Answering the God is Evil argument

[rocklobster]

One thing I really don't like about the atheism crowd is that they claim God is evil. How would you respond to that in a civil manner? My response is that if God is evil, then why is it that so many of his followers do good works, like Mother Theresa?

[KougaHane]

People claim that evil comes from God ("Why did God create evil?") But in reality evil comes from man, who disobeyed God. As for why there are several occurences of God telling the israelites to kill people in Canaan in the Old Testament, I say that God is a God of love, but also one of justice. The Canaanite religion revolved around ritual prostitution and human sacrifice. They were getting what they deserved. Everyone has sinned and deserves death, but the glory of Christ is his mercy in giving us life. Before Christ there was justice, now there is mercy.

[goldenspines]

I thought atheists didn't believe there was a God at all. >_>

Whatever the case, you respond in love (whether that be speaking or acting or just not responding at all).

[Ante Bellum]

Now I'm tempted to ask some atheists about this subject...I'll try to ask and post again later.

[Peanut]

By laughing at them and telling them to do more reading on theology.

Ok, so that isn't an actual response, but it does highlight my attitude towards this argument. Personally, I find the God is evil argument to be ridiculously weak especially when it is made by an atheist. The funny thing is, you don't have to go outside of atheism to dismantle it. Nietzsche argues that their are three things an atheist cannot have-->order, morality, and meaning. His reasoning here is that all three things require a higher being to bring them about and maintain them. Since we're talking about morality, I'll focus on that and say that in order for it to exist it must come from an unchanging source. If it doesn't come from an unchanging source, then it reduces to coming from myself and morality that begins with me must logically and necessarily end with me. In the case of an atheist positing that God is evil, I would accuse them of using borrowed capital. The terms "good" and "evil" can only be used if you actually believe in a God since without them they are changing and therefore mean nothing. In other words, they can't even make the argument without contradicting their own beliefs. If it is an agnostic or some sort of deist/theist making this argument, I would point out that they've just argued there is something bigger than God (morality) which in turn means that that thing is God.

Honestly, I wonder if anyone thinks now a days. The "new" atheists seem to have a nasty tendency to make arguments against God that either contradict their own beliefs or show a lack of understanding basic theology (I'm looking at you Ultimate Boeing 747...).

[Atria35]

I acutally don't hear that a lot from the aetheist crowd. Mostly I hear that they haven't heard a compelling reason to believe that God exists.

And people who do good deeds in God's name (Like Mother Theresa) is different from a God that is evil.

[Rusty Claymore]

The first ingredient in any communication are two people willing to respect the others veiws.
If you don't have that, it's pointless. The only response is, "I'm sorry you feel that way." And then switch to something else.

...The other approach is to get them to define evil. "What makes God evil?" and of course. "What is evil?" Of course, that approach requires the first ingredient as well... and a grasp on the wonderful law of self-contradiction. n.n

[Shao Feng-Li]

I think I've come across atheists saying if they is a God, he must be evil. Just lookit all the bad things in the world!

Yeah, the cause of the evil in the world is so not God giving mankind exactly what they want. I like Claymore's approach. Either they conclude that there is a higher power, or that we merely get a relative [lack of] morality from mankind.

[Syreth]

If an atheist openly states that he/she thinks God is evil, it seems like he/she not only disbelieves in God, but is expressing hostility to faith, rather than looking for an answer or response.

In that case, I don't think there is any right response. Honestly, what I would do is just make a lighthearted comment to change the subject.

If the person is honestly and civilly expressing their view, then it might be appropriate to give a response. I would just follow up by asking the question, "If God is evil, then by what standard is God evil?" or "How do you know God is evil?" This might get the person to explore the arguments that others have laid out in previous posts, about the standard of morality by which the person is contradicting atheism with.

[ShiroiHikari]

I thought atheists didn't believe there was a God at all. >_>

Seriously. If you're really an atheist, then technically you shouldn't believe that any kind of god exists. And if you don't believe that any gods exist, then why would you say that God is evil?

[Cognitive Gear]

Seriously. If you're really an atheist, then technically you shouldn't believe that any kind of god exists. And if you don't believe that any gods exist, then why would you say that God is evil?

The argument, as I've heard it, is that the "God of the Bible" is evil. Usually they cite events such as the flood (God killing thousands of innocent children) or the times where God commanded His people to kill a specific nation (genocide). Therefore, if God does not even follow His own stated moral principles, then God has contradicted Himself and the Bible cannot be true.

