Evil is a perfectly straightforward concept. It may have many definitions but it's easy to conceive of one, e.g.: willingly making others suffer unjustly.
The concept of evil is quite different from what is being argued in the source material. There, we are questioning whether the environment created by a proposed god systematically leads to situations that indicates that the creator is not benign.
It's pretty simple. If you have no choice but to commit murder because your fate is predetermined, the court is also predestined to put you in jail.
I’m not sure I understand the contradiction there. Are you saying that a court doesn’t care enough about any mental disorder which may have led one to commit a crime to completely absolve them? That’s does indeed seem to be the case in many areas, and for good reason: one important function of our legal system is to prevent future harm.
Again, this doesn't explain at all why there is suffering caused by natural forces like hurricanes, earthquakes, and diseases.. and such sources of suffering are (along with human-caused ones) central to the Problem of Evil.[1]
But even were we to only focus on human beings, and even were we to grant for the sake of argument that we have no free will, then there's still the question of why we are the way we are.. if the answer is evolution and the physical laws of the universe and the history of the universe, then why is it all the way it is?
To theists the answer is "god". But why did god (a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing god) choose to make it that way... a way that entailed a lot of (or even any) suffering?
That's The Problem of Evil.
It's really a theological and philosophical question having to do with why the world is imperfect and yet supposedly the product of a perfectly god.
Leaving aside the religious matter of a higher power, I think it’s safe to say that evil in the general context means something more than merely undesirable; perhaps intrinsically wrong from all possible rational observers or something like that.
Finding that biological systems have desirable or undesirable situations and that they having higher order communication systems can agree on a set of shared undesirable outcomes still doesn’t quite get to that concept of evil does it? If not, then I think we can agree that hurricanes are bad for us in general, but not exactly evil unless there is some unobservable force acting upon us which sounds a bit like magic to me.
If you understand the physics of a ball rolling down a hill, the concept of motion doesn’t become truly odd to believe. The concept is still there and still matters, you just understand it in more detail.
Evil is another such emergent abstraction. The meaning is there regardless of the details of what lower level details it emerges from.
You could argue that the laws of physics are the tools that the angels use to do their pushing, but you'd then be entering the realm of absurdity. Angels are unnecessary to understand motion.
Same goes for evil. After you understand the basics of human psychology, and you accept the largely deterministic nature of everything, insisting that evil is the driver for certain acts is as absurd as a belief in physics angels.
Evil is not an emergent abstraction. It's a fiction and a religiously-tied social tool used to demonize opposing tribes, justifying destroying them, as well as to control a group's behavior/identity (it's evil to worship false idols, etc.).
Unpacking what we call “free will” in this way is a really sobering experience, leading to automatic compassion for everyone.
How can we observe causality?
We can observe a sequence of events, but that one event causes another is not something we can observe.
See Hume's critique of causality for more on this.
https://m-g-h.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf80...
Note: Evil exists and has a purpose though
If God's conception of morality is not equivalent to the human conception of morality, then what does it mean to claim that God is good?
The fact is that a lot of people worship God in great part because they do think that God is good in the ordinary human sense: that he loves humanity, cares for them, wants only the best for them, and -- crucially -- wants to ease their suffering.
The vast majority of believers pray to God to ease them of their pain and suffering.
Many of them would be completely outraged if they thought that, far from easing their suffering, God was actually the cause of their suffering (though some religions do believe that God is the cause of not only all good but also all evil).
So that's where the problem lies, and why so many theists are so concerned with theodicy (ie. the defense of the concept of a perfectly good god against charges like these).
Saying that God is good in some unknowable and incomprehensible way that would allow for human suffering to exist just isn't a very satisfactory answer for a lot of believers, who continue to believe in a benevolent God who's good in a very human way.
Nothing I would describe as meaningful, but from what I recall of what (admittedly little) I've read of it, theological philosophy that's concerned about proving that God must be good comes disturbingly close to unironically destroying the concept of goodness. Because when you try to derive it from first principles like "something is good if it fills its intended purpose" or "something is good if it brings something closer to its ideal essence" you end up making it vague enough that the black plague might actually be good, you know.
> Saying that God is good in some unknowable and incomprehensible way that would allow for human suffering to exist just isn't a very satisfactory answer for a lot of believers, who continue to believe in a benevolent God who's good in a very human way.
You're absolutely right, this is a non-starter for believers, because their faith is marred with self-interest.
On the other hand, from a purely intellectual standpoint, it has to be a consideration. If the only options are atheism or belief in a conventionally moral supreme deity, that sort of suggests that the only reason to believe that God exists is if God rewards us, which is suspect, because reality doesn't care about our self-interest. This kind of blind spot can corrupt our reasoning.
For instance, a lot of theistic arguments, like fine tuning, the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, regardless of their intrinsic merits, basically say nothing about God's character. They couldn't. They don't operate at that level. But if you work under the assumption that a morally indifferent God is not an option, these arguments appear to imply far more than they actually do.
Having twisted people judge whether God is morally straight is... problematic. Instead, humans insist that we are straight, and therefore that God must be twisted.
Have you ever heard an amoral or immoral person insist that everyone else is just as dishonest (e.g.) as they are? That's what humans do with God.
(I am aware that Christianity is not the only monotheistic belief system. I don't know enough about the others to speak to them.)
Unless the god is playing games with their creation, maybe studying them to see how they would respond. But even then, this would tell us something about the nature of a god. That they are not worth worshiping from a moral standpoint, since they aren't benevolent.
