Wednesday, June 19, 2013
If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, then why is there evil in the world.

For the sake of argument, let’s concede the harm that humans do as a misuse of our free will, for which God cannot be blamed (although a good case can be made that a loving god would have stopped Hitler).

That still leaves us with genetic birth defects, genetic and acquired diseases, and natural disasters. 

Here are “The Top 12 Excuses” religious people give to attempt to explain away the horrible behavior of their god. 

(1)  Unknown greater good.

The first excuse is that God must commit or allow some evil to occur to accomplish an unknown greater good. 

But doesn’t that limit God’s knowledge and power?  Doesn’t that say that God couldn’t think of a better way to accomplish his goals other than torturing innocent people? 

(2)  Evil is really God’s love.

The second excuse is that what we perceive as “evil” is really an example of “God’s love.” 

However, this is a definition of love we cannot comprehend because it is exactly the opposite of what we define love to be.  Therefore we can’t know that “God’s love” is really love – we have to take someone’s unconvincing word for it.

If disease is an example of God’s love, shouldn’t we all try to get as sick as possible?  Are doctors violating “God’s will” when they try to cure disease? 

(3)  Evil is needed to appreciate the good.

The third excuse is that without evil we wouldn’t appreciate what’s good. 

But couldn’t a god just give us an appreciation of what’s good?  Why should we have to be tortured to appreciate the good?

Disease and natural disasters seem like wanton cruelty on the part of God.  Without disease and natural disasters we could still be left to struggle with good and evil in terms of moral dilemmas and human actions. 

(4)  Blame the ancestors and blame the victim.

The fourth excuse is that all evil that happens to us is our fault, either directly because of something we did, or indirectly because of our “ancestors” Adam and Eve.

This is known as “blaming the victim.”  Typically, a victim of abuse believes that the more he or she is punished, the more he or she is loved.

But what did an innocent baby ever do to deserve a birth defect? 

And what kind of justice is it that blames children for the sins of their long-dead ancestors? 

(5)  Evil is necessary for free will.

The fifth excuse is that without evil we would have no free will and would be “robots.”

But what do birth defects, disease, and natural disasters have to do with free will?  Do sick people have more free will than healthy people?

God has supposedly created a heaven where there is no disease.  Are the people in heaven robots? 

(6)  The devil did it.

The sixth excuse is that God isn’t really responsible for evil in the world, a devil is.

But who created this devil?  And isn’t God supposed to be all-powerful?  Can’t he stop this devil? 

(7)  Evil doesn’t last very long.

The seventh excuse is that any misery that occurs to us on Earth is brief compared to an eternity in a wonderful heaven.

So what?  Is that any excuse to torture people? 

(8)  Evil is necessary for compassion.

The eighth excuse is that evil is necessary for us to learn compassion.

But if God wanted us to be compassionate, why didn’t he just make us that way?  Why this sadistic scheme of torturing innocent babies to instill compassion in their parents? 

(9)  Suffering builds character.

The ninth excuse is that suffering builds character.

While building character may sometimes require effort – such as helping others, studying, and sportsmanship – none of these threatens our lives.

And what kind of character is a baby supposed to be developing, who is born with a birth defect so severe that she will only live a few days? 

(10)  God is testing our faith.

The tenth excuse is that evil is God’s way of testing our faith, like Job was tested in the Old Testament.

If this is true, what sense does it make to impose a “loyalty test” on an infant who dies from disease or natural disaster? 

(11)  The Creator is always justified.

The eleventh excuse is that God is morally justified in tormenting people because he created them.

But this confuses the power to torture someone with the right to torture someone. 

Do the parents who create a child have a right to torture that child?  Does might make right? 

(12)  Evil is necessary to prove God’s existence.

The twelfth excuse is that the existence of evil proves the existence of God, that without a God-given sense of good and bad, we would not be able to identify some things as evil in the first place.

But can’t an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god come up with a better way to prove his existence than by torturing us?  Why not just reveal himself? 
Conclusion:  God has run out of excuses.  He is either incompetent, indifferent, or cruel.  Another way to reconcile the facts is to conclude that gods don’t exist at all. 

