Adam Deen is an international public speaker on Muslim Apologetics.
A former Islam channel presenter who has been working in the field of Muslim apologetics for almost a decade. He has contributed to debates on issues ranging from religious philosophy and theology. His work draws on contemporary philosophy to defend Islam in debates. He has regularly appeared on mainstream TV.
'If God did cause people to choose Good over Evil, then they would no longer be free, since the concept of free will then loses its meaning.' I like this, because I always had this explanation in the back of my mind.
anon Why did God create human beings with the intelligence and ability to use free-will?---because we are held accountable for the use of our free-will at Judgement. ---That (accountability)is the whole purpose for us being on earth in the first place. We determine our destiny both in this life and the next and are solely responsible.
We have the free will to do bad things. But if we do those bad things, he roasts us alive of eternity. So, by free will, you mean he allows us to choose serving him or getting barbecued for simply not believing. God only gave us free will to see if we would use it rather than live in fear of him, and if we choose not to fear him, he fries us. Hence he is malevolent. I am free under God as I am free under Stalin. I'm free to question his authority, but I'll in fact be shot. What's more sadistic is that he gave us the free will which would lead our loved ones to be raped and the rapists to be burned. He is cruel and sadistic Does this explanation satisfy you?
God vs. Science 'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely. '
'Is God good?' 'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says.
'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir...'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not..'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes' 'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '
' Yes.
'And is there such a thing as cold?' 'Yes, son, there's cold too.' 'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit d own to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor.. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God.. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." - Albert Einstein
Einstein was a pantheist, i.e. he believed that GOD was a metaphor of sorts for the natural laws of the universe.
The above story has been bandied about by religious people and has been made up completely. It never happened, to Einstein or anyone. It's really hard for a religious person to have a witty, concise victory over an atheist these days, considering the safe position of making no claims on the universe and following evidence
If the professor really existed,the professor would explain that good and evil are not always necessary, unlike a temperature. (he might also explain that cold and hot are words to describe the scientific temperature) Most of us lead morally neutral lives, doing nothing particularly good or bad. Personal choice is the key factor. So comparing something like temperature(no choice, just molecules) to evil deeds (conscious decision to hurt someone, not doubt God) is beyond wrong. 'Evil' is not the absence of good, sometimes people do evil things believing it to be a means to an end, right? And since God refuses to stop these things with his supernatural powers just so he can give us free will, he actually is a malevolent God. You get it? This critique of the Epicurean problem of evil hinges on free will, which if he gave us is only a way to get fried by refusing him. The argument 'but then religious people wouldn't be moral, they'd just be forced into it' is doubly erroneous 1) If they never knew about evil, they wouldn't be forced into anything 2) The idea of Hell means that even with free will, people are coerced by Angelic Brute Force God giving us free will is like a cow giving a butcher his knife. He brought about his own death. Would you do that if you were a supernatural being?
Very simply: life is a test. Yet we were never prepared. We didn't revise before we live our lives.
It can be said that freewill is such an ambivalant concept. Our test is to come to know our freewill; perhaps to see whether we use it properly or abuse it. But the problem is, is what resourses are we using?
I think there are two: the heart and the brain. Of course I think a balance of the two is what's considered most favourable. Scientists seem to consider using thier brains and somehow see it as superior. But as I recall a scholar once said that in the Quran it is the heart that is most emphasised.
Although we are very intelligent there comes a point where we have to question our intelligence (via brain). For example Spinoza takes the view that the very act of understanding information is believing it. Does that mean if we don't understand something we don't believe in it?
Like a child who doesn't come to understand things untill they're older i think a heart doesn't come to understand things untill faith grows stronger. Thus it is possible to believe without understanding, without knowing. I don't think it's called ignorence or blind faith, I think it's called being human. To doubt is to be human, to believe in God is to become a better human.
Adam - The biggest challenge to theism - and by this I mean Abrahamic theism, as I assume you do, too - isn't the problem of evil. Its the metaphysical nonsense involved in the belief in a deity.
And, of course, even if you do believe in a deity, there's nothing that says that that deity has to be good or omnipotent. It's possible that god's a bastard or an imbecile. But he isn't, because - well - he doesn't exist.
