In this blog post I will show that JW Wartick's attempt to solve The Problem of Evil fails, and that even if Yahweh existed, we have no standard for knowing that Yahweh is good because we do not know how Yahweh operates. The "Problem of Evil is as follows as set out by Descartes:
- If an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
- There is evil in the world.
- Therefore, an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good god does not exist.
According to Wartick:
"Namely, that the evidence for the existence of God provides a rebutting defeater for the problem of evil. If we know that God exists and is good, then the problem of evil simply cannot be coherent."
In another blog post, I addressed the issue of evidence for the existence of god, and how WL Craig's argument for the evidence of contingent beings fails. There is no evidence for the existence of gods, or goddesses for that matter. But nevertheless, let us assume that there is a god, and that that god is the Christian god, Yahweh. Note, that this would not provide us with a rebutting defeater for the problem of evil, as Wartick claims, as the fact that a god exists would not tell us whether he is all good, all knowing, and all powerful, and if so, why evil exists-- and thus, does not defeat the problem of evil. For, as Wartick said in his second statement, we must not just know that god exists, we must also know he is good!
In fact, Wartick's "Job Answer" does not solve the problem of evil, it merely presents an absurdity for Christians who claim their god is all good, all powerful, and all knowing because Wartick's "Job Answer" tells us we cannot possibly know this.
Let us assume for the sake of argument, Wartick's "Job Answer." According to the "Job Answer," which is:
"God responds, basically, by saying “Job, you don’t know how I operate, but don’t you think it’s reasonable to conclude that I know what I’m doing?” (emphasis mine)
Let me set out Wartick's argument:
P1. If we know that God exists and is good, then the problem of evil simply cannot be coherent.
P2. We know God exists, and is good.
C. Therefore, the problem of evil simply cannot be coherent.
Now, clearly P2 is false. According to the "Job Answer" we do not know whether god is good or not, because according to the "Job Answer" Yahweh himself said that we do not know how he operates, which would mean we have no basis and no standard for judging him to be "good." The answer to Wartick's question of "Isn't it reasonable to conclude that Yahweh knows what he is doing?" is that no, it is NOT reasonable, especially since we do not know how he operates! In fact, the evidence, especially in the case of Job, goes against Yahweh being reasonable and an "all-good" god, as he allowed Satan to bring misfortune upon Job unjustly, according to the Bible.
The fact that Yahweh calls himself good is neither here nor there, since we do not know how he operates. He could just be claiming to be good, when in fact he is operating as a bad sadistic monster who relishes in deceiving and hurting humans. We have many examples of people who claim to be good while all the while operating badly. For example, I once knew a man who claimed to be good, and actually thought of himself as good, and even most people around him thought of him as good, when in fact, he was a rapist who took advantage of women and abused his family. As a result, it is not reasonable to think that Yahweh is good, and knows what he is doing.
Since P2 fails, then the argument is not sound. Therefore, Wartick's "Job Answer" does not provide a powerful, Biblical, answer to the problem of evil. In fact, it provides no answer to the problem of evil at all.
On the question of Yahweh being good. According to the Bible and Christians, anger and jealousy are vices. If Yahweh is all good then he would have no vices, but the Bible tells us that Yahweh is an angry and jealous God. For a more detailed discussion and arguments on this, see Christian Ethics Exposed and Did Yahweh Create the Jews, or Did the Jews Create Yahweh
Therefore, Yahweh is not all good. Note, that if Yahweh was just good some of the time, there would be no problem of evil, as the obvious answer would be that evil happens when Yahweh is being bad. So again, since P2 fails, then the argument is not sound. Therefore, Wartick's "Job Answer" does not provide a powerful, Biblical, answer to the problem of evil. In fact, it provides no answer to the problem of evil....
“Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.” Job 41:11
The answer is, Job did, and we do too. If we assume that Yahweh exists, and everything belongs to him, it would not mean that no matter what he does, it would be good. If this were the case, then, as I pointed out above, we would have no standard for calling Yahweh "good" as murder and torture would be considered good if Yahweh did it, or ordered it to be done. What Yahweh's statement might illustrate, and given the evidence, perhaps the best explanation is that his statements are the rantings of a tyrannical, megalomaniacal monster whose motto is, "ownership and might makes right," and are not those of an "all-loving, all-good" god. We have many examples where ownership and might does not make right, such as in the cases of slavery; and in cases where people "own" animals and torture them; and in cases where parents birth children, and torture and abuse them.
Therefore, Wartick's "Job Answer" does not provide a powerful, Biblical, answer to the problem of evil. In fact, it provides no answer to the problem of evil at all.