Additional comments 

If you had the knowledge and power of a god, would you have created birth defects, disease, and natural disasters?  If not, then you are nicer than the god you believe in.  This god should be praying to you for moral advice, rather than the other way around. 

Would you take a syringe full of malaria and inject it into someone you love?  And yet that’s exactly what God does to people he claims to love, using a mosquito as the syringe. 

We humans spend a lot of time mopping up after God’s mistakes.   Some say that God works through us.  But the reason we have to do “the Lord’s work” is because “the Lord” isn’t doing it himself.  And if we’re doing the work, shouldn’t we take the credit? 

There is much unnecessary cruelty in nature.  For example, when one male lion replaces another in a pride of lions, he kills the cubs of the previous male lion.  Yet this type of behavior does not occur in other species.  Thus, if a god designed this system, he is not above a little wanton cruelty from time to time. 

Yes, many religious people do kind acts of charity.  But why?  Too often the answer seems to fall into one of three categories, which turn out not to be altruistic at all:

1) To use the recipient of aid as a pawn to bribe the helper’s way into heaven or avoid hell (or to achieve a higher reincarnation).

2) To use kindness to convert more people to the helper’s religion, because religions cannot be sustained by evidence and thus need as many like-minded people as possible to prop them up and quash self-doubt.

3) To attempt to maintain credibility in their religion by covering up the embarrassingly poor job done by their god, by claiming they are agents of God.

For those religious people who are kind for the sake of kindness, without reference to a god, that’s exactly what secular humanism is. 

Bible Quotes 

“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”   (Isaiah 45:7) 

“Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”   (Lamentations 3:38) 

“When disaster comes to a city, has the Lord not caused it?”    (Amos 3:6) 

© 2005-2007 August Berkshire

  • Robert Landbeck

    Posted 2011-11-21 09:37:24

    "If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, then why is there evil in the world. "

    Because every time God provided the opportunity to evolve beyond the limitations imposed by evolution on our species, human vanity and false pride preferred its own theological self deception [or atheist illusions] then confronting the unholy truth of human nature itself. For religion and atheism are just two sides of the same coin of profound unknowing, [to be polite] an intellectual and spiritual vaucum into which humanity has filled with whatever babble reason could contrive to avoid the critical self scrutiny of our own nature. So if you want to blow that religious ignorance right out of the water, atheist ignorance will have to go with it! More at http://www.energon.org.uk

  • Paul Prescod

    Posted 2011-11-09 09:15:28

    But! It didn't begin that way. Genesis 1: God created it *all* good, including those parts of the brain - and sin corrupted it and has been corrupting it.

    What a fair system. Sometime between the year 4000 BC and 200,000 BC, God allowed two people who DID NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG to be influenced by a supernatural being to do wrong. And my children are suffering for that mistake. Totally logical.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvRPbsXBVBo

    Ever stop to wonder *why* you long for justice, peace, or beauty?

    Sure. Beauty is easiest: beauty does not adhere in objects. It is "in the eye of the beholder." so your question can be rephrased as "did you ever wonder why you long for those things that you feel are desirable." For example, I find females much more beautiful than males because of sexual attraction. Not because I recognize something intrinsic in the woman's face. A shark would find her aromatic but not visually beautiful. If Yaweh existed he would presumably find some people beautiful which you would judge ugly.

    Peace: every organism longs for an environment of low stress. Empathic organisms like us wish for this state to be global.

    Justice: every pack or hive animal has a notion of justice. Wolves and bees, just as men and women.

    Enter Jesus Christ. Through his sacrifice and perfection, all of creation, including mankind, will be restored to it's previous glory and more. It's called heaven.

    CHECK!

    (you'll get this reference after you watch the video)

  • Christian Mann

    Posted 2011-11-09 03:18:42

    Thanks for outlining your sadly misanthropic point of view. Christians fill my mailbox with tracts outlining a happy-happy-joy-joy version of the theology, but it's nice to see the true face of it revealed.

    According to your theology, we deserve the Flood and all other forms of pain in exactly the same way that a demolition derby vehicle "deserves" whatever its owner chooses to do with it.

    I would not treat pet mice the way God treats us (in the Old Testament explicitly and every day, implicitly).