But that aside: let's just stick with the free-will defence for a moment. It's not clear at all why free will should be so important as to warrant evil; is Hitler's freedom so precious that it costs the lives of almost 8 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and mentally ill people? That seems unlikely. Moreover, it's not clear that free will necessitates evil having an effect on others. Presumably, god could engineer the world in such a way as to allow evil people to believe that they were doing their evil stuff, without it actually having any impact on anyone else. Freedom would be preserved, but the harm would vanish. God doesn't seem to do that, though: if someone punches me, it hurts. I think god has missed a trick here.
Besides: as you admit, the inability to do impossible things is not a curb on freedom. So god could, presumably, have made a world in which there was no possibility of evil without thereby curbing our freedom.
But I can't get around this question of why free will is supposed to be so important, though. It's not at all clear that god had any reason to create that (again, I'm still allowing that, for the sake of the argument) except as an excuse to condemn people for misusing it. Nothing would be lost without it, after all.
So once again, god seems to be a bit on the unpleasant side.
Your arguments don't really solve any problems; indeed, they've been painfully obviously flawed since they were first mooted in the middle ages.
The metaphysical nonsense involved with belief in the Abrahamic concept of God? You'll have to enlighten me as to what sort of nonsense you are alluding to.
As for the rest of your interesting points, I have this to say:
Firstly, personally, I'm not the greatest fan of the Free-will defense myself, however, it has its merits. Plenty of Atheists have this notion that an Abrahamic god (usually subconsciously conceiving of an anthropomorphic entity) would entail a capricious, manipulative universe. That is to say, His nature is manipulative and can change. This ignores the essential concept of God's absoluteness, which is even mentioned in Surah Al-Iklas. What does this all entail? It means that the universe has a definite nature, and follows specific and definite laws. Humans have consciousness, and self-awareness, and therefore they are able to actively make decisions. Since they can make decisions, some will commit actions which are not in line with the standard of morality held by others.
You could argue: well, such a universe (as I outlined above) is more likely to follow a mechanical system, as opposed to a conscious one (i.e. a Reality where a conscious God governs all), as a conscious God who is apparently "good" would not permit such evil actions. I'll get to this point in a bit, but first, let's investigate the very premise of the argument used - evil objectively exists. Its incredibly difficult if not impossible, to see how evil can objectively even exist in the absence of an absolute moral paradigm such as God. Instead, you merely have subjective notions as to how the world should function through our actions. In fact, at best you could argue that how we perceive what is "right" and "wrong" is a mere evolutionary by-product, in which case our self-interest and survival is the most important goal. However, even this position presumes that this evolutionary model should somehow be the standard. How is this objectively true? It isn't, it's merely a subjective notion rooted within the human mind due to how humans physiologically and psychologically function.
You can propose the Euthyphro dilemma here, to respond to the notion that objective morality cannot exist without God, however, I won't present my response, unless you do so. Now, you raise an interesting point: why shouldn't a personal, moral God limit the choices of absolutely evil individuals such as Hitler? In order to answer this question, one must consider what the free-will defense presumes: our freedom of choice (a better term) has some sort of spiritual value, which entails a more complete universe. Otherwise, in the Qur'an, Allah would not have responded with "I know, what you know not" to the angels who questioned His purpose behind creating beings who would cause much bloodshed.
"And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth." They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks (Exalted be You above all that they associate with You as partners) and sanctify You." He (Allah) said: "I know that which you do not know." (2:30 - Qur'an)
You could argue: well, such a universe (as I outlined above) is more likely to follow a mechanical system, as opposed to a conscious one (i.e. a Reality where a conscious God governs all), as a conscious God who is apparently "good" would not permit such evil actions. I'll get to this point in a bit, but first, let's investigate the very premise of the argument used - evil objectively exists. Its incredibly difficult if not impossible, to see how evil can objectively even exist in the absence of an absolute moral paradigm such as God. Instead, you merely have subjective notions as to how the world should function through our actions. In fact, at best you could argue that how we perceive what is "right" and "wrong" is a mere evolutionary by-product, in which case our self-interest and survival is the most important goal. However, even this position presumes that this evolutionary model should somehow be the standard. How is this objectively true? It isn't, it's merely a subjective notion rooted within the human mind due to how humans physiologically and psychologically function.
