Did God Create Evil?
The following is a quote that appears on a number of atheist web sites. It has been in atheist literature for the forty years that this program we call “Does God Exist?” has been in existence:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot
…or he can but does not want to,
…or he cannot and does not want to,
…or lastly he can and wants to.
If he wants to remove evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent.
If he can, but does not want to, he is not benevolent.
If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent;
But if God can abolish evil and wants to, and if evil still exists, then God must not be God.
God does not exist.
How can God be benevolent and omnipotent and still allow evil to exist?
There are many approaches to the subject of evil. Modern atheists not only deny the existence of God, but also the existence of evil. Richard Dawkins, perhaps the leading twenty-first century spokesman for atheism says:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.
- Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden, page 133.
Trying to deny the existence of evil does not eliminate it. It is like trying to convince a two-year-old about to get a shot that it is not going to hurt. The two-year-old knows better from experience, and trying to deny it will not make the pain go away. Most of us have had enough things happen in our lives that have convinced us, like the two year old, that evil is real. There is much that lies outside of DNA, and even DNA does not require mutations and alterations in it to make it automatically doomed to bring pain and suffering into the lives of human beings.
The fact is that evil does exist. It is not a substance. You cannot take a pile of evil and measure it in any way. In fact it is not something God created. There is no passage in the Bible that says God created evil. Passages like Isaiah 45:7 were translated in the King James as “evil,” but more modern translations use the more accurate rendering of the word, which is “disaster.” A disaster is not intrinsically evil. The Nile River flooded every year for centuries. This was unquestionably a disaster for the people who lived in the Nile delta, but it was not evil. It made Egypt the bread basket of the ancient world as it fertilized and rejuvenated the soils of the area. Evil is not something God sat down and deliberately and maliciously created so that humans could experience pain and suffering.
So if evil is not a product and creation of God, why does it exist and why does God allow it to exist? Why is evil not a proof that God is not really God but rather a creation of man.
The problem is that atheists and many believers have never stopped to deal with the questions, “What is the purpose of man’s existence?” “Why are we here?” “Why do we exist?” If you assume that man is a chance event, then you automatically deny there is a purpose in our existence. Huxley, representing the atheist view, said it well:
We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to Earth, or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.
Julian Huxley, The Human Degree, J.B. Lippincott Co., 1976.
The atheist view of man reduces man to an insignificant dot in the grand scheme of things — just one of an infinite number of accidents that has no purpose and no reason to exist. The views of Huxley and Dawkins and their followers demean man and offer a very negative and pessimistic view of man with no hope and no value placed on human life above that of any other life on the planet.
The biblical concept of man is just the opposite. Man is presented in the Bible as something created in the image of God. Man has the life force as do other living things, but man also has a component that sets us apart from every other thing on the planet — both living and nonliving. This component allows man to be creative, and to be able to express that creativity in art, music, and worship of God. It also is what enables man to encounter evil. Evil results from our capacity to choose to reject good. When mankind ate of the forbidden fruit, a uniqueness was activated which enabled us to make choices. The fruit was not an apple, it was “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:9). I would not be so presumptuous as to pretend I understand all that this involves. Scientists have been trying to understand the unique characteristics of humans from the time of Adam, and we still do not understand all that makes us human.
In biblical terms, however, it is simply man’s capacity to make choices that affect other humans. Deciding whether to pull a weed out of your garden is not a decision that involves good or evil. Deciding whether to pull the trigger of a gun pointed at someone is. Evil involves making choices, and mankind has uniquely been given the capacity to make choices that involve good and evil. How we make these choices is a reflection of what we believe about ourselves and our relationship to everything in the cosmos. An atheist like Carl Sagan would limit what he believes about that relationship. Sagan was fond of saying:
The cosmos is everything that is or was or ever will be.
Carl Sagan, Cosmos, Random House, New York, 1980, page 257.
That view excludes anything that is not a part of the universe we observe. It limits the effect of our choices to what we observe with our senses. That is the easy way out, but there is evidence from every discipline known to man that there is more to the cosmos and to our existence than what we perceive through our senses. In the Bible there are references to things beyond what our senses perceive. Ephesians 6: 12 says it best: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” We do not understand all of what those entities involve, but their existence and effect upon man is undeniable.
The purpose of man’s existence involves the battle Ephesians 6:12 describes. The book of Job gives us a spectator’s view of man’s existence and how one man’s existence serves as a battle ground for the struggle between good and evil. Job was created for this purpose, and in Job 42:5 he rejoices in having come to an understanding of why he was created. This is quite a contrast to Job 3:3-11 where Job laments the fact that he was ever born. Each of us can take the name “Job” out of the book of Job and write our name in place of it. We are all Job! Virtually every science fiction story in existence focuses its message on the struggle between good and evil, and we all seem to understand and profit from such literature. Yet when we become the prime players in the same kind of struggle that science fiction describes, we seem to find the concept too hard to grasp.
