isolation from others is equivalent to an isolation from God...

if you think about it - all the commandments - don't steal, don't lie, don't be jealous, don't murder - they all center on relationships, on how we should treat one another. I think the whole point of it is to be united, one heart and one mind, to see face to face - the opposite of that is isolationism.

 

[bambam12]

Thank you for the Interesting responses. Sorry if I don’t respond back to everyone, as discussing 5 separate tangents may be difficult. I’ll get back to you as I have time.

 

[bambam12]

I'm not a fan of the word proof but I'd say that it's unreasonable for a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being to exist because there is suffering/ evil.

I know the standard response to this question but I want to know what you personally think in your own words.

What does your assumption rest upon? That is, you see X happening in the world so that makes you doubt the very existence of God. Why do you say that ‘bad things’ happening is mutually exclusive to a God?

 

[waitasec]

Thank you for the Interesting responses. Sorry if I don’t respond back to everyone, as discussing 5 separate tangents may be difficult. I’ll get back to you as I have time.

cool.

btw, welcome to the forum.

 

[bambam12]

And I suspect the reason is that if you did accept a classic definition of evil (which I consider to be, "purposely harmful") is that it makes the nature of your god hard to reconcile with your belief in him.

No, it's to saddle yourself with the duality of your god; a being both good and evil.

Well you are assuming that how the term has come to be popularly understood is the absolute 'right' version. You also need assume I am merely playing a game with semantics to appease some cognitive dissonance.
Words and their meaning have power. That's why it is so important to define everything in a classic debate.
I can just as easily say you choose your version of evil to reconcile with how you want to believe in God (or not believe at all, whatever the case may be). So what would make one of us right? How about it if one of us could quote a lot of intelligent literature more than the other? What if more people agree with one of us over the other?
To merely say and have confidence that I am performing mental gymnastics an am erroneous in my defining of evil does not make it so.

there should be little question as to the nature of evil. As to why god allows it, it would appear to be because he is an evil being. The way I see it, one can either accept this conclusion or, as you need to do, redefine "evil" so as to whitewash god's nature and rest comfortably in your faith. Personally, such a "fix"---lying to myself--- would bother me as much as god's evil nature.

I would agree with your terms of purposefully harmful but I would say that it is not inherently evil based on my explained definition. Again your supposition of definitions and their link is not so different than mine.

My point is that it does not take a believer 'lying to themselves' to reconcile the idea of evil being in the world. The believer is coming from a different logical foundation than yours. Would it be valid to say my foundation is 'righter' because I say it is so?

 

[Road Warrior]

A popular point that seems to be brought up by atheists is that evil being present in the world proves or at least is evidence that God does not exist.

"Evil" can be seen though as a lack of Good...just as shadow in relation to light..It has no positive reality. Education is positive..ignorance is eliminate when we're educated..

I agree with this concept. Like darkness is a lack of light, evil is simply a lack of good. In the religious context, a lack of God or being away from God. Lucifer chose to pull away from God. Ergo, Lucifer is evil. Like cold is simply a lack of heat, not a force of itself, evil isn't a force. It's simply being away from God.

In the end, as your quote states, I think goodness will prevail.

 

[fantome profane]

I have come to realize that a major gap between me and a skeptic is that we define the word ‘evil’ differently.

I think for many atheists this is a perfect illustration of one of the major problems that often arises in religious thinking. That is that religious thinking causes people to define evil "differently"

The question shouldn’t be ‘why would God allow evil?’ It should be ‘what makes something evil in the first place?’

That is a very good question, but if you are creating a definition of evil for the sole purpose of rationalizing the problem of evil, I think that is the wrong approach.

Why is being separated from "God" evil? Perhaps not separating yourself from "God" is evil. On what basis do we make this determination?

 

[9Westy9]

I know the standard response to this question but I want to know what you personally think in your own words.

What does your assumption rest upon? That is, you see X happening in the world so that makes you doubt the very existence of God. Why do you say that ‘bad things’ happening is mutually exclusive to a God?