[Syreth]

Seriously. If you're really an atheist, then technically you shouldn't believe that any kind of god exists. And if you don't believe that any gods exist, then why would you say that God is evil?

No criticism of this sentiment intended when I say this, but in the hypothetical atheist's defense, saying "God is evil," is probably intended as a criticism to those who believe in God - not that the atheist believes that God is evil, therefore does not believe He exists.

In other words, "Why should I believe that your God exists? Your supposed God is too evil to exist."

[CrimsonRyu17]

If one wants to understand these view points then I'd recommend Richard Dawkin's Root of All Evil two episode documentary, which can be found on YouTube. Although I advise against forming an opinion without watching the entire thing, of course.

Personally, I would disagree that God himself probably is not evil. But when used in extreme fanaticism and as a tool to suppress those one does not agree with, then yes, that is evil.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

Nietzsche argues that their are three things an atheist cannot have-->order, morality, and meaning. His reasoning here is that all three things require a higher being to bring them about and maintain them. Since we're talking about morality, I'll focus on that and say that in order for it to exist it must come from an unchanging source. If it doesn't come from an unchanging source, then it reduces to coming from myself and morality that begins with me must logically and necessarily end with me. In the case of an atheist positing that God is evil, I would accuse them of using borrowed capital. The terms "good" and "evil" can only be used if you actually believe in a God since without them they are changing and therefore mean nothing. In other words, they can't even make the argument without contradicting their own beliefs. If it is an agnostic or some sort of deist/theist making this argument, I would point out that they've just argued there is something bigger than God (morality) which in turn means that that thing is God.

This is an excellent argument. It has application to the problem of evil/suffering as well.

I now will put in my own two cents:
----------------------------------
I have not heard before that God is evil. I think, rock, that you might be misconstruing the argument because I have heard the following line of reasoning: Religion is evil b/c look at all of the awful things people have done in the name of religion. The new atheists, especially Dawkins, trumpets this line of thought quite a lot, referring to the "monsters of the Middle Age" (that is, the people who committed atrocities during the Crusades). Of course, implicit in the conclusion of this argument is that religion is not based on any truth at all. So, not only is it untrue, but it's not even beautiful/useful b/c it leads to people doing bad, bad things. How does one respond to such an argument?

(1) Just as many, if not more, atrocities have occurred for the sake of secular reasons. Just ask one Joe Stalin. Or, I can point you in the direction of Kosovo circa 1998. Seriously, to claim that all of the worst events in human history have been motivated by religion is sloppy, irresponsible historical revisionism. Are women deemed evil/bad because of all the awful things men have done to one another over them? How about land? You get the idea.

(2) The argument is really a red herring. Earlier, I noted that the falsity of religion is an implicit assumption in "evil religion" arguments. But, in some cases it is the conclusion:Religion motivates atrocity->Religion is evil->Ergo, religion must be false. The fact that people have done terrible things in the name of God/gods has no bearing on whether or not a religion is true. The later is a different question altogether, and the answer to said question cannot be logically inferred from the behavior of adherents to a religion. An argument from the supposed evil of religion to its falsity seems to be dubious.

(3) The claim is not really an argument at all, just an appeal to emotion. This statement follows from (1) and (2). These kinds of "arguments" seem to me to be flimsily disguised appeals to emotion. "The crusades were pretty awful, huh? How about the Inquisition? Terrible! Religion is just so evil, so false."

The conclusion that religion is false b/c God doesn't exist or that religion is a societal evil need to be demonstrated by valid arguments rather than by emotional appeals.

[Peanut]

I have not heard before that God is evil. I think, rock, that you might be misconstruing the argument because I have heard the following line of reasoning: Religion is evil b/c look at all of the awful things people have done in the name of religion.

The only thinkers I can think of who make an argument like this are Sam Harris and maybe Christopher Hitchens. I haven't read any of Hitchens' yet so I can't comment on it besides that I've heard . Harris I know tries to make some sort of argument from the Problem of Evil and use it to prove that God doesn't exist. Dawkins I know shy's entirely away from this argument because, as he correctly points out, it really just argues against the existence of a good God and there are numerous ways around the dilemma/trilemma. Only once have I heard someone actually argue God is evil from it and, obviously, they were a theist...so, yeah, its a misconstruction of some argument...or multiple arguments.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Good man, Peanut!