20 comments:
The following points may provide a satisfactory Biblical answer to the Problem of Evil:
- God’s perfect justice prevents Him from relieving people with unforgiven sins from their sufferings (see Isaiah 59,1-2).
- Unlike God Christians are not perfectly just. Therefore, unlike God, they are in a position to help people with unforgiven sins. By doing this they may make those among them who haven’t yet accepted God’s salvation receptive of it (Matthew 5,16, 1 Peter 2,11-12, and 3,1-2), which in turn frees these persons from suffering in the afterlife.
- The greater God’s beneficial power due to His love, the greater God’s destructive power due to His justice (see Matthew 13,27-29). Striving to prevent as much suffering as possible God can only interfere to such a degree that the beneficial effect of the interference is not neutralized by the destructive effect of it.
- Someone who dies before he or she reaches the age of accountability, i.e. before he or she can distinguish between good and evil (see Genesis 2,16-17, Deuteronomy 1,39, and Isaiah 7,16) faces no punishment in the afterlife, as he or she would not have been able to commit sins. So, God may not be inclined to prevent such a person’s death.
- A person’s suffering in this life may have a redeeming effect (Luke 16,25) and consequently contribute to a decrease of the respective person’s suffering in the afterlife; the amount of suffering in this life is so to speak subtracted from the amount of suffering in the afterlife. So, God may not be inclined to relieve this person’s suffering.
- A person’s suffering in this life may make the person receptive of God’s salvation (Luke 15,11-21), which in turn frees this person from suffering in the afterlife.
- There are degrees of punishment in the afterlife depending on one’s moral behaviour (Matthew 16,27, 2 Corinthians 5,10), one’s knowledge of God’s will (Matthew 11,20-24, Luke 12,47-48), and, as mentioned before, one’s amount of suffering in this life (Luke 16,25).
- Those people who suffer more in this life than they deserve due to their way of life are compensated for it by receiving rewards in Heaven.
Discussions of this theodicy can be found in the following threads, in which my comments have been sent under the names “Patrick (Christian)”, “Patrick”, and “patrick.sele”, respectively.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15584
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2011/07/they-have-no-answer.html#comments
http://www.justinvacula.com/2011/08/god-rape-and-problem-of-evil.html
@ Patrick,
I read the forum at daylight atheism, and agree with most of those that commented and presented arguments against your theodicy.
Firstly, your god cannot be all good if he allowed Satan to punish Job UNJUSTLY. Yahweh had no justified reason for making Job suffer. Therefore, he cannot be all good.
Secondly, the bible even tells us that Yahweh is not all good, as I have already pointed out above, and several times in my argument that god cannot be love, which can found in the blog post titled "Christian Ethics Exposed."
Clearly, as Job illustrates, Yahweh does NOT have "perfect justice."
As a side note, most Christians claim that Jesus and god are the same, and that they are part of a trinity with the holy ghost. Now, your theodicy claims that:
"God’s perfect justice prevents Him from relieving people with unforgiven sins from their sufferings."
Now, according to the NT, Jesus relieves people of their unforgiven sins, so according to your theodicy, Jesus must not have "perfect justice". According to Paul, there is no law, and without law, there are no sins. Jesus paid for them. All a Christian has to do is believe. If Jesus does not have perfect justice, then Jesus is not perfect. If Jesus is not perfect, then according to the trinity, Yahweh is not perfect, since they are the same. So, according to your theodicy, Yahweh has perfect justice, and Yahweh does not have perfect justice. How absurd!
“Firstly, your god cannot be all good if he allowed Satan to punish Job UNJUSTLY. Yahweh had no justified reason for making Job suffer. Therefore, he cannot be all good.
[…]
Clearly, as Job illustrates, Yahweh does NOT have "perfect justice."”
Nowhere in the Book of Job do we read that Job’s sufferings were meant to be a punishment. Rather they are supposed to test his love of God. Moreover, in the case of Job the last point of my theodicy clearly applies, as he is compensated for his sufferings (Job 42,10-17). Unlike what my last point says it is not in the afterlife, but in this life, but that doesn’t invalidate the principle.
“Secondly, the bible even tells us that Yahweh is not all good, as I have already pointed out above, and several times in my argument that god cannot be love, which can found in the blog post titled "Christian Ethics Exposed."”
According to you God cannot be good because He can be angry and jealous. But in my view anger and jealousy need not be vices. If someone becomes angry in view of injustice or jealous because of the married partner’s infidelity, from a Christian point of view there is nothing wrong with that.
As for your objection, based mainly on your post titled “Christian Ethics Exposed”, that the Bible doesn’t depict God as all-loving, I’m not going into that. It’s not because I think that your arguments aren’t worth considering, but simply because in my view with respect to my theodicy they are irrelevant. With respect to the Problem of Evil we simply ASSUME that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good and perfectly just and then ask whether or not the amount of evil and suffering in this world is compatible with this assumption.
