The Barnyard Dialogues: Explained, Evil is the Problem
I hope you have enjoyed reading my previous two posts entitled, The Barnyard Dialogues, “Part I, Two Chickens Take on the Problem of Evil” and “Part II, Two Chickens Take another Swipe at the Problem of Evil.” . If you have not then, click the links and enjoy them.
If you have read them then I’m sure you are aware that they are written as satire and not merely for entertainment value. I want to present here a partial explanation of what was meant by the stories. I want to say here, what I meant to say there, only this time without any talking chickens. So here goes.
As the subtitles say, the story is about the problem of evil. For those of you who are not familiar with the problem of evil, I have placed the “Logical Problem of Evil” below. It is taken from Wikipedia.
Logical problem of evil
- God exists. (premise)
- God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word “God”)
- God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
- All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
- All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
- God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
- God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
- Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
- God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
- God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
- God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
- Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
- Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, or God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent (i.e. God is omnipotent and omniscient but not all-benevolent, omnipotent and all-benevolent but not omniscient, or omniscient and all-benevolent but not omnipotent).
To be simplistic and brief, the problem of evil says that a good god and evil cannot co-exist, therefore one or the other must not exist. Because most people have experienced evil in some form, it is used to make a case against the existence of god. A solution to the problem of evil is called a “theodicy”. Though many different theodicies exist, what I have tried to demonstrate through the Barnyard Dialogues is a particular theodicy based on semantics. I suspect that others have noticed it before me and, I believe that this should only lend credence to it. I will explain it below.
Evil is not an entity that exists on its own merit. Evil exists as a parasite to good. In the absolute absence of good there could be no evil. The opposite is not true, good does not require evil in order to be good. Something is good when it fulfills the purpose it was meant to serve. Something lacks goodness when it fails to fulfill the purpose it was meant for. Something is evil when it fulfills a purpose contrary to what it was meant for. Therefore, having a good purpose is a prerequisite for being evil.
So in order to call something evil someone, must first give it a purpose for it to pervert. So Evil must be defined in relation to somebody. The vast majority of the time evil is defined in relation to either man or to God.
In the first illustration with the chickens, Clare defines Evil (missing eggs) by chickens (man). She then comes to the conclusion that because evil exists, the farmer (God) must not. She sees this as a mistake when she learns that the farmer is the one taking the eggs for his own good purpose. In the Problem of Evil, it is a mistake to define evil on man’s terms and then apply it to God. God is by definition a greater being than man, just as the farmer in the story, is a greater being than the chickens.
In Part II, Clare defines evil in terms of the farmer (God) but this also is a mistake as it presupposes that the farmer does in fact exist. If evil as defined by God exists then, God must exist. If God does not exist, then neither does evil as defined by God and the whole argument falls apart as, evil must exist in order to be a problem.
It seems to me that the problem of evil is that it cannot be defined in terms that would cast doubt on the existence of God.
I think you’re broadly right on the syllogistic chain of the problem of evil, although I would argue that the quoted statement is incorrect; the problem of evil falls under what are known as incompatible properties arguments. Effectively, they are criticisms of the conceptual basis for the deity, arguing that if the claimed God has property x and property y, and these are incompatible or even outright contradictory, said God as defined cannot exist.
Mike
10 December 2007 at Monday 6:03 pm
Hi Mike, sorry it took me so long to respond. I’m not quite sure I follow you. I understand the argument you are making with the “property x and property y” example but it seems to me to be a distinct argument from the Problem of Evil. The reason for this is that in the POE the two seemingly noncompatable properties are not of the same entity. X would be characteristics of the said deity and Y would be the characteristic (evil) of creation.
Joseph W. Kraft
14 December 2007 at Friday 4:39 pm
’s cool. If this god is supposedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then he could create a world in which evil did not exist and yet still have the same desired qualities; if he cannot, he is not omnipotent, and if he can but will not, he is omnipotent but not omnibenevolent.
Mike
14 December 2007 at Friday 4:55 pm
Man you’re quick! Ahh, my friend here is where we depart from philosophy and enter the waters of theology. First, I must get some coffee or tea. As an aside, where do you place yourself on Dawkin’s atheist scale?
Joseph W. Kraft
14 December 2007 at Friday 5:01 pm
But theology is only a subset of philosophy; to borrow a phrase, it’s philosophy in a cheap tuxedo, philosophy with the possible real world utility removed.
At least 6. Depends upon the god in question. For most of them, a 7; for a god in abstract, undefined and unexplored, a 6.
Mike
14 December 2007 at Friday 5:05 pm
To borrow another phrase, “philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.” But, I understand what you are saying, the difference in philosophy of god and theology is mostly in the method.
A 6 good, there seems to be alot of 6s walking around.
I could go on and on about who God is but as you are the one who takes issue with God, I think the best way to get into this would be for you to define God. I know you don’t believe in god so tell me who you think I think He is. I am speaking about the Christian god. We both agree that no other god exists so there is no need to get into Allah or Shiva or any other god.
Is there much coffee drinking over there?
Joseph W. Kraft
14 December 2007 at Friday 5:35 pm
Well, that’s not really a fair challenge, is it? You’re asking me to argue against a set of beliefs without their having been expressed to me. It’d be a bit like my asking you to argue against Latitudinarianism or the views of the Diggers or Swedenborgianism or something.
Coffee? Well, more than there used to be. Tea goes on strong, though. We’re the fifth biggest drinkers of tea in the world. Surprisingly, the people who drink the most tea are Iraqis.
Mike
16 December 2007 at Sunday 2:02 pm
So as it turns out I did not fall off the face of the planet 5 weeks ago, at least not literally. I am slowly catching up on blog type stuff.
No, its not a challenge at all, I’m not asking you to argue against anything. In a way, you already articulated the problem you have with God in the omnipotent-omnibenevolent argument. The issue I have with this is that it is an over simplistic definition of God. I take issue especially with the term “omnibenevolent.” It has the wrong connotation. It makes God sound like a giant Santa Clause in the sky, doting on his creation. While that is a theoretical diety that could be discussed, it is not the god of any religion that I know of and certainly not the Judeo-Christian God.
If there were more coffee drinking there would be fewer atheists.
Joseph W. Kraft
23 January 2008 at Wednesday 1:36 pm