You can propose the Euthyphro dilemma here, to respond to the notion that objective morality cannot exist without God, however, I won't present my response, unless you do so. Now, you raise an interesting point: why shouldn't a personal, moral God limit the choices of absolutely evil individuals such as Hitler? In order to answer this question, one must consider what the free-will defense presumes: our freedom of choice (a better term) has some sort of spiritual value, which entails a more complete universe. Otherwise, in the Qur'an, Allah would not have responded with "I know, what you know not" to the angels who questioned His purpose behind creating beings who would cause much bloodshed.
"And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth." They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks (Exalted be You above all that they associate with You as partners) and sanctify You." He (Allah) said: "I know that which you do not know." (2:30 - Qur'an)
Allah could have simply limited His creation of spiritual entities to angels who lack the freedom of choice we have been granted. In Islam, Muslims believe that Allah is perfect, and perfection requires completion (i.e. being free of any needs, or requiring any improvements or additions). So, obviously, God being complete, and the standard of perfection, entails that completion is "better" than the lack thereof. God is also purposeful and meaningful (attributes which are part of His nature which is perfect and complete, and thus those attributes are embodied by God's perfection and completion). Thus, it makes more sense that a complete God would entail a complete and meaningful system as it reflects His nature (i.e. who and what He is) more so than a mechanical system (I'll define this in a bit).
A universe in which spiritual entities are "free" to make decisions is a system in which their will be problems such as poverty and economic corruption, pain and suffering, depression and so forth: all of which are struggles. By the same token, it will entail values such as love and friendship, purpose, ambition, bravery, heroism and self-sacrifice, virtue, and spiritual growth (along with the physical growth you'd expect in a purely mechanical universe). Now consider this, what exactly is good and evil? Can they exist without one another? Let's reflect upon this. Good is a concept which we can define and understand because we experience its absence, and the same is true for evil. Without the absence of good (i.e. evil or vise versa) humans would be limited to a neutral state which you could hardly define as good or evil. They would have no understanding of such a state, which relates to my reference to a mechanical system (very robotic like, no personal qualities).
Such a mechanical system is incomplete as it lacks spiritual purpose you'd expect a spiritual God (the standard of all completion) to program it with. It lacks the concepts and values I mentioned such as bravery, heroism, love and virtue. At best, humans could be described as happy robots. I suggest you read the novel by Aldous Huxley - Brave New World (I read it last year in 11th grade English, excellent book), in which the human experience is the center of all meaning and purpose. And thus, human happiness is the sole reason for existing. The means to it is by eliminating any concept of the "absence of happiness". As a result, humans resemble immature infants, with mechanical chemical responses to drugs which produce artificial effects (i.e. the "feeling" pleasure and joy).
Such a mechanical universe is an incomplete process. Many Atheists who use the argument from evil seem to suggest that they'd like a universe in which humans actually were happy robots, all holding hands and running around in large circles for the rest of eternity, lacking any capability to truly understand (i.e. intellect, intuitive abilities, reasoning etc. - values Atheists are supposed to cherish[?]) their experiences. Even on a day to day basis, our innate selves value a complete process more so than an incomplete one. Take a movie for instance: how many individuals would pay to see only the ending of a movie - the final state of affairs. We have this internal desire to understand the process.
This is why freedom of choice is important. It leads to this grand struggle in which humans are placed within a purposeful and meaningful spiritual test where their will be problems, but by the same token - solutions. There will be pain and suffering, and the liberation of those who endure pain and suffering. There will be happiness, because their is sadness. Their will be good because there is evil. If you consider the goods entailed by the presence of "evil" and the goods a believer will receive in the afterlife, together, you have a far more complete set of goods. In actuality, no sincere believer is in any real danger - as the suffering in this world is merely temporary.
Another way to look at it: the suffering in this world and the virtues and wholesome pleasures of this world are indicators of the punishments of hellfire, and the bliss of Paradise.
