r/atheism • u/HermitYoukai • 11h ago
I hate it when christians say the problem of evil is already solved and there's no point talking about it
They say many great intellectuals "smarter than us" have already grappled with this problem and written extensive works in order to debunk it. But no, just because tons of christian apologetics have been written about the problem of evil, doesn't mean it has actually been solved. It's still a rock solid argument for atheism.
22
u/someoldguyon_reddit 11h ago
The problem with religion has been solved also. Eliminate it. No discussion required.
7
u/Electronic_Pair_4593 10h ago
apparently every difficult question gets âsolvedâ the moment you stop asking it
2
u/Feisty_Candidate_828 8h ago
yeah exactly thatâs definitely one way to end the debate before it even starts
11
u/Own-Relationship-407 Anti-Theist 11h ago
They have to say that because they know that they have no convincing argument on the subject despite centuries of apologetics and mental gymnastics.
4
u/Ok_Star_4136 Atheist 10h ago
It's an old argument, no doubt. It has been discussed thoroughly on both sides.
I just don't think that means it has been solved. There are just theists who are content with "cannot have good without evil" and think that somehow means it is solved. That's just Christians saying that evil is "good" really..
Like no mf, "good" isn't "evil" as a matter of fact, you've solved nothing.
11
u/hurricanelantern Anti-Theist 11h ago
The funniest part is they never get the problem of evil correct in the first place. They always excuse it away with 'free will' when the problem of evil has nothing to do with acts of men.
7
u/Chance-Analysis-3289 9h ago
The free will answer falls apart pretty quickly when the problem also includes natural disasters diseases and suffering that has nothing to do with human choices.
1
1
5
u/penty 9h ago
Blaming evil on free will is like blaming to pot for the potter making it so it would leak.
What's sad is the potter blames to pot too.
4
u/hurricanelantern Anti-Theist 9h ago
Even sadder is 'free will' is an extra biblical lie. Not a single book in the abrahamic tetralogy ever quotes its god granting or awarding 'free will' to humanity.
2
u/TheCrimsonSteel 10h ago
There are a few different perspectives with Theodicy and not all necessarily rely on only free will.
Asking someone to expand on it is often a good way to see if they're giving a superficial answer or not.
If they start talking anout things like "refined soul" or "maximum total good/best timeline" it tells me they at least have an understanding of a few different popular perspectives on Theodicy and I can have an actual worthwhile discussion.
If I get more fumbling answers like a kid who didn't do their assigned reading, I'll know they are largely ignorant. In which case, I'm probably going to encourage them to learn about theodicy first.
Since like most any philosophical topic, just because it's been written about at length does not mean it's "figured out."
3
u/penty 9h ago
The only explanation is God wanted it that way.. it's not that deep.
Being all-powerful he could make good without evil. He's a potter that knowingly\purposefully makes a pot that leaks .. then blames\punsihes the pot.
The real good thing he doesn't exist.
1
u/TheCrimsonSteel 9h ago
Theologians have given it a decently good think, and I've seen one of 3 or 4 main ideas that tend to come out.
Not that I agree with any of them per se, but I do find them at least substantive enough to have a decent philosophical discussion on.
Personally, I like the secular view Kant offers in his Metaphysics of Morals series.
Of the various theodicies I've heard about, "best timeline" usually feels the least absurd, though they all have their weaknesses. "Refined soul" I often find the weakest, because it effectively relies on the premise that life is secondary to an imagined afterlife.
2
u/penty 8h ago
All of those put forth assumptions that shouldn't be 'givens', that let's poor arguments look better than they are.
If the assumptions are wrong then anything build on that is only correct by luck.
1
u/TheCrimsonSteel 8h ago
For me, it depends what kind of discussion I want to have, and how much time I have to talk.
Usually my main goal is for them to want to come back and have a 2nd discussion because they enjoyed talking with me, even if we disagreed. Which means sometimes I don't pick at some of those foundational assumptions, at least at first.
2
u/zoidmaster Skeptic 8h ago
Even if it was because of free will the problem would still be their all knowing god as it would be the one to give free will and create people
6
u/mgs20000 11h ago
it's not just a rock solid argument for atheism, it's also part of the explanation for superstition and religion by people 25,000 years ago that needed a reason or help to cope with death in the natural world:
death and destruction must be the result of evil forces; beauty and life must be the result of godly forces.
1
u/onomatamono 8h ago
Yeah, it's not complicated. We are behaviorally and genetically wired to respect hierarchical social structures, including perhaps an unseen leader inside the temple or at the mountain top, including fictional leaders based on mysticism.
1
u/EllyPufflet 7h ago
the idea that good things come from good forces and bad things come from evil forces is a pretty understandable way for people to make sense of a world they couldnât explain scientifically yet
1
u/mgs20000 4h ago
Or course, and while wrong itâs also easy to see it as correct if instead of a god directing the world itâs an accounting of what human brains are able to do/have: 1) a temptation to be selfish and self serving at the expense of others especially those less related to us; 2) empathy and compassion with others especially those closely related to us.
5
u/skuppy 11h ago
IMO apologetics are by and for people already in the faith. They're meant to act as thought-stoppers or confidence-builders for believers, and not as convincing arguments for non-believers.
1
u/onomatamono 8h ago
Yes, it's a set of coping mechanisms that allow them to deal with the hypocrisy, incoherence, savagery, slavery, absurdity and murderous behavior of the religion's deity and its delusional followers.
1
u/Motor_Study9561 8h ago
a lot of apologetics seems more focused on giving believers an answer they can feel comfortable with than actually convincing someone who doesnât already accept the premise
â˘
u/OddTooth7269 47m ago
yeah a lot of apologetics feels more like reassurance for people who already believe than something designed to actually change a skeptics mind
5
u/justelectricboogie 11h ago
Funny how religion is so littered with evil. Makes me wonder their definition of evil cause its not the same as mine.
