Keith's Weblog: Comments on "The Problem of Evil"

by Kevin Baker

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:04:18 +0000

You wrote: "In short, the existence of 'evil' requires objective moral standards which are only provided on the Christian worldview."

I beg your pardon? ONLY the Christian worldview provides "objective moral standards"?

by Keith

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:45:26 +0000

I would argue that, yes. Here though, of course, I only asserted it, and didn't offer any argument.

Other worldviews which have a revelational ethics, such as Judaism and Islam, might claim to also have an objective moral standard. However, there are other things that make those worldviews self-contradictory and philosophically untenable, and therefore their worldviews fail to provide backing for their ethical systems.

I haven't gotten to look at Bahnsen's paper linked above in depth yet, but I'm sure he covers some of this ground. If you'd like to discuss, feel free.

by Kevin Baker

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:37:28 +0000

I think you need to clarify by defining "objective moral standard" so we aren't arguing past each other. And perhaps you need to define "evil" as well.

You cannot have a useful conversation if both sides are using the same words, but with different meanings.

by Pedro the Lion

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:21:26 +0000

As always, Keith, you are messing things up. Morality is part of the reality of human beings as gravitational laws are part of the reality of nature. Moral law doesnt depend on religion.

by Keith

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:37:53 +0000

You cannot have a useful conversation if both sides are using the same words, but with different meanings.

Indeed. Though, I thought "objective moral standard" is pretty clear. Maybe "evil" is less so. Anyway... I went looking in my archives, because I thought I'd been down a similar line before, and I remember liking the definition I gave:

something that is objective is something that is outside of us and not contingent upon us. We call science objective because it deals with facts that are open to all and independent from its observers. Something objective exists independently from its knower, and is not dependent on his knowing it for its existence.

So, an objective moral standard is one that is in no way dependent upon us. That excludes things like moral relativism (such as cultural or individual relativism) and social contract theory. It also excludes things like Kant's approach to ethics, because he tried to find things that were universalizable, but his concept of what was universalizable was only based on his own reasoning. Though, Kant's system failed for other reasons too, one reason being that its conclusions carried no moral weight... it had nowhere to get its "should" from. It also begged the question as to whether "universalizability" is the ultimate moral standard in the first place.

But enough about Kant. Have you ever taken a course in ethics? I don't think it's a controversial thing to claim that no one has come up with a system of ethics that works. I claim that any moral system has to be revelational. As finite beings there's no way for us to know what's right unless our creator tells us. Otherwise, we're simply making up morals ourselves. In that case, our morals are clearly dependent on us, certainly not universal, and since they're invented by us, they have no moral weight above us in order to bind us to what they say -- in other words, they have no authority over us. There's no reason for them to be normative.

As for evil, the definition I'd have to give would be anything that's against God's law. You may say that that begs the question in our discussion, but look at it this way... That's the only definition I can possibly give for what evil is, because that's my moral standard. However, that's kind of the point of my post above... there is no other objective basis for what evil is.

Bahnsen quotes part of the Brothers Karamazov as an example of something obviously evil (the abuse of a helpless child - you may want to read the passage from the article I linked to). We would all look at that example as something indisputably evil. The point of my argument about the problem of evil and why it backfires is that while on the Christian worldview I have an objective reason to judge it as wrong, on the atheist worldview (for example) there is no reason you can give why it's objectively wrong. It would always come down to some subjective reason such as "most people don't approve", or "I wouldn't want this to happen to me", or "I prefer that things like that not happen".

by Keith

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:44:49 +0000

Pedro, are you Juan who I had the discussion with about Roman Catholicism? You have the same ISP in Argentina

Morality is part of the reality of human beings as gravitational laws are part of the reality of nature.

What does that even mean? Gravity acts the same on everybody, but not everyone agrees about what's moral. On the other hand, jumping isn't wrong, while murder is.

by Pedro the Lion

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:40:30 +0000

Ciudad is one of the biggest isps in argentina. Like aol in USA. :-)

The point of my argument about the problem of evil and why it backfires is that while on the Christian worldview I have an objective reason to judge it as wrong, on the atheist worldview (for example) there is no reason you can give why it's objectively wrong. It would always come down to some subjective reason such as "most people don't approve", or "I wouldn't want this to happen to me", or "I prefer that things like that not happen".