Thus, God does not "limit" the choices of individuals such as Hitler (in the way you wish He would have). Rather His will entails a system in which humans must grow spiritually (or destroy themselves spiritually). A system in which He limits the choices of "Hitlers" through virtuous humans. This kind of a system is more meaningful and complete then one devoid of any purpose, in which we are happy robots. Our sole purpose of existence is not to entertain ourselves within this enormous playground (because it truly is not one - it is a purposeful test with significant results). Our purpose of existence is to worship God, and to know Him. We cannot come to know (to a human extent) that which is true by experiencing a mechanical system. This is the essence of Islam - to submit and accept that which is true, and God is the Ultimate Truth.
Thus, God does not "limit" the choices of individuals such as Hitler (in the way you wish He would have). Rather His will entails a system in which humans must grow spiritually (or destroy themselves spiritually). A system in which He limits the choices of "Hitlers" through virtuous humans. This kind of a system is more meaningful and complete then one devoid of any purpose, in which we are happy robots. Our sole purpose of existence is not to entertain ourselves within this enormous playground (because it truly is not one - it is a purposeful test with significant results). Our purpose of existence is to worship God, and to know Him. We cannot come to know (to a human extent) that which is true by experiencing a mechanical system. This is the essence of Islam - to submit and accept that which is true, and God is the Ultimate Truth.
This is why placing humans under the impression that they are "free" when in reality they are not, is flawed. It produces a similar effect as the mechanical, purposeless system. It reminds me of Brave New World, in which individuals intake a drug called 'soma' which produces similar illusory effects (i.e. thinking you're doing something, when you are not). This defies the value of that which is true - acknowledging it, and living by it. In fact, humans who think they are free, are only free subjectively. The main problem with your suggestion is related to how it would conflict with a complete system.
I understand that you are suggesting that humans could believe they are committing evil deeds (and be judged for what they THINK they are doing), while innocent people are free of harm. However, again, I must refer you back to my argument relating the limitations of a mechanical system, and its incompatibility with God's nature.
So, the free-will defense has its merits, however, only when its premises are explored (i.e. why "choice" has value). As I stated before, God did not want to recreate angels. He willed for humans - spiritual beings capable of achieving a higher level of understanding and deeper levels of experience (because of their dynamic experiences, and consciousness + self-awareness) to exist. So in fact, much would be lost if "free choice" was eliminated. In case you still haven't realized what that would be:
A complete, and purposeful system (and by this, I am not merely referring to THIS universe, I am referring to both this universe and the afterlife - together a system vs. just creating us in a mechanical world devoid of purpose).
And to brother Adam, I apologize for the verbosity, I simply had to express my views on this matter. Thank you and Salaam!
"The biggest challenge to theism [...] is the metaphysical nonsense involved in the belief in a deity."
Explain what metaphysical impossibility. The fact that you think so doesn't make it true. If we bear in mind that the universe -which is the sum of all matter- started in the Big Bang, where time and space began, I believe that to assume that an intelligent creator is the cause is more than logical; the cause of matter must be beyond it.
"And, of course, even if you do believe in a deity, there's nothing that says that that deity has to be good or omnipotent."
Good point. You see, in the same way a painting, for examples, reflects the caracteristics and attributes of its author, the universe must by necessity show the attributes of its creator. The Qur'an -that book which Muslims accept as the Speech of the Creator, and I guess for you is an old arab falacious book- uses this type of rational deduccion for you to ponder over it. It usually explains wonders of the design in the heavens, and also in the earth, and the passage ends by mentioning God's relates attributes. For example, when God mentions the usage we may find in cattle, or in the stars which let us be guided thru the ocean at night, he ends the passage by adding "Your Sustainer is Gracious", or when he talks about human's capacity of choosing between right and wrong, he ends up by mentioning His justice -meaning, the fact that you'll be judged for what you choose. Therefore, a part from revelation, a little bit of pondering will let you know sopme of his attributes. Would you assume by looking at the vstness of the universe and its intricate design that the creator of it is imbecile? I recommend u to ponder and think, and not just say what you believe.
"It's not clear at all why free will should be so important as to warrant evil; is Hitler's freedom so precious that it costs the lives of almost 8 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and mentally ill people? That seems unlikely."