Stemming from what some notable philosophers (Namely the existentialists) have already written on, objective and "true" morality cannot exist if God does not exist. To say that God is "evil" means there is a standard of morality which is separate from God. And morality cannot come from other sources, such as society, yourself, or whatever because you can easily deconstruct those variables to its logical conclusion that they have no essential, innate qualities. Basically, if something is socially constructed (like large people collectively decide that "this" is "this"), then it is innately arbitrary.

Nietzsche and Camus wrote accurate that if God did not exist, then there would be no morality. Dostoevsky writes that if God does not exist, then everything is permissible. The standards of holiness come from God. Therefore, hypothetically if God chose that murdering people would be holy, then murdering people would be holy. To say that if God is being unholy by letting murder become just is to say that there is a moral standard which precedes God.

This being the case, I think atheism is an irrational system. To state with certainty that "God certainly does not exist" is ignorant. You cannot prove a negation of an assertion. I cannot say that "Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist" because the fact of the matter is that they might exist somewhere! Likewise, I think to say that "God certainly does exist" is equally ignorant, because I don't believe that Christianity is a rational or logical philosophy. Therefore, I think agnosticism is more rational that atheism or theism/deism.

And furthermore, If you want smart and sensible atheism, read people like Nietzsche, Camus, Feuerbach, and even Marx. Stray away from the poison of people like Dawkins and Hitchens. They are all rhetoric and have a very weak grasp of philosophy of religion. Don't waste your time with contemporary atheists. Invest your time with the smart guys.

[Nate]

This is gonna be loooooooooooooooooooong.

And I'm playing Devil's Advocate. What fun! But first, a couple of points.

I have not heard before that God is evil. I think, rock, that you might be misconstruing the argument

No, many atheists/non-Christians that I know have said "I do not believe in God]Just as many, if not more, atrocities have occurred for the sake of secular reasons.[/QUOTE]
This is a faulty point. Many people have directly killed in the name of God. Nobody has ever killed in the name of not God. Stalin may have committed horrible atrocities, but he never said "I am killing these people in the name of atheism." He just happened to be atheist, which is incidental. People have, however, said "I am killing these people in the name of God."

Now, of course, the people who are perpetuating violence in the name of religion are not doing it for religious reasons usually. It is just an easy appeal to make, another way of separating "us" from "them." If religion did not exist, people would still find other ways of calling for violence. I can see Osama bin Laden attacking the US by just fanatical patriotism for his country, in other words, if he didn't have religious reasons to fall back on. But religion is the easiest, so he uses it.

So again, while atheists have committed atrocities, they never did it specifically for atheism. They did it for power, or fame, or wealth, or many other reasons. However, religious people have committed atrocities solely because of religion. That is the difference.

Nietzsche argues that their are three things an atheist cannot have-->order, morality, and meaning. His reasoning here is that all three things require a higher being to bring them about and maintain them.

This, however, is not true. There are many atheists with morality. Morality does not require a higher being to bring about morality or maintain it. Indeed, one can easily make a case for morality without God existing.

For example, take an ant. One ant, by itself, is not very likely to survive. However, by cooperating with other ants and forming a colony, the ants survivability increases greatly. Likewise, one human being by itself is quite unlikely to survive. However, by cooperating with other humans and forming a society, survivability increases greatly. And in order for the society to function, you must help the other ants/humans survive. In addition, you must all cooperate, meaning that killing other humans, taking their stuff, beating them, and so on, are not in the best interests of the survivability of the society.

Further, killing other humans would decrease the amount of potential mates and jeopardize reproduction and continued survival of the species. Thus, it is in our best interests to treat our fellow men fairly, to ensure society continues to flourish.

There are other arguments for morality that do not encompass a higher power (unless you believe ants are a higher power :p), but that's outside of the scope of this thread. I just wanted to give an example of how you can create morality without God being involved, based solely on nature.

Anyway! On to the next stuff!

The other reason God is called evil is because of Hell. Sadly, no Christian has yet to create a compelling argument to atheists about how God can be good and sentence people to eternal torment. We can create arguments that satisfy ourselves, but satisfying ourselves isn't very useful now is it?