The atheist statement at the start of our article then radiates a failure to have any comprehension of why we exist. It is not that God is not omnipotent. It is not that He does not care. What God is focused on is His purpose in creating man. He will not compromise that purpose by interfering in the natural consequences of the choices that humans make. Sin leads to death, and God tells us that it is appointed unto man once to die (Hebrews 9:27). We are told that we will reap what we sow (Galatians 6:6-8). God can and will abolish evil. The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 makes it clear that a “great gulf” will be placed between good and evil across which nothing can pass. The greatest act of benevolence known to man is the fact that God promises that we will eventually be in a place where “there will be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Revelation 21:4).
Claiming that the existence of evil is a proof that there is no God is an unfortunate demonstration of a lack of understanding of why we are here.
The ultimate beauty of the picture the Bible gives us of God and the question of evil is that when God came to the Earth in a physical form and saw how much sin pains, and what agony humans suffer because of the consequences of sin, God burst into tears (John 11:35).
We serve a God who cares. As the writer of Hebrews states it, “For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). - John N. Clayton
©2007 John N. Clayton
Admin Staff
sidgi
June 18th, 2007 at 9:18 am eOf course the rather curious result of thinking an omnipotent God answers our prayers is that in praying and having our prayers answered we acquire a stake in God’s omnipotence. If by prayer I can move God to act on my behalf, then I essentially have access to aspects of his power. And there is not reason at all to believe people have such power. What actually happens is that millions around the world die in wars, starve and suffer through disease and natural disasters. Their prayers are not answered. To suggest otherwise is to give people false hope. The natural response of the believer to this is frequently that “God works in mysterious ways” or that “God answers the prayers just not how you would like necessarily.” Indeed. Then how do you know that what he is providing is an answer at all, not just more things happening that are not connected to it at all?AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com
June 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am eDear R&A
I dont think we acquire a stake in Gods anything.AS humans we messed up. This whole sin thing is bigger than just the earth.
Do I think its fair? Guess I dont because it affects me personally. Buts thats the way it is.
On the other hand, every single worthwhile achievement made by a human on this earth costs in life, effort, sweat and loss.
With God, he at least offers to put it right at the right time.
Can prayer move God to work in our behalf? Yes and no. Yes he can as long as its within the overall frame of his direction, and no…because globally man is making a mess of ruling himself.
I could be a good atheist. A very good one. However, I have a God size hole within me that would never be filled unless i continue to take the time to seek him out. Either road is a difficult one because life is difficult.
Only time will tell.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:40 am eLet me answer some of your points:“I dont think we acquire a stake in Gods anything.”
How not? As I say, if God does something because we ask him that he would not have done otherwise then an action results as a result of us asking him to use his power. That is us moving a great power, by whatever appeal.
“…every single worthwhile achievement made by a human on this earth costs in life, effort, sweat and loss.”
This is just not true. What is the loss involved in the achievement of Brahm’s Requiem? What is the loss of the formulation of Einstein’s theories of Relativity? Neither of these major achievements cost sweat or loss by their nature.
“Can prayer move God to work in our behalf? Yes and no. Yes he can as long as its within the overall frame of his direction, and no…because globally man is making a mess of ruling himself.”
That the human race is making a mess of ruling itself speaks nothing about the truth of the proposition that God acts on our prayers or that, even if he did, we don’t acquire a stake in the power he wields through having our prayers answered. If humankind is screwing up, and God answers our prayers it does not mean we don’t acquire a stake in his power just because we were screwing up. And I see no evidence that he has any frame of direction. What is the evidence for this?
“I could be a good atheist. A very good one. However, I have a God size hole within me that would never be filled unless i continue to take the time to seek him out. Either road is a difficult one because life is difficult.”
The God shaped hole is a fallacy. Certainly a part of human nature is the tendency to wonder, fascination, emotion and irrationality (e.g. love). Irrational experience is a vital component of who we are, so am not advocating a completely rationalist outlook. But convincing yourself that the suffering of the world can only be ameliorated through filling a God-shaped hole is neither indicative of the hole being there, nor that there’s a God to fit it. Ultimately, you can continue believing that God exists to fit that whole. But it is whimsy. I might believe I have a gold-bullion shaped bank account. Doesn’t mean there’s gold bullion to fit into it. Nor even the account itself. I’d be far more tempted to consider why you think you have a God-shaped hole before you move to try to fill it with anything.
AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com
June 18th, 2007 at 10:45 am eThere’s a further consideration: If it were true that the human race is screwing up (as I think you say and I don’t think you’re wrong on that) and God will answer our prayers by acting using his immense power, then we, a failing and irresponsible species have access to that immense power. That would be terrible! We already can’t be trusted with nuclear weapons. Just imagine what we could do with omnipotence! It is a blessing that God isn’t there to be used by us that way (or at the very least that he doesn’t answer our prayers). If what Christians assert to be true actually were, the world would be a much worse place for it.AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com
June 18th, 2007 at 12:02 pm eYo R&AFirstly, depends whether you consider Brahms and Einsteins contribution to mankind as an achievement :-)Einsteins theory is already being dismantled by modern theorists. (and in essence, what has it done for mankind?)
All that aside. I think our mutual starting point is that man has an innate inability to not be in control of his own present or destiny.
Hence, as you say, “We already can’t be trusted with nuclear weapons.”
I think one major difference of understanding in our discourse is that WE do not use his omnipotence…..HE uses it for our benefit or not according to HIS will.
My father was a military man. A very strict disciplinarian. From time to time, when he saw a real desire for something on my part and an earnest effort to obtain it, he would allow my efforts to succeed and help me achieve it. He did NOT give me his power, he gave me his help.
My God size hole is a reality. I am sorry that others have defined it in a way that even I do not agree with, but it is in all mankind to worship something. History shows worship is the primary goal of all nations…even if it is to worship themselves.
This is my belief.
God is the Creator.
The story of MAnkinds present position is in the Bible.
He is not part of a trinity.
Jesus allowed us reconciliation with him.
There is a timetable.
There is no eternal hell..you can choose to believe or not.
Death is the present conclusion of life.
At some time..it wont be.
I will die, and so will you. I have a hope and a trust and a belief that at sometime, somewhere there will be a resurrection of ME….to life on earth or wherever…
Can I prove it? Only through the Bible. Only through my personal relationship with an unseen God with the eyes of faith.
Is it rational? nope.
Neither is love, neither is mercy,neither is raising children to endure what we endure.
In summing up. WE do not have access to immense power, we have access to GOD who decides when and how to use it. He KNOWS us as individuals and as a race, He cannot allow a single human to have a smidgen of his power…
I believe through choice, and through deep bible research, and through being willing to do what I see as requested by GOd…(and if you read the pages of this blog you will see I (and others)go against the mainstream of christianity doctrines…that I have a spiritual connection to the “truth” of why we are here.
Its my walk. Its my direction. Its my choice. I dont condemn another human being for their choice. In the end, we will all know whether we are right or wrong.
June 18th, 2007 at 2:13 pm eOn what criteria human behaviour could be judged that Brahms and Einstein would be deemed as not having achieved great things really does boggle the mind. Einstein’s theories of Relativity revolutionised the way space is understood, gave invaluable insights into the nature and fabric of space-time, gravity, the speed of light and opened massive new opportunities for considering time in new and exciting ways. Would, along with Brahms and Einstein, Mozart and Quantum Theory be consigned to your dustbin of under-achievement? Before you ask, the benefit of quantum theory to mankind is that it affords us and understanding of sub-atomic phenomena, from the structure of atoms to the behaviour and transmission effects of electrons and subatomic particles. The results is that we are able to do chemistry better, including designing better and faster computers, better materials, increased efficiency in communications, even in medicine (e.g. radiography), spectroscopy and analytical chemistry… the list just goes on…That scientific theories are found to have flaws is not a surprise nor a refutation of the scientific enterprise. All theories are necessarily limited by their axiomatic propositions. Finding scientific theories harder to refute betrays the fact that they are becoming more advanced, better and sophisticated, with more predictive power and greater power of explanation. In contrast, religion has stood still for millennia.
That we can’t be trusted with nuclear weapons is not necessarily a comment on human nature, but many other factors have influence over this, such as illegitimate power structures, prejudice and a lack of empathy for other people - all of which are reinforced one way or another, leading us to a warped understanding of ourselves and each other. And none of it, before you go down this route, necessitates invoking God as the solution. People are perfectly capable of great deeds and self-management given the chance, and the intervention of a hypothetical benevolent being who is once supernatural, immanent and caring despite the lack of evidence is not required at all. Human problems must be encouraged towards human solutions, not towards fear of an overpowering deity, or fear of eternal hell or the carrot of life after death. This is all a distraction from going into the world and actually doing something beneficial for yourself and other people. And if you’re thinking of saying that religion does do a lot of good for people, remember that that is no evidence that God exists, any more than it is for Zeus, fairies or a square circle. That kind people happen to believe something doesn’t make what they believe merely because they are kind!