Hitler's freedom is as precious as anyone else's freedom. If We assume that God is just, the matter didn't end with Hitler victorious, but he will be humiliated.
Apologies this article has now moved to the new site. click here to read.
18 comments:
'If God did cause people to choose Good over Evil, then they would no longer be free, since the concept of free will then loses its meaning.' I like this, because I always had this explanation in the back of my mind.
anon
Why did God create human beings with the intelligence and ability to use free-will?---because we are held accountable for the use of our free-will at Judgement. ---That (accountability)is the whole purpose for us being on earth in the first place. We determine our destiny both in this life and the next and are solely responsible.
We have the free will to do bad things. But if we do those bad things, he roasts us alive of eternity. So, by free will, you mean he allows us to choose serving him or getting barbecued for simply not believing. God only gave us free will to see if we would use it rather than live in fear of him, and if we choose not to fear him, he fries us. Hence he is malevolent. I am free under God as I am free under Stalin. I'm free to question his authority, but I'll in fact be shot. What's more sadistic is that he gave us the free will which would lead our loved ones to be raped and the rapists to be burned. He is cruel and sadistic Does this explanation satisfy you?
God vs. Science
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely. '
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says.
'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir...'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not..'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '
' Yes.
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit d own to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor.. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God.. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
PS: the student was Albert Einstein!
www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." - Albert Einstein
Einstein was a pantheist, i.e. he believed that GOD was a metaphor of sorts for the natural laws of the universe.
The above story has been bandied about by religious people and has been made up completely. It never happened, to Einstein or anyone. It's really hard for a religious person to have a witty, concise victory over an atheist these days, considering the safe position of making no claims on the universe and following evidence
If the professor really existed,the professor would explain that good and evil are not always necessary, unlike a temperature. (he might also explain that cold and hot are words to describe the scientific temperature) Most of us lead morally neutral lives, doing nothing particularly good or bad. Personal choice is the key factor. So comparing something like temperature(no choice, just molecules) to evil deeds (conscious decision to hurt someone, not doubt God) is beyond wrong. 'Evil' is not the absence of good, sometimes people do evil things believing it to be a means to an end, right? And since God refuses to stop these things with his supernatural powers just so he can give us free will, he actually is a malevolent God. You get it? This critique of the Epicurean problem of evil hinges on free will, which if he gave us is only a way to get fried by refusing him. The argument 'but then religious people wouldn't be moral, they'd just be forced into it' is doubly erroneous
1) If they never knew about evil, they wouldn't be forced into anything
2) The idea of Hell means that even with free will, people are coerced by Angelic Brute Force
God giving us free will is like a cow giving a butcher his knife. He brought about his own death. Would you do that if you were a supernatural being?
Very simply: life is a test. Yet we were never prepared. We didn't revise before we live our lives.
It can be said that freewill is such an ambivalant concept. Our test is to come to know our freewill; perhaps to see whether we use it properly or abuse it. But the problem is, is what resourses are we using?
I think there are two: the heart and the brain. Of course I think a balance of the two is what's considered most favourable. Scientists seem to consider using thier brains and somehow see it as superior. But as I recall a scholar once said that in the Quran it is the heart that is most emphasised.
Although we are very intelligent there comes a point where we have to question our intelligence (via brain). For example Spinoza takes the view that the very act of understanding information is believing it. Does that mean if we don't understand something we don't believe in it?
Like a child who doesn't come to understand things untill they're older i think a heart doesn't come to understand things untill faith grows stronger. Thus it is possible to believe without understanding, without knowing. I don't think it's called ignorence or blind faith, I think it's called being human. To doubt is to be human, to believe in God is to become a better human.
Adam -
The biggest challenge to theism - and by this I mean Abrahamic theism, as I assume you do, too - isn't the problem of evil. Its the metaphysical nonsense involved in the belief in a deity.
And, of course, even if you do believe in a deity, there's nothing that says that that deity has to be good or omnipotent. It's possible that god's a bastard or an imbecile. But he isn't, because - well - he doesn't exist.