“Now, according to the NT, Jesus relieves people of their unforgiven sins, so according to your theodicy, Jesus must not have "perfect justice".”
You seem to have read my first point wrongly. It says “relieving people with unforgiven sins from their sufferings” and not “relieving people from their unforgiven sins”.
@ Patrick:
You say: "Nowhere in the Book of Job do we read that Job’s sufferings were meant to be a punishment."
Exactly my point. Job's torment was not a punishment for any misdeed. It was only done in order to stroke Yahweh's ego. Yahweh had Job tormented and tortured UNJUSTLY. Furthermore, to hurt Job, he also hurt other people, (Job's children) who had nothing to do with it. Therefore, Yahweh cannot be all good, and all loving.
As for your theodicy, the claim that people are compensated for their pain and suffering in the afterlife, and therefore, any pain and suffering caused by Yahweh in this life is still good--is absurd! Let me illustrate this for you. The Jews were compensated for their pain and suffering at the hands of the Nazi's, but that does not relieve the Nazi's of their wrongdoings, nor would it relieve the pain and suffering of the Jews, or in this case, of Job, or anybody else. Yahweh cannot avoid the problem of evil by compensation.
I showed a Jewish colleague of mine your theodicy, and he said it was, in his words, "disgusting." The idea that a person could mistreat and abuse a person, and then just compensate him later, and everything then becomes ok--is absurd. Whether or not a person is tortured, raped, or mutilated does not change as a result of compensation.
I would recommend that you study logic. You cannot merely dismiss an argument without any grounds. To say, "I'm not gonna get into that," does not defeat an argument. Mentioning your theodicy is not enough. If you can, illustrate how your theodicy handles the problems in question. As I have already illustrated, your theodicy is weak and fails to solve the problem--just like JW Wartick failed to solve the problem. Your replies illustrate your lack of logic and understanding. I understand WHY you you would like to dismiss the following argument, because the only way you could refute it, is to say that the bible is wrong. This is because it is the bible that says that love is NOT jealous--which I pointed out in my post on Christian ethics exposed:
P1. If Yahweh is love, then Yahweh is not jealous.
P2. Yahweh is jealous.
C. Therefore, Yahweh is NOT love.
As I pointed out to you, according to Christian ethics, anger and jealousy are absolute vices. I am not interested in your view or opinion--only the arguments. Clearly, Yahweh cannot be all good, if he has vices.
@ Patrick part 2
According to you:
"God’s perfect justice prevents Him from relieving people with unforgiven sins from their sufferings (see Isaiah 59,1-2)."
and,
"You seem to have read my first point wrongly. It says “relieving people with unforgiven sins from their sufferings” and not “relieving people from their unforgiven sins”."
Let's see what difference this makes. Let's examine the process. My point was that according to Christians, Jesus provides a way out of suffering and for our purposes, it is unjust when a person does not have to pay for their wrongdoings. The fact that a person like Hitler can be forgiven for his sins is unjust--but this is exactly what the Christians claim Jesus provides.
To prove my point I quote from http://www.gci.org/spiritual/trials/suffergod
"Because the Son of God, the Lord of Life, took on death for us, every human death is a participation in the death of Jesus (John 12:32). And entry into the death of Jesus cannot end except in our resurrection into the resurrection of Jesus. Just as death cannot contain Christ, so death, because Christ died for us, cannot contain us either, precisely because we are, by God's grace, in Christ.
So everybody gets resurrected, even Hitler and Stalin?
Yes, everybody who dies gets resurrected (Revelation 20:12). Because the Son of God became human for humanity, and died and was raised for humanity, all humans die in Christ's death and are raised in his resurrection. There is no other resurrection into which humans can be resurrected but that of Jesus. If Jesus had not died and been raised for us, no human at all would be raised. But he did, and he did it because the holy and almighty Triune God is full of grace and mercy and free to be who he wants to be with us.
God with us
But if Hitler and Stalin get resurrected, how is that fair?
Good question. THE ANSWER IS THAT IT ISN'T FAIR AT ALL. But then it isn't fair that you and I get resurrected either. The Bible tells us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). None of us humans deserves anything but death. We've all opened our own God-business with ourselves as "God" even though we can't create a pot, much less keep ourselves alive."
So, according to the bible, and to Christians, Jesus relieves people like Hitler, who have unforgiven sins, from their sufferings by providing a way for their sins to be forgiven, and thus, avoid their suffering. And according to you, a perfectly just god does not relieve people from unforgiven sins, as:
"God’s perfect justice prevents Him from relieving people with unforgiven sins from their sufferings."
