franz kiekeben
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Philosophy
  • Publications
  • Contact

MORALITY AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

2/13/2015

11 Comments

 
Everyone knows about the problem of evil: how could a perfectly good and all-powerful God allow the terrible things that happen in our world? You might not, however, be familiar with an objection that appears to be getting more popular, namely, that atheists can't even justifiably raise the question of evil – that to do so is inconsistent with the atheistic worldview itself. Atheist-turned-Christian C. S. Lewis put it this way:

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? ... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too – for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense.”


The main assumption here is that objective moral values – and therefore the existence of good and evil, just and unjust – cannot exist apart from God. And since the atheist does not believe in God, she cannot consistently claim that there is evil or injustice in the world.

The idea that objective moral values are dependent upon God is something that can easily be disputed, and many have done so. But there is another assumption here that isn't quite as obvious. This is the idea that someone raising the problem of evil must, if she is to be consistent, believe that there is such a thing as objective evil. As Lewis says, if good and bad are just ideas in your head, then the argument against God collapses. This assumption, however, is wrong, for at least two reasons.

To begin with, anyone raising the argument from evil may claim that she is presenting a problem that is internal to the theistic worldview. That is, she may say that, though she does not believe in the existence of evil herself, the theist does believe in it, and the problem is that the theist cannot account for that supposed evil. That this is correct can be seen from the fact that the question of evil is something often discussed by the religious amongst themselves. This shows that given their worldview, there is at least a potential problem here.

The second reason the above is wrong is more serious, however. Those who agree with Lewis usually maintain that one who does not believe in objective values cannot regard anything as good or bad. For example, Douglas Wilson, the pastor who debated Christopher Hitchens in the movie Collision, said he could understand an atheist who was a nihilist, but not one like Hitchens who was full of moral indignation over the injustices he perceived. Similarly, apologist Frank Turek claimed that:

“Either evil exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, then atheists should stop complaining about the 'evil' religious people have done because they haven't really done any.”

But the fact is that there is a third alternative between, on the one hand, believing in objective values and, on the other, holding that nothing can be regarded as good or bad. Wilson and Turek are simply mistaken. If I don't believe in objective evil – because I don't believe in objective values – it does not follow that I don't regard anything as evil, nor that I should stop complaining when something that I regard as evil is done. Obviously, if I believe that values are subjective, I still believe in values – namely, subjective ones!

I have moral views which say that (for instance) torturing sentient beings for fun is always wrong. I may not believe that there is a fact, discoverable by science or by philosophical analysis, that corresponds to the statement “torturing sentient beings for fun is always wrong,” but that doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose such an action. In fact, I would oppose it with every fiber of my being. And I would certainly call it evil.

Nor is this merely my subjective opinion. There is actually a great deal of intersubjective agreement on such issues. The vast majority of us are opposed to murder and rape, for example. It's this kind of intersubjective agreement that allows us as individuals to intelligibly communicate with one another regarding moral questions. Thus, when someone claims that God is good, they presumably intend to say, among other things, that God does not approve of murder, rape, or torturing someone for fun. It follows that the claim “God is good” can be meaningfully discussed on a subjectivist understanding of morality.

Someone who claims that God is good is presumably claiming that God doesn't want there to be such evils in the world as diseases that kill millions every year. After all, anyone who desired such a thing wouldn't normally be called good. And it is because there are such evils – things that the great majority of us regard negatively – that there is a problem for theism. The objectivity of values has nothing to do with it.



Notes:

The Lewis quote is from Mere Christianity.

Turek's comes from "Why Evil Disproves Atheism," 
www.christianpost.com/news/why-evil-disproves-atheism-132609/


11 Comments
DC
2/15/2015 07:48:30 pm

I hadn't known that Lewis was so facile a reasoner.

Reply
Franz Kiekeben link
2/15/2015 11:30:01 pm

Note, too, how he caricatures moral subjectivism: a moral principle on that view is described as what merely happens "to please [one's] fancies."

Reply
Anonymous
2/28/2015 03:37:35 am

BTW, I myself am a subjectivist (and not because I'm an atheist, though I am). And incidentally, merely not accepting objectivism doesn't mean what Prager implies - it isn't necessarily relativism or nihilism. For a (rather brief) explanation why not, see my blog post at:

So basically, your belief is that morality is an objective illusion and that what we call morality is in actuality nothing more than our subjective preferences only, with nor actual "ought" over any of us. This is what follows from this irrational blog entry. Plus, you have not succeeded in upholding the reasonableness of the problem of evil at all.

Anonymous
2/28/2015 03:39:54 am

The paragraph begining with "BTW, I myself am a subjectivist (and not because I'm an atheist, though I am). And incidentally, merely not accepting objectivism doesn't mean what Prager implies - it isn't necessarily relativism or nihilism. For a (rather brief) explanation why not, see my blog post at:" is your words on TheMessianicManic's YouTube discussion page.