But that aside: let's just stick with the free-will defence for a moment. It's not clear at all why free will should be so important as to warrant evil; is Hitler's freedom so precious that it costs the lives of almost 8 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and mentally ill people? That seems unlikely. Moreover, it's not clear that free will necessitates evil having an effect on others. Presumably, god could engineer the world in such a way as to allow evil people to believe that they were doing their evil stuff, without it actually having any impact on anyone else. Freedom would be preserved, but the harm would vanish. God doesn't seem to do that, though: if someone punches me, it hurts. I think god has missed a trick here.
Besides: as you admit, the inability to do impossible things is not a curb on freedom. So god could, presumably, have made a world in which there was no possibility of evil without thereby curbing our freedom.
But I can't get around this question of why free will is supposed to be so important, though. It's not at all clear that god had any reason to create that (again, I'm still allowing that, for the sake of the argument) except as an excuse to condemn people for misusing it. Nothing would be lost without it, after all.
So once again, god seems to be a bit on the unpleasant side.
Your arguments don't really solve any problems; indeed, they've been painfully obviously flawed since they were first mooted in the middle ages.
In response to Enzyme:
The metaphysical nonsense involved with belief in the Abrahamic concept of God? You'll have to enlighten me as to what sort of nonsense you are alluding to.
As for the rest of your interesting points, I have this to say:
Firstly, personally, I'm not the greatest fan of the Free-will defense myself, however, it has its merits. Plenty of Atheists have this notion that an Abrahamic god (usually subconsciously conceiving of an anthropomorphic entity) would entail a capricious, manipulative universe. That is to say, His nature is manipulative and can change. This ignores the essential concept of God's absoluteness, which is even mentioned in Surah Al-Iklas. What does this all entail? It means that the universe has a definite nature, and follows specific and definite laws. Humans have consciousness, and self-awareness, and therefore they are able to actively make decisions. Since they can make decisions, some will commit actions which are not in line with the standard of morality held by others.
You could argue: well, such a universe (as I outlined above) is more likely to follow a mechanical system, as opposed to a conscious one (i.e. a Reality where a conscious God governs all), as a conscious God who is apparently "good" would not permit such evil actions. I'll get to this point in a bit, but first, let's investigate the very premise of the argument used - evil objectively exists. Its incredibly difficult if not impossible, to see how evil can objectively even exist in the absence of an absolute moral paradigm such as God. Instead, you merely have subjective notions as to how the world should function through our actions. In fact, at best you could argue that how we perceive what is "right" and "wrong" is a mere evolutionary by-product, in which case our self-interest and survival is the most important goal. However, even this position presumes that this evolutionary model should somehow be the standard. How is this objectively true? It isn't, it's merely a subjective notion rooted within the human mind due to how humans physiologically and psychologically function.
You can propose the Euthyphro dilemma here, to respond to the notion that objective morality cannot exist without God, however, I won't present my response, unless you do so. Now, you raise an interesting point: why shouldn't a personal, moral God limit the choices of absolutely evil individuals such as Hitler? In order to answer this question, one must consider what the free-will defense presumes: our freedom of choice (a better term) has some sort of spiritual value, which entails a more complete universe. Otherwise, in the Qur'an, Allah would not have responded with "I know, what you know not" to the angels who questioned His purpose behind creating beings who would cause much bloodshed.
"And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth." They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks (Exalted be You above all that they associate with You as partners) and sanctify You." He (Allah) said: "I know that which you do not know." (2:30 - Qur'an)
You could argue: well, such a universe (as I outlined above) is more likely to follow a mechanical system, as opposed to a conscious one (i.e. a Reality where a conscious God governs all), as a conscious God who is apparently "good" would not permit such evil actions. I'll get to this point in a bit, but first, let's investigate the very premise of the argument used - evil objectively exists. Its incredibly difficult if not impossible, to see how evil can objectively even exist in the absence of an absolute moral paradigm such as God. Instead, you merely have subjective notions as to how the world should function through our actions. In fact, at best you could argue that how we perceive what is "right" and "wrong" is a mere evolutionary by-product, in which case our self-interest and survival is the most important goal. However, even this position presumes that this evolutionary model should somehow be the standard. How is this objectively true? It isn't, it's merely a subjective notion rooted within the human mind due to how humans physiologically and psychologically function.