    I choose not to spend eternity with such a sadistic, misanthropic bastard. And by that I mean God, not you. I trust that you would probably treat the mice nicely too, so I think you're probably morally better than the God you describe.

    • Christian Mann

      Posted 2011-11-09 03:30:23

      You're operating under the assumption that everyone deserves life, heaven, goodness & peace. I'm operating under the reality that humanity's heart is ultimately arrogant, greedy, self serving, hateful and blind to it - evil. Evil deserves death.

      • Paul Prescod

        Posted 2011-11-09 07:46:35

        You're operating under the assumption that everyone deserves life, heaven, goodness & peace. I'm operating under the reality that humanity's heart is ultimately arrogant, greedy, self serving, hateful and blind to it - evil. Evil deserves death.

        Biologists and neurologists study the parts of our brains and body that make us lustful, aggressive and in the future probably prideful and arrogant. Who invented these brain regions and hormones that can be manipulated chemically, or electomagnetically to make humans behave more like angels, bonobos or chimpanzees? Why would god create these body parts and then condemn us fior being influenced by them?

        Why did he create terribly flawed human beings and then condemn us for being terribly flawed? It is, after all, your argument that out VERY NATURE is INHERENTLY CORRUPT. As our designer, Yaweh must take responsibility for all inherent design flaws.

         This is quite different from saying that we are born perfect, given all relevant information and rationally choose to rebel. If you think that we rationally choose to rebel then it stands to reason that some would choose otherwise and thereby be sinless.

        Actually, we are born with bodily systems which undermine our goodness. And the information for salvation is buried (according to your theology) in one holy book which is virtually indistinguishable from the rest, and that holy book is only available to certain people at certain times and places.

        What a fair and logical system!

        • Christian Mann

          Posted 2011-11-09 08:27:40

          Wait, you're not done! Even more to add to your argument: our corrupt and unfair nature leads us to be both egomaniacal and depressed; we rage with anger, jealousy, injustice and bitterness against other people and God, to the point we deny the very existence of God. Are our system naturally undermining our "goodness"? Yes, by all means.

          But! It didn't begin that way. Genesis 1: God created it *all* good, including those parts of the brain - and sin corrupted it and has been corrupting it.

          Ever stop to wonder *why* you long for justice, peace, or beauty? We were initially designed for it. We try to attain it, and always fail.

          Enter Jesus Christ. Through his sacrifice and perfection, all of creation, including mankind, will be restored to it's previous glory and more. It's called heaven.

  • Christian Mann

    Posted 2011-11-08 05:36:05

    Meh. All 12 points rely on the infallibility of point 1. Point 1 says people are "innocent". Heve you ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything? No one was ever innocent. "What about babies & infants?!" Since when do atheists support babies' rights? Abortion is ok, but generations of depravity leading to disease, disaster and accidents is not? The double talk & hypocrisy is just ridiculous.

    • Paul Prescod

      Posted 2011-11-08 06:53:55

      Actually, I owe you a partial apology: I got confused in my browser tabs. This page does mention babies, so you are refuting a claim that was actually made. I was thinking of another article I read a few minutes ago on this same topic. Nevertheless: the use of the ad hominem argument still shows your disinterest in getting at the actual truth of the matter. An argument's validity should not depend on who presents it. Do you think that no Christian philosopher or theologian has every noticed that babies can be born in extreme pain? How can this question be irrelevant to your theology? If you have a theological explanation for it, why don't you present it? If you DO NOT have an explanation, then why doesn't that bother you?

      • Christian Mann

        Posted 2011-11-08 07:06:24

        [quote]Actually, I owe you a partial apology:

        Better look again: I did mention babies.

        It's horrible and unfair that babies are born deformed and sick. My "theology" says that all creation - the entire universe - is suffering under a curse. It's compared to birth pangs.

        Why haven't we been wiped out by an asteroid? Why isn't everyone born deformed? Why don't we just kill off the weak? Why do good things happen to bad people?

    • Paul Prescod

      Posted 2011-11-08 06:45:59

      Christian Mann: you are not worth debating, because you are either dishonest or idiotic.

      The proof is in your short comment.