So, forgiven or unforgiven, either way, Jesus must not have perfect justice, and if Jesus does not have perfect justice, then assuming what you say is true, he would not be god. Thus, refuting the trinity. (But I have already done that on this blog in another post!)
But most significantly, such a system is clearly absurd. The fact that people are relieved of their wrongdoings is unjust.
God’s perfect justice prevents Him from relieving people with unforgiven sins from their sufferings, so he sends a proxy, Jesus to do it for him, and that keeps his hands clean and makes it "just."--how absurd! To paraphrase Pelagius, such a method of original sin, grace and salvation, set forth by Augustine of Hippo's interpretation of Paul and the bible, leads to "moral laxity."
“Exactly my point. Job's torment was not a punishment for any misdeed. It was only done in order to stroke Yahweh's ego. Yahweh had Job tormented and tortured UNJUSTLY. Furthermore, to hurt Job, he also hurt other people, (Job's children) who had nothing to do with it. Therefore, Yahweh cannot be all good, and all loving.”
Job was not only compensated for his suffering, in addition he gained a deeper understanding of God, which was of much value to him (Job 42,5).
“As for your theodicy, the claim that people are compensated for their pain and suffering in the afterlife, and therefore, any pain and suffering caused by Yahweh in this life is still good--is absurd! Let me illustrate this for you. The Jews were compensated for their pain and suffering at the hands of the Nazi's, but that does not relieve the Nazi's of their wrongdoings, nor would it relieve the pain and suffering of the Jews, or in this case, of Job, or anybody else. Yahweh cannot avoid the problem of evil by compensation.
I showed a Jewish colleague of mine your theodicy, and he said it was, in his words, "disgusting." The idea that a person could mistreat and abuse a person, and then just compensate him later, and everything then becomes ok--is absurd. Whether or not a person is tortured, raped, or mutilated does not change as a result of compensation.”
I don’t see how you arrive at the conclusion that my theodicy suggests that the Nazis would be relieved of their wrongdoings. As for compensation, if in the end the overall amount of a person’s suffering is the same or is even diminished, I don’t see what’s wrong with it.
“I would recommend that you study logic. You cannot merely dismiss an argument without any grounds.”
If the argument is of no relevance to the issue discussed, I think I can. Your objection to God’s omnibenevolence is not based on the argument from evil, but on the interpretation of (translated) Biblical texts. With respect to the Problem of Evil God’s omnibenevolence is simply a premise that is given.
“Let's see what difference this makes. Let's examine the process. My point was that according to Christians, Jesus provides a way out of suffering and for our purposes, it is unjust when a person does not have to pay for their wrongdoings. The fact that a person like Hitler can be forgiven for his sins is unjust--but this is exactly what the Christians claim Jesus provides.”
In the link below I discussed this issue at great length with a commenter called Havok (beginning with the comment sent on March 28, 2011 5:23 PM). In order to save time, I suggest that you are going to read through these comments and put forward only arguments that weren’t presented there.
http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/morality-test-for-god.html
@ Patrick
According to you:
"Job was not only compensated for his suffering, in addition he gained a deeper understanding of God, which was of much value to him (Job 42,5)."
Your notion of "compensation" is absurd. You seem to think that any wrongdoing done to a person is "justifiable" by compensation! Based on your view, a priest can rape a little boy, and he is justified because the little boy is "compensated" by the church. Now, according to you, since the boy is compensated, the priest did no wrong. The priest is not considered bad because he molested the boy, because the boy has been "compensated." Now, this follows from the fact that you are trying to justify Yahweh's actions. It is your claim that Yahweh did no wrong, and is all good because Job was "compensated" for the wrongdoings, and I guess his sons and daughters who were killed, but had nothing to do with the wager between Satan and Yahweh will be "compensated." Again--how absurd!
If a man sees a beautiful woman, he can just grab her and rape her and then "compensate" her, and according to you, all is good! Again--how absurd!! If you cannot see that your notions of compensation and justification are absurd, then I am afraid that you are beyond reason, and it is useless to try to reason logically with you.
Your theodicy suggests that the Nazis are relieved of their wrongdoings, just like Yahweh is, according to you, relieved of his wrongdoings.
You say:
"As for compensation, if in the end the overall amount of a person’s suffering is the same or is even diminished, I don’t see what’s wrong with it."
This is the main part of your theodicy that on the forums I read, your detractors find the most disturbing--and I do as well. I hope the examples I provided above will convince you of what is wrong with your theodicy of compensation.