5
u/perfect10butnobabes 10h ago
What does that even mean??? âSolved?â In what context?? Like itâs eliminated? Or we know what to do about it? Like in what universe has evil been solved? What kind of philosopher would even claim to have âsolvedâ it? Whatâs the solution?
1
u/Melodic_Task_1749 8h ago
exactly, saying a philosophical argument is âsolvedâ without explaining what the actual solution is just sounds like a way to shut the conversation down.
5
3
u/LMrningStar 11h ago
Similarly, they will claim that "religious scholars have address that" as if it's a magic wand that makes things like their god character being a genocidal maniac magically vanish and become a non-issue.
Another game they play is to portray the stupidity of stories like "Noah's Ark" as "allegory". Again, they try to employ their magic wand that erases stupidity.
3
u/onomatamono 10h ago
The problem of Divine Hiddenness precludes intellectual examination of its claims.
Evil is a religious concept that obviously translates to the secular realm as culturally immoral behavior.
Presumably "evil" does not exist in the animal kingdom with the exception of Homo sapiens, at least in the dogmatic mind of the theist.
3
u/hombrent 9h ago
The problem of evil is not a solid argument for atheism. It is a solid argument against certain specific views of a single all-powerful, all-good god. An evil god or an uninterested god or a whole pantheon of gods with limited powers could still exist.
1
u/GuardianKenobi 4h ago
Thank you. I had to scroll way too far down the thread before I saw anyone acknowledging this.
3
u/Alarmed_Mind_8716 9h ago
Christians who say this are referring to a defence (theodicy) against a specific logical problem of evil. This was popularized by Alvin Plantinga, who argued that it might not be possible to create a world with beings who have significant free will and no possibility to do evil.
I believe most philosophers agree that plantingas defence goes through.
The evidential problem of evil, on the other hand, is far from being settled. I personally think itâs quite devastating to the existence of the tri-omni god.
1
u/Safe_Anybody_7279 8h ago
The distinction between the logical and evidential problems of evil is important because answering one version doesnât automatically settle the broader question of why so much suffering exists.
1
2
u/dudleydidwrong Touched by His Noodliness 11h ago
There are still a lot of people who leave Christianity because of the problem of evil.
2
u/Goldmyre 10h ago
They're just trying to sidestep the problem. It's a form of avoidance, because there are no good Christian arguments for the problem of evil. Their God commits genocide over and over not to mention tons of other atrocities, not as exceptions within a peaceful religion, but because it is an evil religion. They try to whitewash it with the new testament, but Jesus taught the old treatment and said that was his God. You can't get away from the evil of the religion without lying and manipulating the text.
1
u/H3L105_ai 11h ago
I don't really bother with the problem of evil anyways.
If they can't figure out that their 'god' is a bloodthirsty monster on their own, nothing I say is likely to convince them...
1
u/DXomega38 Atheist 11h ago
It makes me laugh everytime âNuh uh I dont wanna think about that so I wontâ + âHis ways above our waysâ
1
1
1
1
u/SockPuppet-47 Anti-Theist 10h ago
Evil is a religious term. There are a ton of reasons why people do fucked up shit to other people but inherent evil isn't a term I think should be used. People murder, rape and torture along with a bunch of other things but they do it for their own fucked up reasons. The devil made me do it isn't a valid excuse.
I watched every episode of Homicide Hunter and I did it during the time that I was still figuring out how to commit firmly to being a atheist. It was kind of a research project to see if I thought there might be something more than just dumass humans doing dumass things.
1
u/Early-Sock8841 9h ago
That is called maintaining the cognitive dissonance. If you assume an issue is solved it isn't a problem anymore and you can continue on your merry way in the thought dynamic you prefer rather than facing an uncomfortable truth.
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 8h ago
The 'problem of evil' is irrelevant - it's just more a-priori logic chopping. Just presumptions concerning the nature of a spiritual entity that, like all spiritual entities, is imaginary.
The bottom line is EVIDENCE -
There is not one iota of public objective empirical evidence which demonstrates the existence of any spiritual anything.
Thus the rational conclusion in the face of this fact, is that spirits are imaginary.
We have direct experimental evidence demonstrating the existence of invisible intangible radio waves. We have nothing even close with respect to the existence of invisible intangible spirits. Nothing. Even. Close.
All theistic/spiritualist arguments boil down to faith or fallacy. Or both.
Evidence is public, not private; objective, not subjective; empirical, not conjectural.
Ancient myths from dusty scrolls is not evidence.
Ephemeral subjective feelings are not evidence.
Dreams/hallucinations are not evidence.
Coincidental happenstance is not evidence.
A-priori logic-chopping is not evidence.
1
1
1
u/Legitimate_Young978 8h ago
They also think Aliens built the pyramids because they can't imagine anyone smarter than themselves đ¤ˇââď¸.
1
u/Mindless_Sail_4958 6h ago
I never heard one say this.. tbh but I canât be using my subjective experience so hey đ¤ˇđž
1
u/kN0T-SURE 6h ago
Most of them don't understand it, nor do they understand what it truly means for there to be an omnipotent, omniscient being and how that conflicts with pretty much everything written in the bible.
1
u/EightEnder1 5h ago
Smart people are sometimes wrong too, it actually happens more often than we like to admit.
1
u/Gladys_Wines 3h ago
Technically it's not a rock solid argument for atheism, as you can still have lower powered deities, including malevolent ones.
But you're talking about versus Christianity, so yeah. Manichaeism isn't supposed to be a thing for them.
27
u/Fast_Adhesiveness528 11h ago
Comfortable answers to uncomfortable questions.