Franz Kiekeben link
3/1/2015 06:12:44 am

To begin with, this post wasn't about upholding the reasonableness of the problem of evil, so that complaint is misplaced. (I do have a couple of entries earlier in the blog which address more central issues regarding the problem, however.)

As to what follows from my "irrational" argument above: one of the points I make is precisely that even if objective values are an illusion, we have moral preferences which cause us to regard certain things as right and others as wrong. And since we feel that certain things are right and others wrong, we feel obligated to do some things and avoid doing others. If you think this is inconsistent with the subjectivity of values, please explain where the inconsistency lies.

Reply
Anonymous
3/2/2015 01:24:18 am

"To begin with, this post wasn't about upholding the reasonableness of the problem of evil, so that complaint is misplaced. (I do have a couple of entries earlier in the blog which address more central issues regarding the problem, however.)"

Fair enough.

"As to what follows from my "irrational" argument above: one of the points I make is precisely that even if objective values are an illusion, we have moral preferences which cause us to regard certain things as right and others as wrong. And since we feel that certain things are right and others wrong, we feel obligated to do some things and avoid doing others. If you think this is inconsistent with the subjectivity of values, please explain where the inconsistency lies."

You must mean "even if objective values are an illusion, we have "moral" preferences which cause us to regard certain things as right and others as wrong." You are question-begging by saying "moral" now. You must by logical force then mean something like "so-called 'moral.'" Notice, how you must say "as" before certain words. You say "we have moral preferences which cause us to regard certain things as right and others as wrong." But of course that does not tell us that they ARE right or wrong as those terms represent objective notions. In fact, "moral" or "immoral" is an objective notion like "good" or "bad" or "evil" or "better" or "proper" or "right" or "wrong" all notions that inherently imply some standard objective to our mere preferences only. So you mean "so-called moral." To say that Joe is moral, is to say that Joe is good or at least just/upright. To say that Joe is "immoral" is to say that Joe is "bad" or "evil."

"And since we FEEL that [or "as"] certain things are right and others wrong, we FEEL ["as"] obligated to do some things and avoid doing others." All only subjective preferences only.

"If you think this is inconsistent with the subjectivity of values, please explain where the inconsistency lies."

First mistake. That's because morality can only pertain to WORTH (an objective notion). Value is to worth as evidence is to proof. "Value" conveys a weaker notion to that of "worth." So this becomes the problem for the atheist thinker (in particular). He recognizes the seemingly subjective aspect of morality that pertains to value attribution, yet realizes that it still somehow has to be an objective notion for it to actually exist. Enter God. God necessarily is Mind?Conscousness thus value attribution, and because He is by definition such that there is no "outside or beyond Him," existing necessarily as the ultimate objective reality, He thus would be immutable in character. Therefore, it would not even be possible to have higher bvirtues to that of God. And the very virtues (so-called moral values and moral sense) could only AT BEST be particpating in God's own character logically. Thus, any claim to have even a "moral" sense will automatically be weightier evidence for the existence of God. Atheists should wonder why we have what seems to be a moral compass in the first place (hinting at duty/responsibility/ought). Any account given to get around this will be comparable to saying that a painting is not really a painting because if you look really close you will see just spatters of paint with no perceived design--arguing from the weaker to make a case for your position.

Reply
Franz Kiekeben link
3/2/2015 11:03:51 am

Thank you for your post. You can reply if you want, but this will be my last comment to you on this topic. Your objection that the interpretation of certain moral concepts (e.g., value) as subjective is inconsistent with the objectivity of certain other moral concepts (e.g., worth) - assuming that's what you meant - isn't one I can take seriously. You see, I consider all of them to be subjective, so you'd first have to demonstrate to me that the latter really are objective. And once again, none of this has anything to do with God. God doesn't make ethics objective (and your particular argument claiming he does is little more than gibberish).

Far
6/16/2017 10:13:24 pm

"But even though anti-theism may lead some deranged individuals to commit violent acts, that doesn't mean the doctrine itself is to blame. Anti-theism, whatever one may think of it, does not condone violence against anyone merely for believing in some religious dogma. That is the crucial difference between it and doctrines like Islam and Christianity. In fact, anti-theism opposes such religions precisely because they do condone hatred of individuals for having different views. It would therefore be inconsistent for anti-theists to hate the religious for nothing more than their false beliefs.

