The Theodicy Odyssey
Mike Bird, over at Euangelion, suggests that the demand for a watertight theodicy in response to the problem of evil is logically incoherent. It’s not the first time the argument has been made, but it’s a relatively brief statement of an important idea, from an increasingly influential New Testament scholar:
After the 9/11 anniversary and teaching about the doctrine of sin, I’ve been thinking about God and evil. The truth is that much Christian theology is really an attempt at theodicy (i.e., explaining the compatibility of the co-existence of an all-good and all-powerful God with evil and suffering in our world). Romans to Revelation deal with this issue in the New Testament – Christians take evil very seriously. And constructing a theodicy is an odyssey in philosophical theology as well as an existential and pastoral imperative.
However, I think it is possible, philosophically speaking, to cut down the logical problem of evil at the knees. It is possible to demonstrate that the argument from evil presupposes precisely what it intends to refute. In order to believe that “evil” exists, one needs an absolute standard by which evil is judged to be. Or else we are simply left with competing views and voices about who or what is evil. The argument from evil is only valid if we assume that evil is an objective moral entity, yet we can only have objective moral values if there is an absolute moral law and perhaps a law-giver in the first place (i.e., the moral argument for God’s existence a la C.S. Lewis and C. Stephen Evans).
In the absence of God, pushing an old lady in front of a bus is as equally meaningless as helping her walk across the street. We can pretend or decide that one is wrong, but this is no more than an opinion that has no power of value beyond the subscription of a collective will. After all, on what basis or upon what authority does one describe one deed as “good” and another deed as “evil”? In the absence of God, ethics is reduced aesthetics. To say that killing old ladies is wrong describes a certain sociological position that ascribes relative value to human life, but it is not scientifically prescriptive. As David Hume noted, you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”.
Good and evil are prescribed values, not detectable natural qualities. To say that “killing old ladies is wrong” has no more truth value than saying, “I don’t like cabbage flavored ice cream”. Killing a human being is a morally meaningless act. We can ascribe meaning to it if we wish, but this is nothing more than a language-game, a sociological construct, with no objective or scientific quality. Atheist philosophers from Friedrich Nietzsche to J.L. Mackie were right: atheism entails nihilism, so let’s try to make the best of it. Jeffery B. Russell comments: “The argument from evil, if it is valid, destroys the notion of all order and all cosmic principles, not just the one we call God. By destroying order and principle it renders all value judgments completely subjective … If no order or purpose exists, then all human values and aspirations are absurd, and consequently good and evil are only subjective constructs. But since evil then cannot exist objectively, it cannot be adduced against the existence of God.”
Ah, presuppositionalism. You can read the whole thing here.
Comments
By Andrew Downes on 02/11/2011 at 18:44
I’m not convinced. Surely old lady killing (as described above) is intrinsically wrong, not just wrong because somebody says it is. Or have I misunderstood?
By Adam Price on 03/11/2011 at 13:30
Isn’t the point that our society generally wants to make the presupposition that evil does exist?
Therefore, the argument from evil says to them they can say something is good/evil, right/wrong if they are also willing to believe in One who holds the ultimate moral authority, i.e. God. Otherwise their other option is the nihilism, which the vast majority of our neighbours aren’t prepared to take.
The argument from evil puts people between what they see as a rock and a hard place…
By Andrew Wilson on 05/11/2011 at 10:11
@Andrew: Mike’s point is that there is no basis for saying that it is intrinsically wrong, unless there’s a God. But since there is a God, you’re right!
By Andrew Downes on 06/11/2011 at 08:33
What about something like utilitarianism? Even without assuming the existence of God, you could say that the old lady pushing causes suffering and is therefore evil. You could say the same of illness and natural disasters, bad hair days etc. I would say that evil is a thing that exists whether it is recognised as evil or not in the same way that buses and God exist whether we believe or not.
I suppose you could say that we can only recognise evil, that is experience pain and suffering and emphasise with others, if God exists, but then that is the same position as saying nothing could exist without God. This is true, but relies on an a priori belief in God to be convincing.
By James on 10/11/2011 at 11:53
Hi Andrew,
I think the issue with utilitarianism is that it also rests on certain a priori assumptions about justice/goodness etc. That is, it assumes that suffering is evil, but on what basis can such an assumption be made? Why is ‘harm’ a bad thing? Obviously, we emotionally/intuitively identify that such suffering is bad (which I would say is an innate sense that ‘this is not how the world should be’), but without a wider frame of reference to draw on than our own existence, I’m not sure it’s possible to inject a moral dimension into it.
I was at the William Lane Craig/Stephen Law debate the other week and was struck that Law wanted to believe in objective moral values, but could offer no philosophical basis on which to ground them. It’s clear that evil exists, however without God we are unable to explain why it does.
To your second point, I think it’s possibly the other way round - anyone can recognise evil and have empathy for those who suffer. That’s why the answer to the question: ‘can we be good without God?’ is ‘yes’ in the sense that people can do morally good things without acknowleding God’s existence, that is have moral sentiment leading to certain actions, however what is lacking there is a sense of moral obligation - that things ‘should’ be done in a certain way.
Sorry for waffling! :-)
By Andrew Downes on 10/11/2011 at 18:38
Ok, I think I see what you are saying. I think that pain is a bad thing, but others might disagree. There’s even a saying “no pain, no gain”.
For me to say “God does not exist because there is evil in the world”, it has to be more than “because there exist things which I think are evil”, I have to be able to show that the things are intrinsically evil. This requires an authority to say absolutely what is evil, that is God.
Makes philosophical sense, although I could still raise the issue of evil and suffering by saying “I believe that God does not exist because I perceive evil in the world”. In saying that I make myself the authority on evil in my own world view and as the basis of my beliefs. In essence, I make myself God of my own life. Obviously from a Christian perspective we can’t do this, but I’m assuming the argument above seeks to convince those who are not yet Christian.
Another thing to remember is that even if we accept this argument solves the philosophical problem of suffering and evil, we still need to wrestle with the pastoral problem of suffering and evil. Proving God’s existence as a moral authority would not have been much comfort to Job.
Definitely an interesting article. Has made me think!