I think we misunderstood each other about the power that God has. I take your point about your father. It’s very elegantly explained. However, consider this: since you appealed to your father and he helped you, you did actually use something he could give you, which he have you because you asked him. That is something he has, that you get to use if he wants to give you it (the help). If you say God answers prayers and he does things for you because you pray, that is the same thing. You ask for something, and he does it, and the net result is that you got something you couldn’t otherwise have had because you asked for it. And if the thing you got could only have been provided by an omnipotent being, you have, in result, influenced an omnipotent power to grant you something merely by asking. That’s all I meant. Your analogy to your father is good, except that he is not omnipotent, although that doesn’t matter for the sake of the point.
You say that all people worship something. I’m not sure of this. Many people worship something. I don’t know that I worship anything. Certainly I don’t think everyone does. What is your evidence that everybody worships something? How can you separate the historical fact of people worshipping a god of some kind with the fact that it was their cultural heritage to, and that frequently they were unable to escape that influence? Just as I’m sure you wear shoes when you go outside, that does not mean that it is humankind’s instrinsic characteristic: to be compelled to wear shoes. Many people don’t and they’re just fine.
You use the phrase “Can I prove it? Only through the Bible” at one point. What does that actually mean? That something is in the Bible is not proof at all, unless you’re willing to completely re-work what the word “proof” actually means. You go on to say that it is not rational, and that many other things aren’t (like love). I agree, and we’re together on that one.
However, you go on to say “I have a spiritual connection to truth”. You know, everyone thinks that. The problem is that they also think something different about what that is. How do you get round that?
AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com
June 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pm eR&A
I guess achievement is a value based criteria.If’n you dont like music, Brahms is a non starter..
half the world do not know Einstein and care even less. Does this lessen his observations?
Half the world do not know the God of the Christian bible and care even less.
Does this lessen his existence?
I sit here in my office, surrounded by thousands and thousands of research articles related to my secular career in medicine and my research career in christianity.
Every 7 years, I find the treatment models and evaluation criteria in psychology requires me to change my text books. Every 7 years the research papers and findings re the Bible history and content remain the same.
For me. The historical accuracy of the Bible is proof existent of events and places. I have chosen to believe the RELIGIOUS message of the Bible after careful research and study of related criteria. I come from a non believing family.
There is enough proof in world for acceptance of Christianity and the existence of God. BUT. If a person chooses to not believe, then he sees no proof.
I see abstracts like love, and kindness and fellow feeling as qualities of a creator. There is no need for them in the realism of existence.
I have a “spiritual connection to the truth of the Bible”. Im sure most mainstream religious church goers would disagree vehemently with me.
I cannot convince anyone against their will, for convinced against your will is a man of the same opinion still.
I Believe in a supernatural Creator, and subscribe to the Bible as his word. I do not subscribe to the TBN or CTN version of christianity.
I believe in prayer as communication with the creator, and will patiently wait until the outcome he wants comes to pass. For me, going through this life with him is better than being alone and isolated.
The bottom line is, proof is only proof if its accepted as proof.
Its all a choice.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:12 pm eThat proof is only such if it is “accepted” by a particular person is nonsense! Proof, please note, is different to evidence and inference and surmising. You cannot opt out of proof as though it were a question of belief. All proofs derive from axiomatic positions, but the proof itself is not subject to negotiation on a faith basis. Take Pythagoras’ Theorem. Are you saying that it can be opted out of, as though “for you” it would not be proof that the square of the hypoteneuse side of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides, if you so chose?AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com
June 27th, 2007 at 5:13 am eIm saying that the flat earth society exists because individuals refuse to accept that the earth is round.Im saying that atheism exists because individuals believe in the power of their own created minds rather than acceptance of being a lovingly made offspring of the creative force.
Im saying that the natural laws of earth exist because of an inherent design module put in place by a vastly intelligent creator.
Im saying that beauty and morals should not exist in a functional evolutionary pattern of progress.
At the end of the day, an individual will create his own viewpoint from evidence presented.
Your nearly right “All proofs derive from axiomatic positions, but the proof itself is not subject to negotiation on a faith basis”………..
Laws exists because of created boundaries, the boundaries ‘change’ as our understanding and perspective allow for education expansion.
There is no argument regarding earthly laws of nature or physics. They exist. That is proof of a creative force. Too many “accidents” is not coincidental.
Do you accept it? No….
Ergo, proof is only proof if accepted.