Theodicy - The Problem of Evil

I was commenting recently to an Atheist friend; the eminent Richard Dawkins had come up on her page. I was wondering what Richard Dawkins would do with a guy like Ken Miller, a well published molecular and cell biologist who gives assent to evolution and does his own debates against American Evangelical Creationism. Ken Miller is Roman Catholic and says that he is a theist in the broadest sense. Admittedly, that can only mean one thing... he doesn't give much attention to his faith.

A little while later it dawned on me," You know... that probably wouldn't be that great of a debate." The reason being is that the only thing they would have to argue about is the cosmological argument, which is the issue of whether or not the universe has a cause and what that might be. The other thing they might argue about is theodicy, which addresses the problem of evil.

These are the two pitfalls of such debates. It's one thing to watch an atheist scientist beat up on a theist rhetorician who parrots second hand Creationist arguments, to watch an atheist scientist and a theist scientist shrug in agreement, but quite another to watch them wade into a mire of philosophical issues they don't have the credentials to discuss.

So often people watch these epic clashes, bedazzled by the scientific jargon, sitting on the edge of their seats, mesmerized by the simultaneous embarrassment and verbal glory of the debaters. We forget that these men are usually specialists, or at least pretend to be. They are either theologians, scientists, philosophers, or mere rhetoricians. Too often, the rhetorician plays the menace and it must be admitted that most often in the matters of science it's a theist. A creationist rhetorician will hide behind a mass of unfinished, ill-quoted, misinformed, assumptions and subjective arguments. We even catch them holding up completely discredited and disproved theories like the infamous "irreducible complexity of the eye" and the "irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum." If the creationist initiates a question on science and the atheist responds with a line of science, he will follow a line of so-called morality, and visa versa, evading the issue.

Too often theists in general get represented by meddling rhetoricians who aren't qualified to teach a high school biology class. But on the other hand, Atheists are just as guilty. Such is the case with Dawkins. Dawkins is a Biologist; that's what he is. But you see him attempting to speak authoritatively on philosophy, morality, history, ethics, virtue, etc. He's not qualified to comment on any of those things and usually he ends up hackneying out arguments from Kant, Hegel, and Hume with shaky form and questionable understanding. Even if he did possess a good understanding of such philosophies, which has not been evidenced, he does not have the ability to defend these philosophies systematically, nor can he explain their intricacies. It's cocktail party knowledge; they don't really even know what they are talking about.

Because of this, Dawkins and other atheists often come out strong with tricky and hard ethical questions, but end up feebly retiring prematurely, feigning a noble profession of ignorance in an attempt to make their opponents look arrogant. That's not to say that such atheist debaters don't exist, those who are philosophers and anthropologist, etc. Rather, most often apologetics debates are completely mismatched. In fact, I've never seen one that was well matched. I've observed a team of atheists versus a team of creationists. But what if such a panel existed where you had the best of the best? The atheist team having an anthropologist, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist; and the theist side had a theologian, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist? Only then I think would such a debate be worthy of note; a debate where another two could continue where the former two left off.

Anyway, as stated, most apologetics debates disintegrate once the issue of philosophy and theodicy arise. The debate turns into a defamation of ideas, a verbal slug-fest, and all sides deteriorate into ridiculous non sequiturs and random scenarios designed not to reveal the truth, but rather into trap the opponent in his words or trick him into admitting something as if character assassination was the point of the debate. This of course usually takes place at the end of the debate once both sides are fatigued after having tried to their utmost to make eloquent arguments and eloquent refutations. It becomes nothing more than a show of vanity by the end, very often.

Leaving aside the venue of apologetics and focusing on theodicy, I think the subject deserves some treatment. It's a fair question the atheist asks," If there is a God, then why is there so much suffering and what we might call evil in the world?" The thing is, most atheists would be talking out both sides of their mouth by even saying this. Atheist don't believe in a universal morality, they don't believe in objective ethics and virtues. In fact, most of them would staunchly defend the notion that these are conventional, man-made, subjective concepts. So, in essence, if we take their assertion as just stated, then that would be like asking an Alaskan native to account for culture of the Bushmen of Africa. Subjective is subjective right?

But far from attempting to wiggle out of answering, like the rhetorician does, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy there, and I'll go a little further. The atheist asks the question because the theist is stating that there is an objective morality and that there is a universal right. So, the atheist is basically putting a ball in the theists court that he's pretty sure the theist can't possibly dribble. That's fair; the atheist shouldn't have to argue the theists side of the argument for him. But supposing that the atheist is right, what then? What do we make of evil? What can we possibly say? There's only one thing we can say: there is no real evil, there is no real morality. What then? If there's no tangible, objective moral difference between giving a person a hug and giving them poison, then there is no problem of evil. It simply doesn't exist.