Of course, the majority of Christians and Muslims these days do not condone violence, but that doesn't change the fact that the religious books they hold sacred contain passages instructing that dissenters (as well as many other individuals) be killed. And that is why when violence is committed in the name of some religion there is a problem for the religion itself. "

After holding Christopher Hitchens up as a extremely popular, educated, eloquent Rationalist who is greeted as a "New Atheist," friend and equal with the likes Dawkins, Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Penn Jillette, you cannot just disown him as a "deranged individual." Yet that is what is what will be necessary to save the POV of this article:

"I am not even an atheist so much as an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." C. Hitchens
[Hitchens: ALL religion is positively harmful]
---


Christian Radio Host: “Well, I wanted to make it quite clear in our closing moments to you,
Christopher, I don't consider you an enemy, I don't consider you, uh”

Christopher Hitchens: “Well, I'm very sorry to hear that."

Radio Host: “I know, because you want me to be your enemy.”

*Hitchens: “Well, no, excuse me, you are my enemy.”*

Radio Host: “Well, you're not my enemy.”

Hitchens: “How do you figure that?”

Radio Host: “No, because I don't feel the need to have to silence you, Christopher Hitchens.”

*Hitchens: “Well, you don't have a chance of doing that. I don't mean that at all,
I mean your preachments are evil and are a direct threat to the survival of civilization.
If you don't consider me an enemy, then you don't know an enemy when you see or hear one.”*
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-How-Religion-Destroys-a-Civilization-A-Warning-For-The-Present-Day?page=2
[Hitchens: You religionists are my enemy, especially Christians]
---

"I'm not going to love them. You go love them if you want. Don't love them on my behalf. I'll get on with killing them, destroying them, erasing them. And you can love them. But the idea that you ought to love them is not a moral idea at all. It's a wicked idea." C. Hitchens
[Hitchens: I will kill my enemy]
---
"One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia."
Christopher Hitchens

*What is Hitchens so proud of about Lenin?*
"The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, ..." - Wikipedia.
That is hate speech, which I have yet to find ANY Atheist condemning.
[Hitchens: Great men kill their enemies]
----

Clever polemicist that he was, Hitchens distorted that to mock the question: The numbers of those bombed will decline. Yes, but the question is about how we reduce a specific subpopulation by indiscriminate bombing of the whole population. Hitchens doesn't care. He has an opportunity to riff on the machismo of war.
When the side of Jihad said, can we take these casualties? When they worry, have we alienated the people? … They will get to the stage where they realise they have made a mistake, all the evidence in Iraq is that al-Qaeda have already discredited and disgraced themselves, and it's a matter now of just hunting down and killing them, which I think is a pleasure and a duty.
Read more: https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/23/the-trumpification-of-atheism/#ixzz4jq6qE0X6
---

During the  2007 Freedom From Religion Foundation's (FFRF) convention, Christopher Hitchens shocked many in the audience when he recommended carpet bombing Muslims.
Responding to Hitchens' comments a conference-goer asked, "How exactly does bombing and killing Muslims lessen their numbers or limit their fervor?" Rather than clarifying that he did not wish to merely indiscriminately murder Muslims but rather desired to attack strategic targets, he mocked the questioner. "I'm just wondering if I should draw you a picture. You mean how does killing them lessen their number?"
He went on to state: "The numbers of those bombed will decline." He also described the hunting and killing of al-Qaida not only as a duty, but a "pleasure". 
https://thehumanist.com/news/hnn/saving-the-s

Reply
Franz Kiekeben
6/17/2017 09:43:54 pm

Your comment was meant for a different blog post, http://www.franzkiekeben.com/blog/the-chapel-hill-murders

But anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. To begin with, when you say: "After holding Christopher Hitchens up as a extremely popular, educated, eloquent Rationalist..."
...are you claiming that I did so? If so, when?

Second, even if what you claim about Hitchens is true, in what way does that contradict my blog post? My claim is about what the doctrine of anti-theism implies, not about what any given individual who calls himself an anti-theist believes. In fact, I specifically distinguished the two in the post!

As to Hitchens, though I like most of what he said on atheism (of course), I am well aware that he engaged in hyperbole (that's how one gets big book sales), and I disagree with many of his statements. Nevertheless, several of the quotes you included look worse out of context than they really are. E.g., the claim, "One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia" was immediately followed by:

"The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it. The difficulty was that he also inherited, and partly by his measures created, even more scarcity and economic dislocation."

...which shows that Hitchens' praise of Lenin isn't exactly unqualified. (Nevertheless, I disagree with Hitchens that Lenin deserves any praise here. The ends do not justify the means.)

Reply
Far
2/5/2018 07:52:13 pm

Ah, sorry for the misplacement. I must have clicked the wrong html reference when I went to transfer the text from my editor to your blog forum.

What you have asked here I have posted on that blog.
So if you wish, you may transfer my above post there as well.

Reply
Giles link
12/11/2020 09:05:36 pm

Appreciate thiss blog post

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    April 2022
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    Categories

    All
    Atheism
    Creationism
    Determinism And Free Will
    Ethics
    Infinity
    Politics And Religion
    Presuppositionalism

    RSS Feed

Link to my author's page on Amazon