You say:
"If the argument is of no relevance to the issue discussed, I think I can. Your objection to God’s omnibenevolence is not based on the argument from evil, but on the interpretation of (translated) Biblical texts. With respect to the Problem of Evil God’s omnibenevolence is simply a premise that is given."
Again, you need to study logic, so you understand how a reductio works. In a reductio, we assume what our opponent says is true, then will we deduce a contradiction for an absurdity from it so that we can conclude the opposite. In this case, is is assumed that god is omnibenevolent which is then shown to be inconsistent with the existence of evil. For it is argued that if god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then there would be no evil in the world. But there is evil in the world--hence the contradiction and absurdity. The conclusion is, god cannot be omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.
So, the argument is relevant to the issue. We can object to Yahweh's so-called omnibenevolence via the reductio.
Now, we can also use the bible in the case of Yahweh because if Yahweh was omnibenevolent, then he would have no vices. But the bible cleary states that Yahweh exhibits the vices of jealousy, anger, and vengfulness. I have already shown you that according to the bible, in Judaism and Christianity, that jealousy, anger and vengefulness are considered vices. In this case, the biblical writers did a poor job in characterizing their god, as they made him subject to inconsistency and contradiction. Worse yet, they depict him as an egotistical, narcissistic maniacal tyrant. The stupidity of Christianity, was deciding to attach the New Testament god to the Old Testament god, in an attempt to legitimize him, when in fact, all this did was again show how inconsistent and contradictory it is, thereby showing how absurd it is.
@ Patrick part 2
In the blog post you mention, you said:
"In my opinion, with respect to the problem of evil atheists fail to take all the elements of Christian doctrine into account. They proceed on the assumption that there is an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God, but that there is no afterlife, no ultimate justice and no Devil. But this is unfair. If we take into account that people will be comforted in the afterlife for their suffering, that all injustice will be judged and that there is evil caused by the Devil, things look somewhat different."
I do nothing of the sort. Assume there is an afterlife. I have already pointed out to you that even if a person was compensated in the afterlife for the wrongdoings of Yahweh, then it would not right those wrongdoings. Just like in the case of the Nazis. The fact that the Germans compensated the Jews, does not right the wrongdoings the Jews suffered through due to the Nazis. In the Christian system, there is no ultimate justice, when someone like Hitler can "repent" and receive salvation--without paying for his crimes, and when someone like Buddha--who was a humanitarian--burns in hell for eternity because he did not believe in your god.--There is NO JUSTICE in the Christian theodicy.
With reference to the devil. First of all, there was/is no devil in the Old Testament. The New Testament depiction of Satan is erroneous. Satan was one of the sons of the gods (Genesis 6) who worked FOR Yahweh. In the case of Job, Satan comes in the entourage of the sons of gods, to give his report to his CEO (Yahweh). Satan works as an adversary of men for Yahweh. Even if he was not working for Yahweh, since Yahweh created Satan, and if Yahweh is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then he would not have created Satan, or he would prevent Satan from committing evil. Satan is also not the serpent in the Garden of Eden--the serpent is not named, nor is he evil, as the following blog post illustrates:
http://aisforatheist5760.blogspot.com/2011/04/without-changing-story-can-you-picture.html
Satan is not responsible for evil.
Either way, Yahweh is responsible for the evil--and the bible corroborates this in Isaiah 45:7 where it states that Yahweh created good, and he created evil. And in other parts of the bible, it states that everything is determined by Yahweh, such as in the passage of Proverbs 16:33 which states that "The lot is cast into the lap, but its EVERY DECISION is from the Lord." Therefore, Yahweh is responsible for evil.
The notion that we are all sinners due to the so-called "original sin" of Adam and Eve is another absurdity. This notion is not only absurd, it is unjust, as we are not responsible for someone else's actions, and the claim that Hitler and I are the same, as we are all "sinners," is absurd. To claim we are all sinners, means that we do not have the free will to make good decisions. If we can make all good decisions, then we can be perfect--but Christians claim we cannot be perfect. Therefore, according to Christian belief, and the bible, Christians also do not have free will, and we do have free will--a contradiction. Also, considering Job was "perfect, and without sin"--this is too is just another contradiction.
So, I reiterate my conclusion:
Let's examine the process. My point was that according to Christians, Jesus provides a way out of suffering and for our purposes, it is unjust when a person does not have to pay for their wrongdoings. The fact that a person like Hitler can be forgiven for his sins is unjust--but this is exactly what the Christians claim Jesus provides.
Therefore, due to the arguments I presented above, your theodicy FAILS to solve the problem of evil.