This is where the atheist hypocrisy usually rears it's ugly head and we have a full on, uncompromising endorsement of morals from the atheist, which is exactly what they atheist was refusing to tolerate from the theist. Except, instead of the theist's morals, the atheist pushes post-modern humanism down everyone's throat. So, the atheist only condemns the theist so they can turn around and do the same exact thing, and that as we all know, whether you're a theist or an atheist, is pure hypocrisy.

Theodicy can seem like a tough nut to crack, but in reality the only thing that makes it a tough subject is that people apply strawmen to the people arguing the issue. For some reason, the theist isn't allowed to make an argument unless he defends the Calvinist double-predestination, where God controls everything and everyone and micromanages the universe with supreme impeccability, right down to the tiniest quirk. That's kinda like the atheist saying to the theist," Hey, let's race, but you have to drive in the car I give you." Huh?

In a universe where God and man are both described according to the Catholic schematic, answering theodicy isn't problematic at all. The universe works in the same pattern as we observe everyday. Parents make a child, the child once grown has choices to make. It can make good choices or bad choices. In short, freewill is the answer to theodicy. At the bottom of each of my blogs I have my favorite quote from Aristotle, perhaps from all philosophy," Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."

God is the good; the good is certainly something anyone can give assent to and at the same time know that it is immeasurable. Here we have a reasonable argument concerning God, I think.. Everyone does what they do for a reason, even when accidents happen, they did certain things which set the accident in motion. A woman procures an abortion so that she will not be encumbered with a child, aiming at the good of freedom. A man steals to satisfy a desire, aiming at the good of happiness. People rape to satisfy sexual urges and to establish dominance, aiming at the goods of power and pleasure. All of them fail miserably. In the end, however, they prove Aristotle correct, that all things do in fact aim at the Good.

So, the problem of evil is exactly what Christians have been saying it is all along: a conflict between man's ability and desire to obtain the good. It comes down to free will. Man must take responsibility for the problem of evil, because he causes it and eliminates it, by both action an inaction. This has nothing to do with God being malevolent and everything to do with His sovereignty. As the Greek philosophers were so fond of saying," The sun, too, peers into privies and is not contaminated by them." That evil exists has not to do with God. In fact, evil is a kind of vacuum, seeing as how God is the Good and evil is chiefly a lack of good, as we have just demonstrated with the rapist, the thief, and the murderer. The Christian schematic isn't problematic at all, like the Atheist suggested it was. It's only problematic if Christianity is forced in such a debate to defend a heresy and a non-God. There, theodicy solved.
 
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Cultural and Moral Relativity

It's always strange when you have a college professor, someone who is supposedly educated, look you in the face while standing in front of 50 people and say," All cultures/morals are equal." Especially, when they have a smug look on their faces like they're the only one in the room who understands the concept of objectivity vs. subjectivity. I used to take the high road with such people and give them a chance of recovering with dignity, but I find that the more preposterous I become the more preposterous they become. I'll explain what I mean.

Let's take the situation in the above. The professor makes this claim, that all cultures/ morals are equal because they are asserting as fact, without declaring it, an unproven assumption that all cultures/ morals are subjective. So, you appeal to their sense of humanity and bring something up like chauvinistic cultures. Without missing a beat they reiterate their point feigning objectivity, without explaining the "why," confident in their assumptions and content with their arrogance.

Their assertion creates a number of dilemmas. Probably the most obvious is that it dismisses the concepts of good and bad, right and wrong. By doing so, they are attempting to unilaterally dismiss a multitude of things and people they have no business dismissing. When they dismiss the concept of good and bad, right and wrong they're dismissing every religion in the world, they're dismissing the laws of every nation since the dawn of civilization, they're dismissing human rights, they're dismissing animal right, they're dismissing much of philosophy, dismissing family and friendship... all while arrogantly smiling. Can you tell I don't like intellectual  arrogance concerning untried assertions?

Whenever this happens, I'm reminded of the scene from the movie 'The Princess Bride' where Wesley says to the villain," You're that smart?" and the villain says,"Have you ever heard of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle?... morons." That's basically what these people are doing; they're dismissing on their own authority Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle along with everything and everyone else stated in the above.

