Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[Clara Tea]

Today I'd like to address a particular response often given to the Problem of Evil: that God has a good reason for allowing evil to occur, even if we're don't know what that reason is. This theodicy usually looks something like this:



This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

There are two objections to note here. One comes in the form of a parody:

Say that an extraterrestrial lands on planet earth and blasts a bunch of people seemingly at random with a ray gun. Inexplicably, the extraterrestrial agrees to stand trial for its actions. "I am immensely more powerful and more intelligent than you are," ET says to the judge and to the people of Earth. "You cannot say that my actions were malevolent. I have benevolent reasons for them that you couldn't possibly understand."

Intuitively, is it the case that we are incapable of arriving to the conclusion that what ET did is malevolent in a reasonable fashion? They may be more powerful and more intelligent than humans, but it seems to me as though we are still behaving reasonably by concluding the actions were malevolent in the complete absence of any evidence they were benevolent. Do you agree?

The second objection is the consequence of allowing special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacy for a reason.

Let's say that our theodicist from the earlier conversation dies, and finds themselves in a throne room before God. God gets off His throne, whips out a holy flanged mace, and begins to mercilessly beat the everloving snot out of the theodicist.

"It's okay," the theodicist might think. "This is God, God is smarter and more powerful than me. I may not understand it, but God has a good, benevolent reason for doing this."

A day passes of beatings. A week. A month. "God must have a good reason for this," the theodicist continues to think. A year goes by. A decade. Millennia. Eons.

Is there ever a point where the theodicist can break out of their special pleading argument? Is there ever a stopping point where they may admit, "ok, maybe God is just malevolent?" No -- they can continue their special pleading argument infinitely. Can you see why that's a problem?

ALIEN BLASTING RAY GUN: This is precisely why Trump built the wall. If they don't have their "little green man" cards, they can't work in the US and will be deported. They might plead that they don't know Spanish, but hey, their foreigners, and all foreigners speak "foreign." Trump is going to have a hard time climbing that fence to get back in, once they deport all of the undesirables.

Any time in the past century, these same aliens could have asked to be taken to our leader. When we acquiesce, we're asked...."no, really, take us to your leader....you know, the smart one."

These aliens have likely been studying us for quite a while...interrogating our astronauts (arf....Laka).....and (oot oot....from the various chimps we sent to space). They come with these language skills (dog and chimp), and assume that the pampered dogs are in power.

These aliens may have been monitoring our TV signals (the ones showing sci fi space ships obliterating whole planets with Strategic Defense Initiative weapons (such as the Ronald Ray Gun). They likely (and correctly) concluded that we are too violent, and also concluded that we are more advanced (if killing is considered advanced).

The notion that intellect gives license for cruelty is a common one (Hitler's men were said to be geniuses....and, having moved looted booty to South America, under pseudonyms, and bribing them with good paying jobs, they appear to have been quite clever).

It is also noteworthy that belief in God is often used as a license to kill (but what about "thou shalt not kill?"). Think of the crusades, or the inquisition, etc.

Religion is extortion (believe in me or I will make you burn in hell for all eternity). Of course they get converts and keep members. If nothing else, people want to hedge their bets.

God tells us not to kill....yet flooded Noah.

God tells us not to covet our neighbor's wives....yet had a baby with Mary (wife of Joseph)....and produced Jesus.

Do as I say, not as I do? Made man in God's image? (killing, fooling around)?

Myths of God (or should I call them lies) are perpetuated. "God is loving." Really? A loving God flooded the world, killing many innocents in the process. A loving God could stop suffering if he wanted to (but doesn't want to). A loving God took Jesus from us, since he had the power to stop the Romans from killing him. Surely it is obvious that Jesus didn't die for our sins, since he asked God "why hath thou forsaken me?" So, it wasn't Jesus's idea to die. Though it might have been God's idea to deprive the world of the greatest and kindest entity (one who cured diseases and fed the starving).

The Religious Right voted in Trump. Trump built a wall, ravaged the environment, etc. Was that the greatest good for the Christian faith?

 

[stvdv]

all-good.

Many god-concepts don't meet all three of those criteria. Many don't meet any of them. If this is the case for you - and it seems like it is - then the PoE isn't addressed to

Which God is kind and generous to everyone?

I read Krishna Avatar is full of Love, but occasionally also chopped off heads.

I read Rama Avatar is full of Love, but killing demons was also on His "To Do list" (Krishna also had a similar To Do List)

I read Shiva can get upset when people disturb His meditation, burning them to ashes. Of course you can say "it's a Blessing to be killed by God" to make below definition match, but that seems a bit far fetched to me

I read that the Bible God is very loving, but occasionally sends some plaques destroying many humans

Or is the definition below incorrect or do they use another definition? Or is killing in a weird way seen as kind and generous?

