When you can define the concept of “evil” it will be dealt with more intelligently. For example, how can something be treated logically when it is not defined?
People refrain from defining terms on this topic. i was taught this was a no no in grad school. I am currently going through an old paper from a course on theory development that I found in a box in the basement. The first four pages are all definitions.
When, “evil” is defined, the problem of evil and God disappear. It becomes a non-sequitur. It always has been dead.
You're right to insist upon a clear definition of terms. That said, if you look into specific formulations of the problem, especially in the professional literature, you will find such definitions are typically provided. Because this video is simply a general overview, I didn't think it necessary to go beyond the broad understanding of evil as any negative state of affairs. Thanks!
I have been writing about the problem of evil for about 15 years. During that time i have never seen an operational definition that can be used in any logical argument.
I constantly ask for one. I get generalities such as the deprivation of good, immorality or pain and suffering. All fail when used in a logical argument because all are vague and relative.
I don’t argue that unwanted states don’t exist. They most certainly do. But there is no way to delineate one state from another and call one evil and the other not evil. I can list numerous things about my current situation that are unwanted but i would never refer to them as evil. Everything in this world is unwanted by someone at some time.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe someone will provide a clear definition for “evil.”
Well, I agree with you that many definitions offered are, in one way or other, inadequate. But for what it's worth, I think evil understood, metaphysically, as a privation (something missing that is otherwise due/would contribute to the perfection of the entity under consideration) actually is the correct analysis of evil, which ultimately affords evil the status of being a logical being (this does not deny/downplay the real, painful effects of evil in the world). David Oderberg has an entire book defending this thesis (Metaphysics of Good and Evil), which is exceptionally rigorous. Whether that understanding of evil can be used to run a successful argument against God is another question (I think it more sets up for a problem of failure, but whatever; same family of argument), but it's not like these deeper analyses are never undertaken.
The definition often provided for “evil” is deprivation of the good. This begs the question of just what “good” is. The “good” must be an absolute maximum of something or else it is less than optimal and thus, a deprivation.
Now as a Catholic, there is only one deprivation of consequence. That is separation from God for eternity. Every other deprivation is infinitesimal compared to that. Thus, hardly of any consequence. Thus, hardly something one should call evil!
The Christian God promises an infinite reward while the critics point to the deprivation of things that are next to nothing in comparison as an example of how non-good or evil this God is.
Observation: The supposed argument from evil is only aimed at the Christian God. It fails to work against a creator that is not the Christian God. The argument is against Christianity not for atheism. In the critics minds, Christianity is the enemy.
The critics’ argument also fails for other reasons. Namely, the deprivations of this world almost assuredly have a functional purpose. (One can argue quite easily that everything in this world is sub-optimal and thus a deprivation and thus evil). That is where the focus should be, the purpose of the deprivations.
So is Leibniz’s assessment that this is the best of all possible worlds correct? Is our world one of trade offs, that is one of perfect imperfects? How could it be anything less from one who could create the universe? Our world is from an entity that has the power to create this universe.
The critics always treat this creator as a dunce who couldn’t get it right. The critics believe they know better. (If only, He did it this way.) The focus should be on the purpose of the deprivations not that there are many (as said above, everything in this world is a deprivation.).
When you can define the concept of “evil” it will be dealt with more intelligently. For example, how can something be treated logically when it is not defined?
People refrain from defining terms on this topic. i was taught this was a no no in grad school. I am currently going through an old paper from a course on theory development that I found in a box in the basement. The first four pages are all definitions.
When, “evil” is defined, the problem of evil and God disappear. It becomes a non-sequitur. It always has been dead.
Hi Jerry,
You're right to insist upon a clear definition of terms. That said, if you look into specific formulations of the problem, especially in the professional literature, you will find such definitions are typically provided. Because this video is simply a general overview, I didn't think it necessary to go beyond the broad understanding of evil as any negative state of affairs. Thanks!
I have been writing about the problem of evil for about 15 years. During that time i have never seen an operational definition that can be used in any logical argument.
I constantly ask for one. I get generalities such as the deprivation of good, immorality or pain and suffering. All fail when used in a logical argument because all are vague and relative.
I don’t argue that unwanted states don’t exist. They most certainly do. But there is no way to delineate one state from another and call one evil and the other not evil. I can list numerous things about my current situation that are unwanted but i would never refer to them as evil. Everything in this world is unwanted by someone at some time.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe someone will provide a clear definition for “evil.”
Well, I agree with you that many definitions offered are, in one way or other, inadequate. But for what it's worth, I think evil understood, metaphysically, as a privation (something missing that is otherwise due/would contribute to the perfection of the entity under consideration) actually is the correct analysis of evil, which ultimately affords evil the status of being a logical being (this does not deny/downplay the real, painful effects of evil in the world). David Oderberg has an entire book defending this thesis (Metaphysics of Good and Evil), which is exceptionally rigorous. Whether that understanding of evil can be used to run a successful argument against God is another question (I think it more sets up for a problem of failure, but whatever; same family of argument), but it's not like these deeper analyses are never undertaken.
The definition often provided for “evil” is deprivation of the good. This begs the question of just what “good” is. The “good” must be an absolute maximum of something or else it is less than optimal and thus, a deprivation.
Now as a Catholic, there is only one deprivation of consequence. That is separation from God for eternity. Every other deprivation is infinitesimal compared to that. Thus, hardly of any consequence. Thus, hardly something one should call evil!
The Christian God promises an infinite reward while the critics point to the deprivation of things that are next to nothing in comparison as an example of how non-good or evil this God is.
Observation: The supposed argument from evil is only aimed at the Christian God. It fails to work against a creator that is not the Christian God. The argument is against Christianity not for atheism. In the critics minds, Christianity is the enemy.
The critics’ argument also fails for other reasons. Namely, the deprivations of this world almost assuredly have a functional purpose. (One can argue quite easily that everything in this world is sub-optimal and thus a deprivation and thus evil). That is where the focus should be, the purpose of the deprivations.
So is Leibniz’s assessment that this is the best of all possible worlds correct? Is our world one of trade offs, that is one of perfect imperfects? How could it be anything less from one who could create the universe? Our world is from an entity that has the power to create this universe.
The critics always treat this creator as a dunce who couldn’t get it right. The critics believe they know better. (If only, He did it this way.) The focus should be on the purpose of the deprivations not that there are many (as said above, everything in this world is a deprivation.).