If you point this out to them, they begin to stammer a bit as they try their assertion for the first time. For the first time they actually wonder if what they've been saying and believing is true. I used to help them with this process and be more reserved at this stage of such debates, but it seems that as soon as they've realized that they're had they divert their attention to their embarrassment and they go back to blindly defending their primary assertion. They prefer ignorance to the enlightenment of the point, by failing to submit to what the facts bear out.

So, now what I do is as soon as they're reeling from the realization of what they have just dismissed, to their shame, I follow up with a final point,” Well, I'm a Nazi and I'm relieved to finally meet an open minded person like you. I know you won't judge me because I'm a racist and I think that we should kill all Jews. By the way, you don't have any non-white ancestors do you?" tongue in cheek.

Most often in the media, in college, in the modern world, we encounter this sort of theoretical cultural/moral relativity nonsense instead of well tried, well reasoned assertions. The media and schools of higher learning are supposed to be devoted to enlightening people, yeah? They’re supposed to be communicating objective truths, unless they are expressly communicating subjective opinions. I suppose most people would just shrug if the media blurred the line between reality and fiction, objectivity and subjectivity. But we would expect more from an institution of higher learning, yes?

The reality is that culture and morality come in two varieties: nature and convention. The family, in all its variations, is a natural piece of culture. Duty to family is naturally moral. Then, you have morals and culture of convention. Wearing a fruit basket on your head is a cultural convention. Being a pro-choice individual is an exercise of moral convention. Political loyalty can be an exercise of moral convention. When it comes down to it, however, there are some natural morals we can’t negotiate on that cause us to come to conclusions like: Don’t murder, take care of your offspring, don’t rape, don’t steal, don’t perjure… etc.

Morals form a culture, but at some point a culture can start to fabricate morals. If a culture starts chucking the natural morality for the conventional, or they introduce morals that contradict each other, then the consequence is an inferior culture. Leaving all that aside to say, cultures are not equal, all moral systems are not equal. And to some extent morals and cultures are both natural and man-made; it’s not one way or the other like secular and religious fundamentalists try to say so often. A blind man could see that. People get so caught up, especially in America, with this absolutist, either-or thinking. We need to challenge that when discretion calls for it. There are absolutes out there, I'm not saying there aren't; to say that there are no absolutes is an absolute. But we need to be moderate in our approach to things and always strive for legitimate and true objectivity. 

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Euthanasia Should Remain Illegal

In the recent decades there has been quite a bit of talk concerning euthanasia. The proponents of euthanasia say that every person has the right to die. On this point we might all agree, but this is not really at the heart of the issue. The question isn’t whether or not man has the right to die, but rather does man have the right to kill himself? Here, I will do my best to convince you that man doesn’t have that right at all. My purpose is to give you well founded and systematic reasons for why these practices are bad for society and the individual on various levels. Further, my intent is not to persuade you by means of rhetoric, but if I can win you over by reason then I have succeeded.

Euthanasia is defined in the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Also, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines suicide as the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally, especially by a person of years, of discretion, and of sound mind. However, for the purposes of our discussion we will use an expanded definition of euthanasia, which is inclusive of psychological problems as well. The reason being that those who believe euthanasia is a right, believe that the psychologically impaired should have equal access to euthanasia.

Immortalhumans.com says in its online article titled An Overview On Euthanasia; Are We the Master of Our Own Destiny, “In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize doctor –assisted suicide. Around 20% of the death toll in the country is from euthanasia and it is believed that out of this 12% is involuntary. The consent or acknowledgment of doctor-assisted suicide gave rise to illegal dilemma of falsified proof of death willingness. Imagine the ramifications of legalizing euthanasia. People would live in fear, instead of having doctors willing to treat patients, there would be doctors ready to kill them instead.”

Euthanasia is intended to be a way out for individuals who are faced with often incurable diseases, for the elderly who do not want to die in the due course of time, for those who are suicidal, and the depressed. The argument goes that these individuals have the right to do with their bodies what they please; they have a right to choose whether or not they will continue to live in such painful physical and psychological conditions. In fact, there is a wide array of arguments for doctor assisted euthanasia. This is partly due to the popularity of the issue. I’ll take a moment here to mention some of the pro-euthanasia arguments.

One very popular argument is that if man is allowed to choose how he will live, then it follows that he should be allowed to choose how he shall die. This argument seems reasonable, until we examine it further. Do we get to choose how we live? Are any of you living exactly as you would if you did indeed have the choice? The answer is no, because nature, circumstance, and society work in unison against us to put restrictions on our ability to do exactly what we want, when we want and therefore no one is living as they choose. Man does not have the right to live as he chooses, nature has not provided for that. So, if man does not have the “right” to choose how he will live, then it follows that he does not have the right to choose how he will die either. Therefore, this is a fallacious argument for euthanasia.