“Your notion of "compensation" is absurd. You seem to think that any wrongdoing done to a person is "justifiable" by compensation! Based on your view, a priest can rape a little boy, and he is justified because the little boy is "compensated" by the church. Now, according to you, since the boy is compensated, the priest did no wrong. The priest is not considered bad because he molested the boy, because the boy has been "compensated."
[…]
If a man sees a beautiful woman, he can just grab her and rape her and then "compensate" her, and according to you, all is good! Again--how absurd!! If you cannot see that your notions of compensation and justification are absurd, then I am afraid that you are beyond reason, and it is useless to try to reason logically with you.”
Most people may think that whatever amount of money these persons will receive, it will at best be a symbolic compensation and not a real one. But when I’m talking of compensation I mean REAL COMPENSATION. This means that the amount of undeserved suffering a person experiences will be supernaturally subtracted from the overall amount of suffering this person would have experienced had he or she not experienced it.
“In the Christian system, there is no ultimate justice, when someone like Hitler can "repent" and receive salvation--without paying for his crimes, and when someone like Buddha--who was a humanitarian--burns in hell for eternity because he did not believe in your god.”
First, for all I know Hitler has not repented from his sins, so he clearly has to pay for his crimes. But I don’t see why even someone like Hitler could not have repented and consequently have received salvation. If he did, it would have been Christ who would have paid for his crimes.
As for Buddha, I think he could also have repented. Moreover, according to my theodicy he is certainly much better off than Hitler.
“Satan works as an adversary of men for Yahweh. Even if he was not working for Yahweh, since Yahweh created Satan, and if Yahweh is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then he would not have created Satan, or he would prevent Satan from committing evil.”
Assuming that Satan is a free-willed moral agent, just as humans are, God’s high regard for free will may provide an explanation why God grants Satan the freedom to commit evil.
“The notion that we are all sinners due to the so-called "original sin" of Adam and Eve is another absurdity. This notion is not only absurd, it is unjust, as we are not responsible for someone else's actions …”
In the comments 111 and 116 in the post ‘They Have No Answer’ in ‘Daylight Atheism’ I’ve already dealt with this objection.
“To claim we are all sinners, means that we do not have the free will to make good decisions. If we can make all good decisions, then we can be perfect--but Christians claim we cannot be perfect. Therefore, according to Christian belief, and the bible, Christians also do not have free will, and we do have free will--a contradiction.”
We are free to WISH to be without sin and to suffer from the fact that we aren’t (Romans 7,15-19). We are also free to turn to God and with His aid to overcome our sinful desires (Romans 6,11-14, Galatians 5,16-18).
“Now, we can also use the bible in the case of Yahweh because if Yahweh was omnibenevolent, then he would have no vices. But the bible cleary states that Yahweh exhibits the vices of jealousy, anger, and vengfulness.”
In 2 Corinthians 11,2 the apostle Paul writes: “I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.” So, here Paul uses the word “jealous” in a positive sense. But just a few lines later, in 2 Corinthians 12,20, this is no longer the case: “For I am afraid that when I come and may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me, as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarrelling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.” (NIV) From this one can draw that Paul, depending on the context, sometimes uses the Greek words translated here as “jealousy” or “jealous” in a positive, sometimes in a negative sense. Obviously the respective meanings of these words include positive and negative aspects, and sometimes the author emphasizes the former, sometimes the latter.
Moreover, the Greek words translated as “jealousy” or “jealous” are not always translated that way, which can be seen from a comparison of different Bible translations: With respect to Romans 13,13 and 2 Corinthians 12,20 the King James Version (KJV) uses “envy” (“envyings” in the latter passage), whereas the NIV and the New English Bible (NEB) translate “jealousy”. As for James 3,14, 3,16 and 1 Peter 2,1, in the NIV and the KJV we can read “envy”, in the NEB “jealousy”. It seems that “envy” or “envious” is always used in a negative sense, whereas “jealousy” or “jealous” isn’t.
That a word or an expression can have a positive or a negative meaning, depending on the context, can be seen throughout the Bible. Examples of such words or expressions are “sorrow” (2 Corinthians 7,8-11) or “loving the world” (John 3,16, 2 Timothy 4,10, 1 John 2,15).
Another fact that has to be taken into account here is the principle that whether or not an act is moral sometimes depends on who is doing it. A good Biblical example of this is the moral assessment of the act of judging people as expressed in James 4,12.
“Either way, Yahweh is responsible for the evil--and the bible corroborates this in Isaiah 45:7 where it states that Yahweh created good, and he created evil.”
Here again, it seems problematic to me to assume that in this passage the word which is translated as “evil” necessarily means “moral evil” simply because in modern day English this is the meaning that this word usually has. Looking at the KJV “evil” is contrasted with “peace”. In the NIV the word “evil” does not even appear: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create desaster; I, the LORD, have created it.” A charitable reading of this passage certainly doesn’t arrive at the conclusion that the author wanted to express the idea that God is an evil being.