Using "do unto others... " means that God would be fine if He were killed (when He did killing Himself, unless the Golden Rule does not apply to Him of course).

And Teachings also say "live by example", it should be fine to have killing on your "To Do List", for those who have God as their example (at least one of those Gods who did the killing).

So, I am just curious which God has been Omnibenevolent in the past, can you tell me?

omnibenevolentin British English

(ˌɒmnɪbəˈnɛvələnt)
ADJECTIVE
kind and generous towards everyone and everything

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which God is kind and generous to everyone?

I read Krishna Avatar is full of Love, but occasionally also chopped off heads.

I read Rama Avatar is full of Love, but killing demons was also on His "To Do list" (Krishna also had a similar To Do List)

I read Shiva can get upset when people disturb His meditation, burning them to ashes. Of course you can say "it's a Blessing to be killed by God" to make below definition match, but that seems a bit far fetched to me

I read that the Bible God is very loving, but occasionally sends some plaques destroying many humans

Or is the definition below incorrect or do they use another definition? Or is killing in a weird way seen as kind and generous?

Using "do unto others... " means that God would be fine if He were killed (when He did killing Himself, unless the Golden Rule does not apply to Him of course).

And Teachings also say "live by example", it should be fine to have killing on your "To Do List", for those who have God as their example (at least one of those Gods who did the killing).

So, I am just curious which God has been Omnibenevolent in the past, can you tell me?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle

 

[F1fan]

So, why didn’t baby Hitler get a cancer?

you are saying now that it was not a test, but a sort of preventive killing. But why do not simple cause an immediate miscarriage, or prevent fecundation altogether?

and of course we don’t know. But if you are intellectually consistent, then you should be agnostic, or a deist, or a believer in an amoral god, .and not a Muslim (assuming it is safe for you) since you don’t know if your God, or any other god, exists and is moral. It is too easy to use “we don’t know” only when we cannot answer embarrassing questions.

ciao

- viole

Not only that, Hitler survived two close calls in the trenches on WW1: one was narrowly surviving a mustard gas attack, the other was he went for coffee and the group of men he'd been with were killed soon after by an artillery shell. God had numerous chances. Then as leader of Germany he survived 44 assassination attempts, often luck. He was on a plane with a bomb and the fuse failed due to the cold. Then the famous Wolf's Lair bomb where the bomb was moved in a way that Hitler was sheltered from the blast. Seems like Adolph had a guardian angel.

 

[viole]

Not only that, Hitler survived two close calls in the trenches on WW1: one was narrowly surviving a mustard gas attack, the other was he went for coffee and the group of men he'd been with were killed soon after by an artillery shell. God had numerous chances. Then as leader of Germany he survived 44 assassination attempts, often luck. He was on a plane with a bomb and the fuse failed due to the cold. Then the famous Wolf's Lair bomb where the bomb was moved in a way that Hitler was sheltered from the blast. Seems like Adolph had a guardian angel.

Good point. After all, Luther himself wrote in his little essay (About the Jew and his lies) that Jews should be slayed. So, who knows?

ciao

- viole

 

[F1fan]

I don't even understand the problem? Are atheists super mad at nature for that we die?

I think some atheists, like myself, are affected by the influence of Christian concepts life life is precious, that humans are special in creation, that the innocent are to be protected as a priority, etc. Atheists assign meaning to family and friends, and to humanity as whole and are disturbed by tragedy like anyone else. To answer your question, no, atheists aren't mad at nature. Atheists are objective and understand that human life is no more special than worms to the universe. But we still have to manage our feelings of compassion and empathy. We don't have god beliefs to fall back on to soothe the heartbreak of tragic events.

Don't they just accept it?

No, atheists do accept the reality of tragedy. Atheists do have to bear the full burder to be responsible for their feelings. There's no faith and trust in a God to get lost in as a means to cope. That humans evolved to believe in Gods and some divinity helped create unity of the tribe and also how to cope with the harsh reality that humans are animals like any other struggling to survive.

Even many of them claiming to not fear death?

Well there's are even theists who fear death. Look at suicide bombers who kill in the name of God. Actually theists have so many promises of an afterlife why would any fear death?

The thing is we humans are mortal and we are aware that our death is inevitable. We do have anxiety and fear of the end and oblivion.

Do I fear death? I don't really think about, as I don't have time for death on my calendar. It's quite full at the moment.

