User talk:Humanist007

Charles Darwin and the God of Evil

Yesterday I read in the New York Times (9th April 2006) how a Mr. Mohannad al-Azawi, a Sunni Muslim that had a pet shop in a predominantly Shite district of Bahgdad was kidnapped by Shite gunmen and thereafter killed.

This story in itself is not shocking considering how thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are getting caught in the sectarian violence and killing each other. It's sad to say that we seem to be getting immune to the daily sufferings of the Iraqi people.

What did get my attention was how Mr. Azawi was killed. According to the New York Times Mr. Azawi had been "hogtied, drilled with power tools and then shot." I repeat the words "DRILLED WITH POWER TOOLS". Can you imagine the hate that any human being could harbour against another human being, that he could engage in the incredible torture of another human being before he shot him.

This statement of torture made me reflect on another statement of torture made by our greatest biologist that ever lived Sir Charles Darwin. He remarked.

" I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with a mouse"

I would like to add to Charles Darwin's statement by stating that If God did exist and if he did create human beings according to some sort of 'grand plan' then far from being beneficient and omnipotent, God should be regarded as downright nasty and evil.

In my philosophy of religion class I once wrote an essay about "God and evil" with I am reproducing below:

Perhaps you might agree on my conclusion. I look foward to your comments.

‘The Problem of Evil’

The problem of evil for the existence of God can be eloquently summarised in the words of David Hume:

‘Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?’

Evil is an embarrassment to all theistic philosophies. At the centre of the problem is how to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and perfectly good God with the existence of evil.

It is my opinion that the existence of evil makes it probable that a theistic God does not exist. I intend by means of a dialogue to show that the existence of an evil god or devil accounts far better, or at the very least equally, for the existence of evil than does the existence of a good god.

In the Dialogue that follows the various parties are represented as follows:

God represents the God of theism, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and perfectly good Person.

The Devil represents an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and perfectly evil Person.

Socrates represents humanity and is also judge and inquisitor.

Let the Dialogues begin:

Socrates: It has come to the notice of this cosmic universe that a quarrel has developed between God and the Devil. It seems both have laid claim to earth and its human life as its prized creation. Let us see if we have any insight as to who is the rightful owner. First let us begin with God. Tell us God, why did you create human beings?

God: As you know Socrates I am perfectly good and in my good will I decided to create an earth inhabited by human beings who have limited free will. Bear in mind that I am under no obligation to have created earth and its humans but I have done so because of my goodness.

Socrates: And what is so good about this free will?

God: Free will is a good thing because it allows humans the freedom to act responsibly; it gives them opportunities for pleasurable sensations, allows them to pursue worthwhile activities, allows them flexibility to change their desires, gives them the ability to obtain goods of a higher order and finally gives them the ability to acquire knowledge.

Socrates: So tell me Devil, why did you create the earth and human beings?

Devil: Ah Socrates, you know me and my love for evil. I created the earth with its human beings as a great stage for evil, a theatre, if you like, of my evil intentions. As an omniscient being I knew that by creating the human race I would be creating great, abundant evil. Famine, rape, murder, hurricanes, and holocausts; You name it, you’ll get it. This will result in immense suffering, unhappiness and hardship both to human and animal life. Tell me Socrates, you see my evil plans daily in your life. Allow me the title of ‘master of this evil’ and be done with this debate before it causes further embarrassment to God.

Socrates: (with a shudder) No doubt dear Devil your plan seems grand but I am hesitant to simply allow you to walk away with the claim that evil belongs to you. Tell me Devil why you created human beings with this free will that God wants to take credit for?

Devil: Free will or determinism, what does it matter? The free will that humans think they have is for the benefit of seeking evil not goodness. It allows humans the freedom to act irresponsibly; it gives them opportunities for evil desires; it allows them to pursue unworthy activities, and it allows them to trade good desires for evil ones and gives them the ability to acquire knowledge for evil purposes.

Socrates: Well God you’ve heard the case put forward by the Devil. I am curious. I can understand why the Devil, who is evil, has created evil, but why as a perfectly good God did you not create a world where no evil prevails or where we as human beings only choose the good?

God: Humans have no idea of what it means to be God. They conjure up some imaginary being and think that whatever they dream exists. They sometimes forget that I can only perform what is logically possible. I say to you now Socrates that it is impossible to provide a world of humans who have free will and at the same time to allow humans only to choose the good. I could, on the other hand, create a world of beings that can only choose the good but these beings cannot be human beings who have free will. Similarly, a world with no evil is entirely possible for me to create; however it could not comprise free willed human beings.

Socrates: That seems a fair argument, but what about a world that has less evil? Surely this sort of world will represent your goodness in a better way?