You can propose the Euthyphro dilemma here, to respond to the notion that objective morality cannot exist without God, however, I won't present my response, unless you do so. Now, you raise an interesting point: why shouldn't a personal, moral God limit the choices of absolutely evil individuals such as Hitler? In order to answer this question, one must consider what the free-will defense presumes: our freedom of choice (a better term) has some sort of spiritual value, which entails a more complete universe. Otherwise, in the Qur'an, Allah would not have responded with "I know, what you know not" to the angels who questioned His purpose behind creating beings who would cause much bloodshed.
"And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth." They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks (Exalted be You above all that they associate with You as partners) and sanctify You." He (Allah) said: "I know that which you do not know." (2:30 - Qur'an)
Allah could have simply limited His creation of spiritual entities to angels who lack the freedom of choice we have been granted. In Islam, Muslims believe that Allah is perfect, and perfection requires completion (i.e. being free of any needs, or requiring any improvements or additions). So, obviously, God being complete, and the standard of perfection, entails that completion is "better" than the lack thereof. God is also purposeful and meaningful (attributes which are part of His nature which is perfect and complete, and thus those attributes are embodied by God's perfection and completion). Thus, it makes more sense that a complete God would entail a complete and meaningful system as it reflects His nature (i.e. who and what He is) more so than a mechanical system (I'll define this in a bit).
A universe in which spiritual entities are "free" to make decisions is a system in which their will be problems such as poverty and economic corruption, pain and suffering, depression and so forth: all of which are struggles. By the same token, it will entail values such as love and friendship, purpose, ambition, bravery, heroism and self-sacrifice, virtue, and spiritual growth (along with the physical growth you'd expect in a purely mechanical universe). Now consider this, what exactly is good and evil? Can they exist without one another? Let's reflect upon this. Good is a concept which we can define and understand because we experience its absence, and the same is true for evil. Without the absence of good (i.e. evil or vise versa) humans would be limited to a neutral state which you could hardly define as good or evil. They would have no understanding of such a state, which relates to my reference to a mechanical system (very robotic like, no personal qualities).
Such a mechanical system is incomplete as it lacks spiritual purpose you'd expect a spiritual God (the standard of all completion) to program it with. It lacks the concepts and values I mentioned such as bravery, heroism, love and virtue. At best, humans could be described as happy robots. I suggest you read the novel by Aldous Huxley - Brave New World (I read it last year in 11th grade English, excellent book), in which the human experience is the center of all meaning and purpose. And thus, human happiness is the sole reason for existing. The means to it is by eliminating any concept of the "absence of happiness". As a result, humans resemble immature infants, with mechanical chemical responses to drugs which produce artificial effects (i.e. the "feeling" pleasure and joy).
Such a mechanical universe is an incomplete process. Many Atheists who use the argument from evil seem to suggest that they'd like a universe in which humans actually were happy robots, all holding hands and running around in large circles for the rest of eternity, lacking any capability to truly understand (i.e. intellect, intuitive abilities, reasoning etc. - values Atheists are supposed to cherish[?]) their experiences. Even on a day to day basis, our innate selves value a complete process more so than an incomplete one. Take a movie for instance: how many individuals would pay to see only the ending of a movie - the final state of affairs. We have this internal desire to understand the process.
This is why freedom of choice is important. It leads to this grand struggle in which humans are placed within a purposeful and meaningful spiritual test where their will be problems, but by the same token - solutions. There will be pain and suffering, and the liberation of those who endure pain and suffering. There will be happiness, because their is sadness. Their will be good because there is evil. If you consider the goods entailed by the presence of "evil" and the goods a believer will receive in the afterlife, together, you have a far more complete set of goods. In actuality, no sincere believer is in any real danger - as the suffering in this world is merely temporary.
Another way to look at it: the suffering in this world and the virtues and wholesome pleasures of this world are indicators of the punishments of hellfire, and the bliss of Paradise.