Don't they say, "well then the child won't be in pain anymore"? People die, it's not a disaster.

That would something anyone would say if there's a kid (or even adult) is in agony. It's a pretty accurate statement. The question for theists would be why did your God let this suffering go on so long? Can't kill a person faster, more efficiently?

In fact, religious people find comfort in their religion when such a thing happens. I suppose atheists get comfort from the utter meaninglessness of their life.

Right. Too bad they don't wonder why the God caused it all in the first place, right? But that's just more discomfort for the theist, and they sure as hell don't want that.

Believe in the good stuff, ignore the bad, stuff, and don't ask questions.

 

[1213]

...we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.... ...Can you see why that's a problem?

In Biblical point of view, in the beginning everything was good, until people wanted to know evil. Because people wanted to know evil, they were expelled from paradise to this “Matrix” where all kind of evil can happen and we can learn what it means. Luckily this is only a short lesson and those who are righteous, can get back to life and God and nothing of this world can destroy our soul, which is the important thing. Body is only like a vessel four soul to experience things and it can be replaced. These are the reason why I think evil is not a problem. And that God gave us the freedom and this opportunity makes Him benevolent in my eyes. Evil people would never allow such freedom.

 

[74x12]

So is your perception of God as good a "transient" perception? If not, how do you know it isn't?

Even according to the scriptures themselves every perception we as mortals have is transient. Like in Psalm 146:4 the day you die your thoughts perish. Does that mean I believe I'm wrong about God being good? No, I mean perceptions can also be true. But it's still a belief. At least I know that; unlike others who boast about not having any beliefs at all; which is absurd.

 

[74x12]

Hold on a minute, Gods aren't known to exist. No mortal human can demonstrate they know any God exists, nor that they know any of the many gods in human history. And how do you propose someone who can't confirm a God (which is everybody) exists TRUST a God?

They aren't known to exist by you but that doesn't others don't know God. We don't need to demonstrate it because we already know. Why do we need to prove it to you?

Do you want to believe in God?

Yet you show no humility to the likelihood that your perceptions that self-verify your God existing isn't flawed. So you're demanding others apply something that you don't. This is special pleading as brought up in the opening post. You can't have it both ways.

Well you're changing the subject from "is God good?" to "does God exist?" but since you ask I'll say that all perceptions can be wrong which is why I believe God exists and is good. I go by faith because it is (in my opinion) the logical choice in a world where nothing can be known. It makes sense to me that God chose faith as the way to himself in a world full of lies and ignorance. Faith is logical in this context.

So even though I believe I've interacted with God that is because I'm convinced of it. Some agnostic would argue that I can't really know it was God etc. The arguments are endless and you could waste your time questioning everything but I think it's foolish at some point. In conclusion it's all up to individuals themselves to decide at what point the evidence in their own lives is convincing enough to believe in God or not. And if you are convinced; then you believe in God.

What I think is special pleading is when atheists claim that atheism is a "lack of belief in God" when in reality they actively deny the existence of any gods; unlike agnostics on the other hand who at least admit God could exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They aren't known to exist by you but that doesn't others don't know God. We don't need to demonstrate it because we already know. Why do we need to prove it to you?

Speaking for myself, the question for me isn't so much whether your beliefs are true as it is whether your beliefs have any merit at all.

I can disagree with a person while still respecting their position... but you - and the other theists in this thread - haven't been doing a good job of establishing that your beliefs are worthy of respect.

Try clearing that bar before you look to convince people that your beliefs are true.

 

[F1fan]

They aren't known to exist by you but that doesn't others don't know God. We don't need to demonstrate it because we already know. Why do we need to prove it to you?

People know horses exist because we can observe them existing. So please explain how some people can know a God exists. Do they have extra sensory perception, or some other special ability? Explain and use facts.

Do you want to believe in God?

Not really. I don't want to smoke crack either.

And let's note that belief is not knowledge. Belief is a judgment of an idea that a person can make. Belief can be completely wrong, like most of Qanon nonsense, or it can be highly probable, like OJ did it. Bad belief is irrational and has little to poor evidence. Sound belief has good to exceptional evidence. All belief is subject to error, thus not a fact, not certain. Now beliefs might BE true and factual, like come on, OJ did it, but we can't be 100% certain because we didn't see him do it.

Well you're changing the subject from "is God good?" to "does God exist?" but since you ask I'll say that all perceptions can be wrong which is why I believe God exists and is good.

You believe God exists? So you're not one of the few select and special people who know God exists? That's bad luck.

I go by faith because it is (in my opinion) the logical choice in a world where nothing can be known.