Plus, there is no real evidence that God rewards followers. A conventionally moral human, perhaps, would do so. But if you were omniscient, isn't it possible that you wouldn't? Instead, perhaps you would see that it is in fact best to reward sufferers and punish those who lived happy lives, regardless of their moral character. Or perhaps you would see that afterlives are entirely pointless. But it is difficult to take these considerations seriously without degrading one's motivation to worship, so they generally aren't.
Which is the underlying problem here. That article is about the Abrahamic model of a god, even though it doesn't say so. Omnipotent and perfect - that's the Abrahamic model, underlying Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions.
The Graeco-Roman pantheon was a better fit with reality - a group of morally mediocre gods with their own agendas, mostly indifferent to what the mortals were up to. The transition to the Abrahamic religions resulted in a lot of cruft - devils, angels, prophets, etc. A legacy code problem, in other words.
Have you ever looked at the Book Of Job [1]?
Or, to be a little pantheist about it, the world is literally God pondering a possible world (but, being God, pondering something makes it real in a sense); and that God literally experiences all the suffering present in it.
That's a good argument for atheism. Because if such a god is real, we're in a waking nightmare we'd best bury our collective heads about, for our psychological wellbeing.
It is entirely pointless to worship such a God, but I wouldn't say it's a nightmare that it exists.
On the other hand, fanaticism where the fanatic believes they're good and their (political, racial/ethnic or religious) opponents are evil seems like approximately one billion times more of a problem in modern human society. These are the people who hold actual positions of power at every level, in every country
It's about why there is suffering (or imperfection even) in a world created by an ostensibly omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god.
Terrorism would qualify as being one of the causes of suffering, as would completely impersonal forces such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and diseases.
If god exists and really is omnipotent (ie. of limitless power), omniscient (knows everything), and perfectly good, why does he/she/it allow suffering?
That's the problem of evil.
The problem of evil; is logically caused by the existence of life that strives and competes within an environment of finite resources.
Give us a universe where all the beings are powered by an infinite source of energy so they don't need to chase, catch, kill and eat each other.
Problem solved; would have expected God could figure this out.
Everyone thinks they're doing good when they before an action; no need to be a "fanatic".
Speeding? I need to get there on time. Lying? Don't want to hurt the other person's feelings. Stealing? I need this more than the rightful owner, and they won't miss it / insurance. Cheating? I have needs that aren't being met. Etc.
So with that the problem of evil comes up and I gotta give it up to the late great Epicurus. And I quote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
The other stance you can have are God’s plan is unknowable to us. His mystical plan is not for us to know and grasp. Which is a huge leap of faith and so wishy washy I can’t bring myself to adopt it.
But if God created the world then what created God? If you're ok with the answer that God always existed, why wouldn't you be ok with the universe always existing (thereby having no need for a creator God)?
I'm not saying it's right, it's just more convincing than saying that matter has always been here that doesn't make any sense at all. Example: Something coming from nothing. Everything has a primary mover.
The only way to reconcile it to me is there is some supreme thing that can transcend our time and physics and everything else.
This was my position as I was leaving Christianity. Now though I think it's more likely that matter and the laws of physics have just always existed, possibly an infinite amount or to an infinitely small scale. While that may seem difficult to comprehend I think it's much simpler than omnipotent turtles all the way down.
Choosing to believe the turtles are impersonal doesn't alleviate the problem of the turtles.
Tackles this problem from a christian apologista perspective. Its about as intellectual an analysis as you are going to get on this subject matter. I personally don't agree with 100% of it, but Lewis always presents arguments I never would have considered otherwise. Worth a read.
Also, listening to scientists and engineers discuss issues of morality (e.g. this comments section) is always a painful experience. The analytical mind is not often applied appropriately to matters of philosophy. At least thats my impression.
Here is an example of what C.S. Lewis has to say in his book: "If the universe is so bad… how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator? Men are fools, perhaps, but hardly so foolish as that."
Perhaps I am a small-minded engineer, but that seems like an incredibly weak argument. The linked article, on the other hand, presents the best of the counter-arguments; I don't think C.S. Lewis adds anything of value.
Gods can't make a square circle, even if they're omnipotent? They could rewrite our brains to just make the words mean the same. Logic problem solved.
The more complex a situation, the more opportunity for this supposed omnipotent being.
I'm not really seeing what this has to do with what you quoted about the existence of suffering.
Still, to go on that tangent about God being unable to make a square circle...
God's omnipotence (ie. being all-powerful) means they can do anything... even things that might appear contradictory to the puny human intellect.
And what seems contradictory to the puny human intellect and the entire universe being such that squares aren't circles are themselves supposedly due to God's will.. which could be otherwise.
So we could very well live in a world of square circles if God wished it so.
It might not make sense to us, but God is not limited to only doing what makes sense to us.
I can make up whatever words I want and put them in a syntactically correct structure, but that doesn't mean the sentence means anything.
"Can God tell a true lie?"
No, of course not, not because God isn't omnipotent, but because it's a nonsense question. There can no more be true lies than four-sided triangles or objects that are immovable in the face of an irresistible force.
The flaw is in the question.
If any of those conditions is not true, the existence of evil is a lot easier to explain: - omniscient and omnipotent, but not 100% morally good - omniscient and omnibenevolent, but has limited power to change the bad things - omipotent and omnibenevolent, but isn't aware that evil exists
It's only when someone's making the claim that all three are true at the same time that it starts to get interesting, because some of the arguments get really hokey.
So to address your observation that there's an implicit assumption that one god exists, I would wager a guess that it's because polytheistic religions don't wade into the waters of theodicy much (if at all), as they don't deal in "omni-'s" to the same extent as monotheistic religions tend to.
The Problem of Evil is an argument explicitly against a loving, omniscient, omnipotent god. The god that appears in various monotheistic religions. We're not discussing religion at large.
