Comments on: Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 6

By: » Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 9 Evangelical Realism

» Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 9 Evangelical Realism — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:38:30 +0000

[...] to exist, and for evil things to happen, than it would be for evil not to exist at all. As we saw before, this means we ought to do as much evil as we can, since it always results in a greater good. If it [...]

By: » Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 7 Evangelical Realism

» Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 7 Evangelical Realism — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:52:54 +0000

[...] Comments Modusoperandi on Sunday Toons: For old time’s sakejorgaba on Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 6» Sunday Toons: For old time’s sake Evangelical Realism on Now that’s an [...]

By: jorgaba

jorgaba — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:29:12 +0000

Dave –

I vote for redundant. If evil is gratuitous suffering, then “gratuitous evil” would be “gratuitous (gratuitous suffering)”. That would seem to imply a context in which there exists an alternative kind of “gratuitous suffering” that is necessary or non-gratuitous…if there is a context in which such a distinction makes any sense, I don’t know what it is. Apologetics have certainly not provided it.

By: Dave S.

Dave S. — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:37:38 +0000

Question. If there is only ‘necessary evil’ and ‘gratuitous evil’, and ‘necessary evil’ is a contradiction, doesn’t that mean then that all evil is therefore gratuitous and saying ‘gratuitous evil’ is a redundancy?

By: jim

jim — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:43:05 +0000

Doesn’t this all boil down to simply another angle on the well-worn apologetic- “If we only understood, then we would understand; but, since we don’t understand, then God’s ways remain mysterious, and misunderstood. Therefore, God exists’? Translation: equine excrement.

By: jorgaba

jorgaba — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:29:32 +0000

Well said.

I am happy to let Craig substitute “suffering” for evil within certain bounds — suffering is a description of what happens whereas evil rather seems instead to get at motive. I would equate evil with “gratuitous suffering”, and I would use it the same way you use “gratuitous evil”. I would argue “necessary evil” is a contradiction — if its necessary, there is nothing evil about it. Suffering may be necessary, but it only becomes “evil” when one allows or causes suffering beyond what is necessary.

I wonder if this is what Craig is intending to say — it would mean that so long as god allows suffering in the service of some larger good, god is not doing or allowing evil. Of course, as you point out, this still requires god to be limited in some way. Craig thinks he’s disposed of “omnipotence”, but he still needs to be clear on whether or not god has equal ability and power to do the following:

1. achieve a good end with suffering
2. achieve a good end without suffering

Its very simple: if god has the power to do both with equal ease and facility, then suffering is unecessary and therefore gratuitous. God then does not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing it. Craig seems to think the problem can be dismissed just by using words other than “evil”. In fact, the problem can be articulated just fine without using the word “evil”.

And doesn’t this “means to an end” model of evil indicate that God’s ethics are fundamentally utilitarian rather than based on absolute principles. Yet, theists are always so ready to point out the moral depravity of utilitarianism when people adopt it.

By: pboyfloyd

pboyfloyd — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:20:23 +0000

Let’s say that reality is a square peg that fits in a square hole that we’ll call, the ‘test of reality’.

Christian doctrine and dogma happen to be the segments that fit over each side of the ‘square peg of reality’ which makes a round peg of Christianity!

How dare you, sir! That’s not fair! You are trying to shove the round peg of Christianity through the square hole of reality!