“And in other parts of the bible, it states that everything is determined by Yahweh, such as in the passage of Proverbs 16:33 which states that "The lot is cast into the lap, but its EVERY DECISION is from the Lord." Therefore, Yahweh is responsible for evil.”
If God determined everything, many Bible passages just wouldn’t make sense.
“Job's torment was not a punishment for any misdeed. It was only done in order to stroke Yahweh's ego.”
Job’s torment was at least as useful for him as for God, as Satan’s suggestion that his godliness was not genuine (Job 1,9-11) was proven wrong.
@ Patrick
The fact that Yahweh unjustly tormented Job is not changed by any form of compensation, nor matter how useful it is to Job. The fact of the matter is that Job's unjust torment was not necessary and could have been avoided by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good god.
As to the question of proof of the genuineness of Job's godliness, clearly, Job needed no proof of this since he already knew that his godliness was genuine; there is nothing presented in the Job passages to suggest otherwise.
Why would Yahweh need proof of Job's godliness?--Because Yahweh is not omniscient, or if Yahweh is omniscient, then the evil Yahweh inflicted upon Job was even more unjust since he already knew that Job's godliness was genuine.
If Yahweh exists and is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good god, then evil does not exist. There is evil in the world, such as the evil that was inflicted upon Job by Yahweh. Therefore, it is not the case that Yahweh exists and is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good god.
@ Patrick, posted September 13, 2011 1:01 AM
Poor Patrick, you still cannot see that no matter what kind of compensation it is, even some sort of REAL COMPENSATION from Yahweh, would not solve the problem of evil, even if it was supernaturally subtracted from the overall amount of suffering because as you said:
" ...the amount of UNDESERVED SUFFERING a person experiences will be supernaturally subtracted from the overall amount of suffering this person would have experienced had he or she not experienced it." (emphasis mine)
Which illustrates that Job's torment, which was inflicted upon him by Yahweh, was UNDESERVED SUFFERING.
If Yahweh exists and is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good god, then evil does not exist. There is evil in the world, such as the undeserved suffering that was inflicted upon Job by Yahweh. Therefore, it is not the case that Yahweh exists and is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good god.
@ Patrick posted September 13, 2011 2:10 AM
In response to the bible passages (Isaiah 45:7; Proverbs 16:33) that I cited in my argument to you, which illustrate that Yahweh created evil, and is responsible for it, as EVERY decision is from the Lord, you said:
"If God determined everything, many Bible passages just wouldn’t make sense."
EXACTLY Patrick!! The majority, if not all of the bible, makes no sense due to the fact that it is inconsistent and contradictory, and that is exactly the case. It is a known fact that the bible presents two views. One is deterministic; and one advocates free will. This has been noted by many scholars, including Christian scholars for centuries.
This problem has been noted as far back as St. Augustine, Who said that salvation was based on faith and is determined by God, as Ephesians 2:8 makes noted that salvation is a "gift" and "not of ourselves", while his contemporary, Pelagius insisted that salvation came via our faith and our works--and not faith alone. Free will is inconsistent with the notion of a completely sovereign god who determines everything, as Proverbs 16:33 points out, including who believes what, and who is saved, and who is not.
We have Arminians who hold that God does not predetermine everything, and Calvinists who hold that all events have been willed by God.--It seems to be the case that it just depends on which biblical passages you cherry pick, and then use Humpty Humpty semantics in order to germander ones that do not.
If God determined everything, many Bible passages just do not make sense. According to the Bible, Yahweh determines everything. Therefore many Bible passages just do not make sense.
Exactly right Patrick!!
@Patrick September 13, 2011 1:43 AM
I argued that:
“To claim we are all sinners, means that we do not have the free will to make good decisions. If we can make all good decisions, then we can be perfect--but Christians claim we cannot be perfect. Therefore, according to Christian belief, and the bible, Christians also do not have free will, and we do have free will--a contradiction.”
Your response to my argument was:
"We are free to WISH to be without sin and to suffer from the fact that we aren’t (Romans 7,15-19). We are also free to turn to God and with His aid to overcome our sinful desires (Romans 6,11-14, Galatians 5,16-18)."
Your response proves my point. First you show that the Bible says that we are only free to WISH to be without sin, and then you turn around and kick yourself in the butt with we can overcome our sinful desires with God's aid. So, according to the Bible, it is possible to be perfect--just as I argued, and it is not possible to be perfect. If it is possible to be perfect, then we have the free will not to sin. If it is not possible to be perfect, then we have no free will. Therefore, by your own statement, we have free will, and we do not have free will--a contradiction!