Thus, God does not "limit" the choices of individuals such as Hitler (in the way you wish He would have). Rather His will entails a system in which humans must grow spiritually (or destroy themselves spiritually). A system in which He limits the choices of "Hitlers" through virtuous humans. This kind of a system is more meaningful and complete then one devoid of any purpose, in which we are happy robots. Our sole purpose of existence is not to entertain ourselves within this enormous playground (because it truly is not one - it is a purposeful test with significant results). Our purpose of existence is to worship God, and to know Him. We cannot come to know (to a human extent) that which is true by experiencing a mechanical system. This is the essence of Islam - to submit and accept that which is true, and God is the Ultimate Truth.
Thus, God does not "limit" the choices of individuals such as Hitler (in the way you wish He would have). Rather His will entails a system in which humans must grow spiritually (or destroy themselves spiritually). A system in which He limits the choices of "Hitlers" through virtuous humans. This kind of a system is more meaningful and complete then one devoid of any purpose, in which we are happy robots. Our sole purpose of existence is not to entertain ourselves within this enormous playground (because it truly is not one - it is a purposeful test with significant results). Our purpose of existence is to worship God, and to know Him. We cannot come to know (to a human extent) that which is true by experiencing a mechanical system. This is the essence of Islam - to submit and accept that which is true, and God is the Ultimate Truth.
This is why placing humans under the impression that they are "free" when in reality they are not, is flawed. It produces a similar effect as the mechanical, purposeless system. It reminds me of Brave New World, in which individuals intake a drug called 'soma' which produces similar illusory effects (i.e. thinking you're doing something, when you are not). This defies the value of that which is true - acknowledging it, and living by it. In fact, humans who think they are free, are only free subjectively. The main problem with your suggestion is related to how it would conflict with a complete system.
I understand that you are suggesting that humans could believe they are committing evil deeds (and be judged for what they THINK they are doing), while innocent people are free of harm. However, again, I must refer you back to my argument relating the limitations of a mechanical system, and its incompatibility with God's nature.
So, the free-will defense has its merits, however, only when its premises are explored (i.e. why "choice" has value). As I stated before, God did not want to recreate angels. He willed for humans - spiritual beings capable of achieving a higher level of understanding and deeper levels of experience (because of their dynamic experiences, and consciousness + self-awareness) to exist. So in fact, much would be lost if "free choice" was eliminated. In case you still haven't realized what that would be:
A complete, and purposeful system (and by this, I am not merely referring to THIS universe, I am referring to both this universe and the afterlife - together a system vs. just creating us in a mechanical world devoid of purpose).
And to brother Adam, I apologize for the verbosity, I simply had to express my views on this matter. Thank you and Salaam!
Reply to Mr. Enzyne
"The biggest challenge to theism [...] is the metaphysical nonsense involved in the belief in a deity."
Explain what metaphysical impossibility. The fact that you think so doesn't make it true. If we bear in mind that the universe -which is the sum of all matter- started in the Big Bang, where time and space began, I believe that to assume that an intelligent creator is the cause is more than logical; the cause of matter must be beyond it.
"And, of course, even if you do believe in a deity, there's nothing that says that that deity has to be good or omnipotent."
Good point. You see, in the same way a painting, for examples, reflects the caracteristics and attributes of its author, the universe must by necessity show the attributes of its creator. The Qur'an -that book which Muslims accept as the Speech of the Creator, and I guess for you is an old arab falacious book- uses this type of rational deduccion for you to ponder over it. It usually explains wonders of the design in the heavens, and also in the earth, and the passage ends by mentioning God's relates attributes. For example, when God mentions the usage we may find in cattle, or in the stars which let us be guided thru the ocean at night, he ends the passage by adding "Your Sustainer is Gracious", or when he talks about human's capacity of choosing between right and wrong, he ends up by mentioning His justice -meaning, the fact that you'll be judged for what you choose. Therefore, a part from revelation, a little bit of pondering will let you know sopme of his attributes. Would you assume by looking at the vstness of the universe and its intricate design that the creator of it is imbecile? I recommend u to ponder and think, and not just say what you believe.
"It's not clear at all why free will should be so important as to warrant evil; is Hitler's freedom so precious that it costs the lives of almost 8 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and mentally ill people? That seems unlikely."
Hitler's freedom is as precious as anyone else's freedom. If We assume that God is just, the matter didn't end with Hitler victorious, but he will be humiliated.
Post a Comment