Have you ever read Aristotle ethics? You are forgetting the greeks. And what about romans?
Both had impressive value systems, which are present still nowadays.
Christianity owes a lot to both of them, although they were pagan.
If you deny their value, then you are denying human reason capacity to find objective truth, which, is very common in protestant traditions.
obviously, the Revelation and the Faith give a lot more light and gives us a certainty which we alone would never reach.
I think that is why when we do philosophy we work independently from theology but guided by faith. Never justifying our reasoning with theology since then that would not be philosophy :-)

by Keith Gaughan

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:44:38 +0000

In short, the existence of 'evil' requires objective moral standards which are only provided on the Christian worldview.

I dunno. Take an example that predates Christianity and managed to resolve evil quite effectively: Zoroastrianism.

by Kevin Baker

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:26:00 +0000

One problem with your theory: How does our creator hand down a system of ethics?

Being an agnostic, I'm understandably skeptical of the burning bush/stone tablets explanation. Unless the Almighty personally hands out a pamphlet to each and every one of us, then I'd have a hard time with accepting that the moral standards of any established church are, in fact, those of the Almighty. There are too many competing factions claiming to have the one-and-only "truth," and much that I consider to be evil has been done by agents of those churches in the name of their diety. This throws doubt, I think you must admit.

The one objective moral position (that so happens to agree with the various Christian ones) that I think everyone can agree with is the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Unless you are psychopathic, that rule pretty much defines evil - the only thing left is to grade evil. Lie? Minor evil. Torture children? Major evil. Premeditated murder? Major evil. Homicide in self-defense? Not evil. Homicide in war? NECESSARY evil.

Would you consider this "objective" or "relative," then?

Finally, if objective moral standards are dependent EXCLUSIVELY on a Christian worldview, then does that make those of us who are not Christians (and we are many) by definition immoral and evil? That way lies the Inquisition, or at least it has in the past.

by Moss Collum

Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:35:23 +0000

It also excludes things like Kant's approach to ethics, because he tried to find things that were universalizable, but his concept of what was universalizable was only based on his own reasoning

I'd disagree with this. Yes, the particular moral claims that Kant makes are subject to his own understanding, but the general claim--that reason leads inevitably to certain moral laws--can be true even if Kant makes mistakes in his own reasoning. This would put morals in pretty much the same position as other objective truths: real, but known to us only through fallible human understanding.

One other thought: you could look at the "problem of evil" argument as a reductio ad absurdum: it doesn't need to have an external definition of evil to deal with, it just needs to show that the Christian picture of things, including the Christian understanding of evil, is inconsistent with itself. If Christianity is inconsistent with a Christian view of morality, then it fails regardless of what the true moral system is.

(I'm arguing here 'cause I think I can tell intuitively that there is something wrong with the problem of evil argument, but I don't think this counterargument addresses the real problem.)

by Samuel Douglas

Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:15:30 +0000

Once again, does the idea that undeserved suffering could exist, need objective moral justification? I'm not so sure. Of course, being only finite beings, we could have brought it on ourselves, we could never say 100% for sure. But it does seem a bit unlikely in many cases. If the undeserved is too controversial, leave it out and just stick with the suffering. Did I borrow that from your christian worldview? What would justify our suffering in the face of a being who could help us, or allowed events to unfold in a dffernt way?

The objection still works.

What is more I think upon reflection that you are wrong to say that our arguments fail because we borrow from your worldveiw. It is for this very reason that they suceeed.

by Kevin Baker

Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:50:52 +0000

Bueller? Bueller? ;-)

by Keith

Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:15:27 +0000

Wow, old post Too bad I never got to respond to everything at the time. Is there anything in particular you'd like me to respond to?

by Kevin Baker

Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:58:18 +0000

Well, how about the last one?

Finally, if objective moral standards are dependent EXCLUSIVELY on a Christian worldview, then does that make those of us who are not Christians (and we are many) by definition immoral and evil?

by Keith

Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:19:04 +0000

No, we're all immoral and evil. But only the Christian is justified in calling something good or evil because only he has an objective system of ethics by which to judge. To clarify, an atheist can correctly identify something as good or evil, but can't provide justification for his judgement. Because his worldview lacks a justification for ethics, in calling something good or evil he must necessarily be borrowing from the Christian worldview.