Patrick you said:
"First, for all I know Hitler has not repented from his sins, so he clearly has to pay for his crimes. But I don’t see why even someone like Hitler could not have repented and consequently have received salvation. If he did, it would have been Christ who would have paid for his crimes."
How do you know that Hitler did not repent? The fact that the Bible claims that a person like Hitler could commit all sorts of atrocities and then have his slate wiped clean by just repenting is an absurd and atrocious theodicy.
It also contradicts the claim that all of our deeds are written in the Book of Life and that we are judged accordingly.
Now, back to your first claim. You made reference to Biblical notion that we can overcome "our sinful desires. But why does one have to have sinful desires in the first place--I do not. But ah, the Christian like you will exclaim this is not possible because of original sin and so we are born sinners. To which I reiterate what I said above:
“The notion that we are all sinners due to the so-called "original sin" of Adam and Eve is another absurdity. This notion is not only absurd, it is unjust, as we are not responsible for someone else's actions …”
You have not provided any acceptable answer to this absurdity.
@ Patrick September 13, 2011 1:59 AM
Patrick, you said:
"In 2 Corinthians 11,2 the apostle Paul writes: “I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.” So, here Paul uses the word “jealous” in a positive sense. But just a few lines later, in 2 Corinthians 12,20, this is no longer the case: “For I am afraid that when I come and may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me, as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarrelling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.” (NIV) From this one can draw that Paul, depending on the context, sometimes uses the Greek words translated here as “jealousy” or “jealous” in a positive, sometimes in a negative sense. Obviously the respective meanings of these words include positive and negative aspects, and sometimes the author emphasizes the former, sometimes the latter."
What you have pointed out is that the Bible writers are inconsistent and that there is no standard for judging Yahweh to be good because according to the Bible writers and Christians, anything he is proclaimed to have done or said is considered godly and therefore correct--even if they are vices. This is a clear example of Humpty Dumpty semantics!
I also show the problem of your explanation for Christian ethics and morality in my blog post:
"Christian Ethics Exposed"
The address is:
http://aisforatheist5760.blogspot.com/2011/08/on-question-of-virtues-vices-and.html
You can read my post to see why your explanation presents an absurdity for Christian ethics and the Bible.
@Patrick September 13, 2011 2:10 AM
Again you prove my point and kick yourself in the butt.
Patrick, you said:
"Here again, it seems problematic to me to assume that in this passage the word which is translated as “evil” necessarily means “moral evil” simply because in modern day English this is the meaning that this word usually has. Looking at the KJV “evil” is contrasted with “peace”. In the NIV the word “evil” does not even appear: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, have created it.” A charitable reading of this passage certainly doesn’t arrive at the conclusion that the author wanted to express the idea that God is an evil being."
The problem of evil does not make reference to just moral evil, but any kind of evil! Including that which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction--such as in the cast of disaster.
So, whether they meant evil or moral evil or even if the word does not appear at all, is all a moot point in reference to the problem of evil, for as you point out, the Bible says, “I form the light and create darkness, I (meaning Yahweh) bring prosperity AND I (meaning Yahweh) CREATE DISASTER; I, the LORD (meaning Yahweh), have created it.”
So Yahweh, according to the Bible and as you pointed out, is responsible for creating disaster. If Yahweh is responsible for creating disaster, then Yahweh is responsible for creating evil in our world. If Yahweh is responsible for creating evil in our world, then the problem of evil holds against Christianity and there conception of Yahweh. Therefore, the problem of evil holds against Christianity and there conception of Yahweh.
Your efforts to refute the arguments by using Humpty Dumpty semantics has failed again!
Patrick, you said:
"A charitable reading of this passage certainly doesn’t arrive at the conclusion that the author wanted to express the idea that God is an evil being."
I do not know what the author was trying to express, but I do know what he did express, which is that Yahweh is responsible for disaster. So, as I just proved above, even a charitable reading of this passage actually does arrive at the conclusion that Yahweh is an evil being and therefore subject to the problem of evil!
@Patrick Part Two September 13, 2011 2:10 AM
I said:
“And in other parts of the bible, it states that everything is determined by Yahweh, such as in the passage of Proverbs 16:33 which states that "The lot is cast into the lap, but its EVERY DECISION is from the Lord." Therefore, Yahweh is responsible for evil.”
and Patrick, your response was:
"If God determined everything, many Bible passages just wouldn’t make sense."
Exactly, the Bible just doesn't make any sense because it is inconsistent and contradictory. Patrick, I wish to thank you for helping illustrate this fact.
Post a Comment