The first problem when trying to deal with how God can send people to Hell without being evil is the problem of predestination vs. free will. Which is pretty hefty on its own, but you have two options. The first is, God picks and chooses beforehand who will be saved, and who will burn...predestination. How does God pick who will be saved? How can God say it is just to send a person to Hell if He explicitly says "I am making it so you will never believe the truth." If I train my cat to poop on the rug and tear up my furniture intentionally, how is it just for me to punish my cat for doing what I told it to do?

Free will has its problems too, namely, if we have free will, then does that mean we can thwart God's plans. "I don't want anyone to go to Hell," says God. But the person with free will says "I will choose to reject you, thus preventing you from achieving what you desire." Does that make the person more powerful than God, since the person is preventing God from obtaining what He wants? If not, then why would God refuse to try harder? If so, then why worship God, since He is clearly powerless? This is a very difficult question to answer.

And again, the atheist would say, if God really wanted nobody to go to Hell, and if He is omnipotent, why does He not just appear in the sky and say "Hey everyone I'm God and you all need to worship me now, okay? Before it's too late." To the atheist, the fact that God does not unquestionably and beyond doubt prove His existence means that God does not really want everyone to go to Heaven, thus, God wants to see people eternally tormented. That is evil.

Original sin is a problem too. Psalm 139:13 says "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." If God created us in our mothers' wombs, then how does original sin exist? If it is like a disease or virus that just naturally "infects" us, why does God choose not to rid us of it? There are two options, neither of which is pleasant. One, God does not want us to be sinless, because He wants to be able to send us to Hell (evil). Two, God is not able to make us sinless, because the sin is more powerful than He is (powerless).

Finally is the question that Universalists have decided to answer in a unique way. If Christ paid the price for sin on the cross, all sin, then why must we believe in God to be saved? Consider for a moment if I walked into a restaurant. I tell the owner "Calculate the price of everyone's meals, and I will pay you that amount. Everyone's meal is paid for...as long as they say I am a cool guy. If they do not, I will still pay you for their meal, but they will not be counted as having been paid for."

If all sin was defeated, then all sin is paid for. Universalists of course say that because of this, then, that it matters not if a person believes in Christ or not, because their sin has been defeated, and everyone is going to Heaven.

So the question is, if all sin has been paid for, why is it counted against us? In the restaurant example, if the total comes to 1500.45 and I pay that exact amount and leave, and one person says "He isn't a cool guy, he sucks!" and the manager honors my statement, then why does he still have to pay for his meal? I already paid it for him! Whether or not he says I'm cool, his meal has been covered. So why should he have to pay?

This analogy is falling apart. So I'll quickly leave to the other option: the only sins Christ defeated on the cross are the sins God personally chose to be paid for. In other words, God said "The sins for all these people are covered, but not these people." Which then falls into the predestination pitfalls of "If God purposely chooses to not save these people, how is He good?"

These are pretty heavy arguments, and again, I don't believe them. I'm playing Devil's Advocate. But these are the kinds of things that atheists might say if they brought it up. I don't expect anyone to be able to answer these questions on here...after all, predestination vs. free will is a really tough subject and it's been argued about for centuries...really don't think some random person on this forum is going to somehow solve it. XD But it's all really complicated, and here's the kicker. As I said, you might be able to construct an argument that everyone here on CAA would go "Well yeah, obviously that's true, yep." But that's because we already believe. It is much harder to give an answer to someone who does not believe, who wasn't raised like us, believes like us, and so on. That's why I said, we're really good at satisfying ourselves, but not people outside of Christianity.

And man. This is a long post.

[CrimsonRyu17]

And furthermore, If you want smart and sensible atheism, read people like Nietzsche, Camus, Feuerbach, and even Marx. Stray away from the poison of people like Dawkins and Hitchens. They are all rhetoric and have a very weak grasp of philosophy of religion. Don't waste your time with contemporary atheists. Invest your time with the smart guys.

Yeah okay, I'll totally listen to someone who sounds rather arrogant. Sure thing! Not.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Nate, while you are correct in saying atheists have a sense of morality, what Nietzche and Camus argue is that morality in atheism makes no sense. As socially or individually it may be, they would argue that those values are innately meaningless.

And crimmy, who are you referring to? Regardless, as arrogant as you may perceive them to be, don't discredit their work or their important influence to philosophy and Christianity.

[Nate]

Perpetuating the survival of your species is hardly innately meaningless.

[Atria35]

^ I agree with Nate on this one.

[Nate]

Regardless, as arrogant as you may perceive them to be, don't discredit their work or their important influence to philosophy and Christianity.