      Meh. All 12 points rely on the infallibility of point 1. Point 1 says people are "innocent". Heve you ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything? No one was ever innocent. "What about babies & infants?!" Since when do atheists support babies' rights?

      This is called the fallacy of ad hominem.

      Here's what happens in your comment.

      First, you present a hypothesis: "Nobody is innocent.'

      Then you realize the flaw in your hypothesis: "What about babies?"

      Instead of abandoning a flawed hypothesis (the intellectually honest thing to do), you attack your would-be opponent. Notice, however, that no atheist made any argument about babies in this discussion yet AT ALL. So you are attacking someone mythical, in your mind.

      It is quite interesting, that you obviously have the mental faculties required to poke holes in your own flawed hypotheses, but you'd rather flail about attacking imaginary enemies.

      This indicates that you are the kind of person who is actually disinterested in whether his beliefs are true. You are only interested in arguing. Which is a sad state of affairs for a human being to be in.

      If you ever decide that you are interested in having beliefs that are actually true, I'd suggest you start here:

      http://lesswrong.com/

      • Christian Mann

        Posted 2011-11-08 06:59:01

        I'm flattered that you bothered dissecting my arbitratry argument. Your literary critique and insight is impressive, sir.
        That I should be corralled into either idiotic or dishonest, is clearly, not ad-hominem on your part, no sir, in the case that it would be first class hyprocrisy.

        My own flaw is revealed! Babies! This merely points out the atheists' inconsitency and impossibility of protecting babies on anything more then saying "i like them". Well, darn, I like babies, too - I have one! That's equally sufficient reasoning, then, to kill them when the mother says "meh, yo no like babby".

        Humans are created in Gods image; life is sacred - only God can give it, and only God reserves the right to take it.

        Thanks for another link.

        • Paul Prescod

          Posted 2011-11-09 02:19:55


          My own flaw is revealed! Babies! This merely points out the atheists' inconsitency and impossibility of protecting babies on anything more then saying "i like them". Well, darn, I like babies, too - I have one! That's equally sufficient reasoning, then, to kill them when the mother says "meh, yo no like babby".


          You have no idea what my opinion of babies or abortion is.

          And I will not get side-tracked into an irrelevant discussion. No matter how urgent the issue of abortion may be, it has NOTHING to do with the argument presented on this page.

          The harder you try to avoid the argument on this page, the clearer it becomes that you have no answer.

          This is totally understandable: this problem has plagued theists for thousands of years. Some of us are willing to accept new knowledge into our heads and have our opinions changed. So we see the contradictions in Christianity and we move on.

          Others simply try to change the topic of conversation away from questions for which they have no answers, which is another -- intellectually dishonest -- way of moving on.

          Ad hominem is the practice of attacking a debater's authority rather than their argument. But I cannot practice the fallacy of ad hominem because you *have not presented an argument*. You've presented a clumsy slight-of-hand.

          Oh, and by the way, babies are not the only "innocents" hurt by the world's capricious nature.

          http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/08/william-lane-craig-and-the-problem-of-pain/

          Will you breezily wave that away without an argument as well?

      • Paul Prescod

        Posted 2011-11-08 06:50:38

        Your article is good, but I disagree with philosophers conflate the words "suffering" and "evil". A genetic defect is not evil. It is just a force of nature that causes suffering.

        We confuse things when you use the word "evil" to encompass acts of nature. I know that this is how philosophers use the terminology, but that doesn't mean that it is rhetorically effective.

        • Christian Mann

          Posted 2011-11-09 02:39:52

          I'll reply here - the website doesnt allow for more the 4 consecutive comment.

          You demand an answer, as if you're owed one, and here I thought I was clear: I agree with the 12 points. Not all the details of how they're presented, but by and large, the concept is corerct.
          God is sovereign, and as creator he reserves the right to do as he pleases with his creation. Why are humans deserving of no pain or no suffering? Why are we deserving of fairness and justice? Since when are we so entitled above nature? Why is nature itself undeserving of suffering and fear? You start with the assumption that nature and man deserve perfection - you long for it, dream about it, and argue for it.

          And rightly so! God says he will redeem man and creation to a state of perfection - it's called Heaven, and it's in God's presence, and God (again) chooses who he wants to live with foerever. I'd be picky, too.