God: Again, humans are asking me to perform an impossible act. Assume for example I brought it about that Hitler died at birth. Humans might be unanimous in hailing this act as laudable. However for me to kill Hitler at birth means that I would have to subvert some natural law. But these natural laws were created by me to serve humans with free will. To kill Hitler might mean that I have to be deceitful to use nature to serve a higher purpose. But being deceitful goes against my very nature of perfect goodness and it therefore means that it is impossible for me to intervene in human endeavours.

Socrates: What say you Devil?

Devil: Biggest load of poppycock I have ever heard. If I need to interfere in the world to bring about a greater evil, then I can certainly do so. But this is just an academic question since I am already aware that the world I have created has the potential for great evil.

Socrates: I agree! There seem to be contradictions in the attributes of God. On the one hand, he seems to have the perfect freedom to choose anything he wants, free from desires, yet his perfect goodness does not allow him to choose to be deceitful even though to do so might lead to a greater good. This is a sorry state of affairs. But tell me Devil will your attributes allow you to perform good deeds that lead to goodness?

Devil: (Silence)

Socrates: Ah, I suspect your attributes are just as contradictory as those of God. But let me pursue this point a bit further with God. You’ve made the point that it is impossible for you to interfere in the free will of humans yet theism is built upon the premise that miracles occur. If this is true, then is this not a contradiction of what you have claimed previously?

God: (in embarrassment) Sorry if I have given the wrong impression. What I meant is that I do intervene from time to time in the form of miracles but these events are few and far between and do not therefore, interfere with the principle of cause and effect on the daily lives of humans.

Socrates: So what you are saying is that you selectively discriminate now and again.

God: Yes I do and this discrimination is not contradictory to my powers. In other words these miracles are supererogatory acts.

Socrates: What I find difficult to understand is why you (God) would create a world of free willed human beings, then argue why free will is such a good things to be cherished and finally destroy this creation and create a heaven for those faithful followers where it seems they can only choose the good. This argument borders on the absurdity.

God: (silent)

Socrates: And these miracles, why would you perform them Devil?

Devil: Miracles, what miracles? Of all living things, human beings are the most rational and the most foolish. They live a life of squalid misery and unhappiness. They witness and take part in my evil designs constantly, yet they continually send their prayers asking me to console them. They find no help forthcoming yet they continue to heap praise upon me. Even when all hope is lost of any answer from me humans harbour the false hope that paradise will be forthcoming after death. I cannot help but roll with laughter at humankind’s foolishness.

Socrates: This is a very telling story.

Devil: Tell me Socrates, in my sinister evil, have I succeeded in creating a world full of evil and at the same time making humans grovel at my feet and thank me for their miserable and pitiful existence.

Socrates: I must admit if this proposition you state is true then you have certainly succeeded. Let’s come back to this idea of free will that is so central in deciding between the claims of God and of the Devil. I’ve always found this idea of free will a mighty strange thing indeed. So tell me God why were we not given a choice between free will and automation? If automation made it possible for a world of no suffering and only happiness then surely humankind, as the chief player, should have had a say in any decision to adopt or reject it?

God: Again you ask something that is impossible to perform. How could I have consulted a being that had not existed? Again you (Socrates) have to trust my judgement as an omniscient being.

Socrates: You say I should trust your judgement, yet the experience of this world tells me differently. For example if I was to come across an innocent baby about to die a horrible death in a burning house and I was asked to trade my free will for her life, I would do so immediately. So too would I give my life for such an innocent child. This is what is naturally expected of any good person. It therefore seems strange that God, in deciding to create a world of free willed humans, thought that free will is such a tremendous gift as compared to suffering whereas as humans it is not at all clear what the value of free will is? Can we now have the concluding statements?

God: I created this world with free willed human beings because it is a mighty good thing. Even though humans such as you (Socrates) might have apprehensions about why there is so much evil, the complexity of the answer to such thought is far beyond what humans can comprehend.

Devil: A designer can only be judged by what he has created and since evil exist on earth, bestow this creation upon me the mighty evil Devil.

Epilogue:

Socrates: I am but a human and I can therefore only give a human assessment of a divine argument. My conclusion is that the prize of creating earth and humans must, unfortunately, go to the Devil for the reasons offered by the Devil seem far simpler than the reasons offered by God. There seem to be much more unanswered questions if the world is the creation of God than compared to a world created by the Devil. I would rather apportion blame on an evil Devil for all our misery and unhappiness than on a perfectly good God. If I was to play God for a day and had a task of creating a world of free willing people, but came to realise that in actualizing this creation, it meant the suffering of one innocent child, I think I would refuse to create this world. Therefore such an evil deed can only be credited to the Devil.

Word Count - 2005

Bibliography:

Richard Swinburne – Is There a God?

William L. Rowe – Philosophy of Religion – An Introduction

Elliot Sober – Core questions in Philosophy.

Daniel Harbour – An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Atheism

B.C. Johnson – An Atheist Debaters Handbook

Daniel Howard Snyder – Good, evil and suffering.

[1] I understand the impossibility of having two omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent beings but let us assume for the purpose of the dialogue that both exist.