I will second what Ryan says here. It's a combination of appeal to emotion/ad hominem. Just because those people are arrogant doesn't mean they don't make good points. If I punch someone in the face and kick them in the stomach while yelling "THE SKY IS BLUE" it doesn't automatically make me wrong just because I'm acting badly and being a jerk/criminal.

Also, even if those people were wrong, their influence is still important. Freud is a good example of this. Freud was nuts and way wrong about almost everything he said. However, the things he said were still important and helped advance knowledge about psychiatry, even if he was totally wrong.

[CrimsonRyu17]

And crimmy, who are you referring to? Regardless, as arrogant as you may perceive them to be, don't discredit their work or their important influence to philosophy and Christianity.

-Facepalm-

I meant you. Calling someone who I look up to poison and that they're a waste of my time. If this is how you see them after listening to Nietzche and Camus then I want nothing to do with them. If you are going to insult someone or disagree with them, do so in your "Christianly" manner.

[Lynna]

Nate, about your bar analogy, what if someone in the bar said "I won't allow you to pay for me" and leaft the building?

[Nate]

Then they'd be arrested for eating and leaving without paying...despite the fact that I already paid for them.

That'd be pretty crazy, right?

[Peanut]

Sure, I'll go through the argument with you guys since...yeah, I don't think there is any way to get around the morality question.

The argument from evolution for morals doesn't really work when you sit down and look at it. The reason is that even within a social species like humans, there is still competition between the individuals, especially for mates. So, really, it's not just what's good for the species but what is good for me and the species. Which brings me to my next point...

Perpetuating the survival of your species is hardly innately meaningless.

So, why shouldn't I rape someone? By just the numbers, having more mates is better then having one mate and restraining mate selection to relationships is too time consuming. In fact, if I remember my history correctly, rape was the marriage ritual in ancient Sparta. You might say "well your hurting the person." Physically, not necessarily. Emotionally, yes but, when taken in the context of the greater species, should the emotions of one individual outweigh the survival of the entire species? I think not.

Finally, Crimmy...I can't believe I'm doing this but Ryan has a right to be smug when it comes to these atheists. Reading Dawkins, Harris, and some of Hitchens I've found arrogance, hatred, but not much else. They are terrible philosophers and I think its our right as Christians to demand better from atheists. Is it not "Christianly" to feel this way? Probably. But I have a hard time being Christian towards an individual who would try and drag Mother Teresa's legacy through the mud when she lived out their ethical system in a way that is clearly superior to how they are living it out. I'm sorry Ryan and I sound prideful and un-Christian, but that was honestly a line that I won't allow people to cross.

[Atria35]

^The thing is, when a woman is raped, the emotional trauma causes more issues concieving than in relationships when she isn't raped. Humans back then weren't stupid- they probably noticed this, which means that it made more sense to not rape their partners since they wanted more kids.

Thus came having harems and multiple wives.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Crimmy, I'm not discrediting their contributions to the sciences in any way. Dawkins is a fascinating and reputable biologist. I'm referring specifically to their contributions on philosophy of religion.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

^The thing is, when a woman is raped, the emotional trauma causes more issues concieving than in relationships when she isn't raped. Humans back then weren't stupid- they probably noticed this, which means that it made more sense to not rape their partners since they wanted more kids.

Thus came having harems and multiple wives.

What about a hypothetical society where raping young girls is a normal social practice? Thus morality must be contingent to social phenomenas. Therefore, relative.

[Peanut]

^The thing is, when a woman is raped, the emotional trauma causes more issues concieving than in relationships when she isn't raped. Humans back then weren't stupid- they probably noticed this, which means that it made more sense to not rape their partners since they wanted more kids.

Thus came having harems and multiple wives.

I wasn't clear before, but I'll try from just my memory to lay out what I'm saying. In Ancient Sparta they literally raped women to marry them. They would literally take a woman off the street, raper her, and then she would be married to that man. Though, again, my history on Ancient Sparta is very rusty. Your first point strikes me as being false unless you can back it up with data. In general, statistically sex fails more times then its succeeds. I don't think rape has anything to do with it. Plus, if I'm raping many women, I would still likely have more children then if I lived in a normal, monogamous relationship. We still do have children born as the result of rape so, statistics like this can always be overcome by just increasing the number of attempts.

Edit: Also, what Ryan says echo's what I remember about Ancient Sparta.