The abilities attributed to God. In my eyes if the God I described existed then evil should not exist. There aren't many reasons I can think of as to why evil would exist

 

[Road Warrior]

I think for many atheists this is a perfect illustration of one of the major problems that often arises in religious thinking. That is that religious thinking causes people to define evil "differently"

Are you asserting that all atheists believe the same definition of "evil"? Heck, I can't even find atheists who all agree on what being an "atheist" means. To me, it means this definition*, but I've seen several who believe in the afterlife, reincarnation and other "woo" but simply do not believe in a separate deity.




*http://www.atheists.org/atheism: "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

 

[fantome profane]

Are you asserting that all atheists believe the same definition of "evil"? Heck, I can't even find atheists who all agree on what being an "atheist" means. To me, it means this definition*, but I've seen several who believe in the afterlife, reincarnation and other "woo" but simply do not believe in a separate deity.




*http://www.atheists.org/atheism: "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

I am clearly not making any such assertion.

I think for many atheists ...

You could however criticize me for using a weaselly phrase like "many atheists", and I would have to admit that there would be some merit to that criticism. But obviously I did not say all atheists. There is no merit to that criticism.

 

[Skwim]

Well you are assuming that how the term has come to be popularly understood is the absolute 'right' version.

As you said, you have your own definition of "evil," and don't "necessarily accept the classic dictionary definition," although I am curious as to when you might necessarily accept it. Care to clue us in?
As for me "assuming that how the term has come to be popularly understood is the absolute 'right'," believe it or not but popular usage often does define a word. Ask any lexicographer. So if my definition of "evil" is, or agrees with, a popular definition then my usage is valid.

You also need assume I am merely playing a game with semantics to appease some cognitive dissonance.

No need whatsoever. Actually, I suspect your personal definition arises out of a need to mollify your angst that god does evil---as it's commonly defined.

Words and their meaning have power. That's why it is so important to define everything in a classic debate.

Please tell me that you don't consider the exchanges here on RF as classical debates. Please.

I can just as easily say you choose your version of evil to reconcile with how you want to believe in God (or not believe at all, whatever the case may be). So what would make one of us right?

Yes you can, but it would be a specious remark because, for one thing, my definition agrees with those commonly found in dictionaries, whereas yours does not; it amounts to special pleading for yourself, which you even acknowledged when you announced yourself in "me and a skeptic."

How about it if one of us could quote a lot of intelligent literature more than the other? What if more people agree with one of us over the other?

So what?

To merely say and have confidence that I am performing mental gymnastics an[d](?) am erroneous in my defining of evil does not make it so.

Nope, which is why I didn't say it.

I would agree with your terms of purposefully harmful but I would say that it is not inherently evil based on my explained definition.

Come again?

Again your supposition of definitions and their link is not so different than mine.

Just what "supposition of definitions" and "link" are you talking about?

My point is that it does not take a believer 'lying to themselves' to reconcile the idea of evil being in the world.

Okay, however, when one redefines "evil" so as to remove it completely from any of its common meanings then I suspect some kind of duplicity is going on. If I committed and was convicted of child rape, and then went to a daycare center to apply for a job, how far do you think I'd get trying to convince the owner of the business that the rape on my record didn't mean what she thinks it means because I define child rape as "assisting children in their emotional development," typically regarded as a good thing? And this is how far you'll get by redefining "evil." It doesn't sell.

 

[Road Warrior]

I am clearly not making any such assertion.You could however criticize me for using a weaselly phrase like "many atheists", and I would have to admit that there would be some merit to that criticism. But obviously I did not say all atheists. There is no merit to that criticism.

It is interesting to me what you say and refuse to say. Your little inflections like "weaselly phrase" convey much meaning about your attitude, yet your refusal to admit accountability says much more.

Live your life as you see fit. You obviously do not need me or anyone else to do so. Conversely, no one here needs your permission to live or believe as they wish no matter what you try to assert.

 

[idea]

The abilities attributed to God. In my eyes if the God I described existed then evil should not exist. There aren't many reasons I can think of as to why evil would exist

imo it's the theory of relativity, can't have up without down, can't have left without right, either it all exists relative to one another, or it all becomes a singularity... can't have a one sided coin.