Oh, then I was right when I said people don't know Gods exist. Thanks for backing me up on that one.

It makes sense to me that God chose faith as the way to himself in a world full of lies and ignorance. Faith is logical in this context.

Faith is unreliable, and belief is uncertain, so that's not a very comforting scenario for truth.

So even though I believe I've interacted with God that is because I'm convinced of it.

Right, you don't want to think you've wasted all that time over the years.

Some agnostic would argue that I can't really know it was God etc.

Or an atheist. Or a theist from some other religion with different concepts and truths.

The arguments are endless and you could waste your time questioning everything but I think it's foolish at some point. In conclusion it's all up to individuals themselves to decide at what point the evidence in their own lives is convincing enough to believe in God or not. And if you are convinced; then you believe in God.

Sure, questioning is often a waste of time. So is playing poker. And people can believe anything they want, I'm all for the freedom of it. But you, me, and all other members sign up and participate in debating religious issues. No one can be expected to coddle theists and their feelings.

What I think is special pleading is when atheists claim that atheism is a "lack of belief in God" when in reality they actively deny the existence of any gods; unlike agnostics on the other hand who at least admit God could exist.

Do you deny the existence of Mickey Mouse?

 

[F1fan]

In Biblical point of view, in the beginning everything was good, until people wanted to know evil.

Yet God is good AND evil, so wouldn't knowing God mean they already knew evil?

Because people wanted to know evil, they were expelled from paradise to this “Matrix” where all kind of evil can happen and we can learn what it means.

It's so Rube Goldberg. The Creator couldn't just create people as they are post Eden Since it was all a set up anyway?

Luckily this is only a short lesson and those who are righteous, can get back to life and God and nothing of this world can destroy our soul, which is the important thing. Body is only like a vessel four soul to experience things and it can be replaced. These are the reason why I think evil is not a problem. And that God gave us the freedom and this opportunity makes Him benevolent in my eyes. Evil people would never allow such freedom.

That's a lot to manage for a mortal mind.

 

[Jos]

Good job on the OP Meow. There is paradoxes you can create with the traditional Abrahamic God concept.

Allow me to present my thoughts on the 'Problem of Evil' from my Eastern Hindu advaita (non-dual=God and creation are not-two) perspective.


Problem of Evil proponents look at good/bad events as happening randomly to people. Eastern thinkers believe a long series of causes/events (karma) causes things to be the way they are.


I look at life from the perspective that life is eternal and we are in the process of learning that. We live as individuals for eons and not one life. We all return to godhead in the end. If one could see one's life from separation from godhead through the eons to return to godhead then things and temporary sufferings make more sense. What we see as evil are very short temporary events in the grand scheme of things where each individual story ends in success; return to peace/bliss/awareness of godhead.


Plus, I also use the analogy of creation as some grand expansive multi-dimensional artwork. And human problem of evil proponents view from their little speck and dimensional perspective of the artwork and try to judge the entire artwork. Their view is too limited to be meaningful.



I think to understand the answer to the 'Problem of Evil' we need to start thinking in more eastern ways.


1) That we live for eons in a soul developing process; not one body's duration. In that perspective any suffering in one life is short and temporary in this grander view. And even an unfortunate life and death has lessons for that soul and for those seeing and interacting with the unfortunate life.


2) That such things are not as random as they appear. There is chain of cause and effect through time we can not see.


3) That those currently living an unfortunate life will have victory 'enlightenment' at the end of the challenges.


4) That it is God at the core of everything and it is He who experiences the temporary good and bad fortunes. It is ultimately not Him imposing it on other separate beings. It is His play/drama where He separates Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself but this play ends with a happy ending for all. In any great play/drama there is always drama/suffering in the middle.

What's the evidence for this?

 

[Jos]

Seems to me that if one really believes in eternal life in heaven, then suffering in a short little Earthly life starts to look like your protagonist avatar getting killed in a video game. Really no big deal. Die here, wake up in eternity again.

Suffering in a life like this one might actually serve an important purpose. If we lived in conditions of perfection all the time, how could we ever know courage or compassion? Many of the virtues that we consider very important only make sense in conditions of imperfection. Kindness, persistence or mercy only make sense in the presence of their opposites. If we were omniscient, how could we ever learn or discover?

There's no such thing as perfect or imperfect. They're just concepts that don't actually exist.

 

[George-ananda]

What's the evidence for this?

The teachings of many and wisdom traditions (non-dual Hinduism, Theosophy, etc.) claiming masters with deeper insights into the nature of reality and Consciousness/God/Brahman.

This can not be proven through the physical senses if that is your next question.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Your child dying slowly of cancer in the hands of the world's best doctors should make you think a little.

Indeed it does.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Your caricature of God and examples of the phenomenon of evil are certainly eye-opening and indisputable evidence that there MUST be no God behind the material universe. NOT!

What those who believe they can dispute God in a few simple paragraphs or even a website fail to realize is that they are ignorant of the phenomenon they give examples of and because of that, it is inconceivable to them. Fools dismiss things they don't understand in a few words and if they wish to construct a world of lies they do it in more than a few.

Your failure to even remotely formulate a convincing argument that there is no supernatural dimension is a joke. But thanks anyways.

Feel better?
Any thoughts about the actual points made in the OP, or did you just come here as a cheerleader for God?

 

[74x12]

People know horses exist because we can observe them existing. So please explain how some people can know a God exists. Do they have extra sensory perception, or some other special ability? Explain and use facts.

Not really. I don't want to smoke crack either.

Exactly, you don't want it. God can prove himself to you. I believe that. I don't worry about it. Enough said.

And let's note that belief is not knowledge. Belief is a judgment of an idea that a person can make. Belief can be completely wrong, like most of Qanon nonsense, or it can be highly probable, like OJ did it. Bad belief is irrational and has little to poor evidence. Sound belief has good to exceptional evidence. All belief is subject to error, thus not a fact, not certain. Now beliefs might BE true and factual, like come on, OJ did it, but we can't be 100% certain because we didn't see him do it.

I agree. Belief can be either probable or not so probable. That's part of the reason why faith is logical when combined with experience which is a kind of evidence.

You believe God exists? So you're not one of the few select and special people who know God exists? That's bad luck.

Someone could always argue "What if it's all in your head?" People can always find reasons to doubt anything. That's why I say I have faith God exists. I can point to miracles or answered prayers or anything; but people may come up with questions about that too. It's all about what convinces me individually or you individually. I've said I know God but it still takes faith.

You're ultimately in this world alone. Everyone is alone with God. God reveals himself to whomever he chooses.

Since you keep asking me to prove God's existence I'll just say the best I could do for you is pray for you that God would reveal himself to you; if you wanted me to. But I'm not here to prove God. I'm not here for anything but what I originally said. The world is blind and so it can't see God. The problem is not proof or evidence but blindness of heart.

Faith is unreliable, and belief is uncertain, so that's not a very comforting scenario for truth.

Sure, but faith can also be rewarded with truth if it was well placed. People should see results so their faith grows stronger through experience. That's how they know they really found God.

Sure, questioning is often a waste of time. So is playing poker. And people can believe anything they want, I'm all for the freedom of it. But you, me, and all other members sign up and participate in debating religious issues. No one can be expected to coddle theists and their feelings.

I was speaking of people who question their own conclusions endlessly. They get stuck and they don't accomplish anything. But there are also people who are over certain about everything. It's best to walk a fine line.

Do you deny the existence of Mickey Mouse?

Okay first of all; you should use better examples because Mickey Mouse is a known fictional character and we can prove that. Or is it that you are claiming that you do somehow know God is a fictional character? Then in that case I think you're using special pleading.

But if instead you used an example like Thetans from Scientology; then that brings us back to what you said about belief earlier. That some beliefs are more probable than others. I have reason to believe in God and reason not to believe in Thetans.

 

[Link]

God has to be responsible over all designs of the universe, and can't be seen as an agent in his universe like us, because he holds the whole design.

That and he designed now to deal with errors he never meant to happen, but his creation is disobeying him and rebelling for no good reasons. Irrationality and evil becoming while apathy in the ones who know better in commanding good and forbidding evil.

All diseases, illness, etc, will be cured if we accept God's king on earth.

 

[Ostronomos]

I think some atheists, like myself, are affected by the influence of Christian concepts life life is precious, that humans are special in creation, that the innocent are to be protected as a priority, etc. Atheists assign meaning to family and friends, and to humanity as whole and are disturbed by tragedy like anyone else. To answer your question, no, atheists aren't mad at nature. Atheists are objective and understand that human life is no more special than worms to the universe. But we still have to manage our feelings of compassion and empathy. We don't have god beliefs to fall back on to soothe the heartbreak of tragic events.

I'm sure you also enjoy wallowing in your ignorant belief that all that exists is material and there is no supernatural dimension. I ask, prove your atheism infallible. You can't, because it's WRONG!

Not that I believe in God. I know in God.

Not that I'm a theist. A more accurate term would be metaphysical scientist.

Oh, and I've actually experienced and sensed that dimension objectively.