Another popular argument for euthanasia and suicide is that which appeals to nature. These people argue based on instances of suicide and euthanasia observed in nature across various species. The argument goes that often enough in nature there are instances where herds leave behind the elderly to die. They also make mention of the suicidal tendencies of various species. The purpose of this argument is to establish that suicide is a natural impulse, and euthanasia is a natural way for a community to deal with the eminent death of its members. They reason that if they can show euthanasia and suicide to be natural impulses then the government does not have the right to make them illegal or regulate them. 

The problem with this argument is quite simple. While animals both euthanize and commit suicide, they also have sex with their siblings and parents, lick their anuses, and not only eat each others children, but their own as well; and I might add that they do so with far greater frequency than they do euthanasia and suicide. So, if we are to allow euthanasia and suicide based off of natural evidences, we must first allow cannibalism, murder, and incest. Therefore, this is another fallacious argument.

Another very popular argument is that euthanasia doesn’t hurt anyone. Notice here that this argument is made only for euthanasia. This is in part because to say the same concerning suicide is ridiculous. Many of us know of someone who has committed suicide. Some of us have seen the sad slope into despair and the final self-destruction of our loved ones. No one can say that suicide only hurts the person who commits it.

So, instead the argument is made that “euthanasia” doesn’t hurt anyone else. When this argument for euthanasia is propounded it is coupled with images of the terminally ill, crippled individuals, and aging widows. It is far easier to stomach such an idea when we imagine a person suffering from AIDS in a doctor’s office receiving a painless shot that ends their suffering. It’s easier if we think of a person whose whole body is paralyzed from the neck down, choosing to end their hopeless life. Or the lonely 80 year old widow whose family never visits her; who has passed the last seven years alone without her lifelong husband.

Those scenarios are much easier for us to accept, because they appeal to our sense of mercy, hence the term “mercy killing.” They don’t involve a bloody bed spread that someone shot themselves on; they don’t involve someone vomiting to death while trying to dial 911, because they changed their mind and don’t want to die after all. It’s in a sterile environment, administered by a medical professional, and they just go to “sleep.”

But this proposition is yet another argument rife with errors of logic. Specifically, this is what is called a ‘pathetic argument’ and is an error of logic. This argument attempts to assert the rightness of itself by appealing to emotions while pointing at the pitiable and pathetic state of the object being argued; in this case a person.

We are compelled to agree with this argument, because it appeals to emotion; not because it corresponds with reason. To quote Socrates,” A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.” We are sold on this argument because it makes euthanasia out to be some sort of good for those who are suffering incurable and hopeless physical conditions. However, in the same instance they try to “shoe-horn” in psychological cases as well, for instance the lonely widow scenario. They try to gain the moral superiority by making a claim to mercy. 

Further, they are pretending that it is the same species of mercy by lumping all of their scenarios together. Can we truly compare a person with a mangled and paralyzed body to an otherwise healthy elderly person who is simply tired of living? This argument creates a plethora of moral, philosophical and ethical dilemmas and in no way levies an effective argument. For instance, are those who are psychologically impaired with suicidal depression fit to make such choices? No.

The argument that euthanasia doesn’t hurt anyone else is based on the idea that we are all sovereign; that we are independent individuals who have a right to do whatever we want with our bodies. Let’s say that we do legalize euthanasia based on this thesis, what will the second and third order effects be? How far can we take this philosophy and what will it do to society? How will it change our laws, our world view, and our social norms? If we are the masters of our own bodies and immune to government interference concerning what we do with them, then it follows that we should legalize all illegal drugs. We should be able to do heroine, cocaine, ecstasy, crack and LSD. Prostitution should be legalized. Further, the sale of human body parts should no longer be illegal.

Where does this philosophy end? If you open the door, what else must you let in? Why don’t we allow people to do or sell crack? Because it ruins lives, and those lives add up to make communities, which add up to make society. The sale of illegal drugs has an adverse effect on society; that is why people may not do what they want to with their bodies. Similarly, the sale of body parts is illegal because people would be performing operations on each other and thousands of people would die; people might even murder in order to sell off body parts at a high price if they could readily sell it in a free market. We don’t allow prostitution because of the spread of disease, the increase of crime and the moral decay it brings to society. 

The idea that a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own body is diametrically opposed not only to our laws, but to reason itself. The very idea promotes anarchy. