The Argument from Design vs. the Problem of Evil

[rusra02]

It does? This is news to me.

I know the passages in Job where Job asks these sorts of questions, and I know God's response ("I'm more powerful than you are, so it's not your place to even ask," basically), but I haven't seen an explanation.


So the study of nature doesn't provide any insights into the qualities of God?

Yes, I believe the study of nature helps us learn some things about the true God. Romans 1:20 says that God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." IMO, we can learn that Jehovah possesses unlimited power. He is infinitely wise and possesses absolute knowledge and understanding. These are but a few examples of what nature reveals about God.
At the same time, I believe we can draw incorrect conclusions about God simply by studying nature. Tornadoes, earthquakes, and similar events might incorrectly be attributed to God directly causing them.
I believe that to understand evil, we need to learn how evil began. Our first parents, seduced by a wicked rebel spirit creature, rebelled against God. Since that event, most people choose to do what they want, without regard for God's will. Add to that the evil influence of Satan who wants all mankind to join him in his rebellion. (Revelation 12:9) I believe the book of Job and the rest of the Bible reveals that Jehovah has allowed wickedness for a time, in order to settle the questions Satan raised in the garden of Eden: Can intelligent creatures who rebel against God be successful? Who told the truth, God or Satan? Will there be humans who will accept God's rulership and reject Satan's, even if they suffer as Job did? Who is earth's rightful Sovereign? IMO, the time Jehovah has allowed has provided the absolute evidence that man cannot rule himself apart from his Creator, that Satan is a base liar, and Jehovah is fully justified in destroying him and those who follow him. Thus, "Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more; You will look at where they were, And they will not be there. But the meek will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. (Psalm 37:10,11)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I believe the study of nature helps us learn some things about the true God. Romans 1:20 says that God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." IMO, we can learn that Jehovah possesses unlimited power. He is infinitely wise and possesses absolute knowledge and understanding. These are but a few examples of what nature reveals about God.

That doesn't make sense. How does a creation that you admit in the next part of your paragraph is imperfect reveal a supposedly perfect creator?

At the same time, I believe we can draw incorrect conclusions about God simply by studying nature. Tornadoes, earthquakes, and similar events might incorrectly be attributed to God directly causing them.
I believe that to understand evil, we need to learn how evil began. Our first parents, seduced by a wicked rebel spirit creature, rebelled against God. Since that event, most people choose to do what they want, without regard for God's will. Add to that the evil influence of Satan who wants all mankind to join him in his rebellion (Revelation 12:9)

I'm sorry, but that sounds absolutely ridiculous. People are bad, therefore tornadoes happen?

I believe the book of Job and the rest of the Bible reveals that Jehovah has allowed wickedness for a time, in order to settle the questions Satan raised in the garden of Eden: Can intelligent creatures who rebel against God be successful? Who told the truth, God or Satan? Will there be humans who will accept God's rulership and reject Satan's, even if they suffer as Job did? Who is earth's rightful Sovereign? IMO, the time Jehovah has allowed has provided the absolute evidence that man cannot rule himself apart from his Creator, that Satan is a base liar, and Jehovah is fully justified in destroying him and those who follow him. Thus, "Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more; You will look at where they were, And they will not be there. But the meek will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. (Psalm 37:10,11)

I get the impression we're talking about different things:

I'm talking about teleological arguments for God and the nature of God: "because we see X around us, we know that a god with characteristic Y must exist."

OTOH, you seem to be taking a different tack: you aren't really arguing for why your god must exist; you're just arguing that your god can be reconciled with the facts at hand.

IOW, I'm trying to address arguments that say God is the only possibility, while you seem to be trying to give an argument that God should be considered a possibility (out of some unknown number of others).

 

[Prestor John]

I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

God created everything in the physical universe.

Evil does not "change" or alter the physical universe.

 

[Prestor John]

Which is nonsense, of course. This implies that the most abject evil is no worse than apathy. Is this really what you believe?

Would you mind explaining how you came to this conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you mind explaining how you came to this conclusion.

@arthra described evil as "choosing less good toward" someone or something. If we're apathetic toward someone, then we choose neither good nor evil for him. But in arthra's formulation that only cares about presence or absence of good, the fact that we've chosen no good for someone means that we've chosen absolute evil for them.

As I pointed out, this is nonsense: antipathy is worse than apathy. However, in order to recognize the difference between antipathy and apathy, we need to acknowledge the existence of evil as something more than "the absence of good."

 

[arthra]

@arthra described evil as "choosing less good toward" someone or something. If we're apathetic toward someone, then we choose neither good nor evil for him. But in arthra's formulation that only cares about presence or absence of good, the fact that we've chosen no good for someone means that we've chosen absolute evil for them.
As I pointed out, this is nonsense: antipathy is worse than apathy. However, in order to recognize the difference between antipathy and apathy, we need to acknowledge the existence of evil as something more than "the absence of good."

Yes thanks for your reply Penquin... My general view on the subject is that in the scheme of things we see Good as a positive and influential source... Less than good or ignorance is a lack of good. If you were to shine a light in a dark room.. The Light being a positive Source.. Darkness would be the lack or absence of Good. The problem with the dualist view I believe has been that there is no dark source of evil it is more simply a lack. Knowledge is positive .. Good is positive...

My position is more of what's called a Neo-Platonist view:

Neoplatonists, evil does not exist as a substance or property but instead as a privation of substance, form, and goodness (Plotinus, Enneads, I, 8; See also O'Brien 1996). For instance, the evil of disease consists in a privation of health, and the evil of sin consist in a privation of virtue. The Neoplatonist theory of evil provides a solution to the problem of evil because if evil is a privation of substance, form, and goodness, then God creates no evil. All of God's creation is good, evil is a lack of being and goodness.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Penguin,

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

Not so much reconciled, as to say that the answer depends on the specific God concept we are referring to.

If we are speaking of the concept of God as the omniscient and omnipotent Creator, then I fail to see why we couldn't deduce some clear conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us. Obviously, this God would not be entirely benevolent in light of reality as we know it, considering the overwhelming examples of tragedy we know to have been and continue to be real. This is because an omniscient and omnipotent being which created existence absolutely must be held 100% responsible for all that has existed, exists, and will exist.

Given what we know of nature, we can deduce that this God cannot possibly possess all three of these qualities, therefore: the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence. So given an omniscient and omnipotent Creator God, we can definitively conclude, by observing nature as we know it, that it cannot possibly be benevolent.

However, if we are speaking of a God that lacks either omniscience or omnipotence, it becomes less clear how to judge the nature of this God. If the God concept is not believed to be omniscient for instance, then it is logically valid at least to argue this God may have had the best intentions (benevolent) and in spite of God's limitless power (omnipotence), God could not foresee the problems God unwittingly created (not omniscient). Or this non-omniscient God could be malevolent too by intending to create the problems we see in the world on purpose. And yet, it's simply a guess that the lack of omniscience in such a God is the cause of problems in the world since it could alternatively be explained by a Creator God that is omniscient but lacks omnipotence: maybe God did the best God could, but lacked the power to fully create the best possible universe and deemed it better than nothing at all for some reason. So we can't really discern how to answer the question of whether a non-omniscient or non-omnipotent Creator God is benevolent or not, whether it is omnipotence or omniscience that is lacking, or any other qualities for that matter.

Ultimately, I am an atheist because existence as we know it works precisely as if no gods or God existed. If there are any gods or a God, it is not at all apparent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with the dualist view I believe has been that there is no dark source of evil it is more simply a lack.

This is only a problem if we assume a perfectly good source for everything. IOW, you're begging the question.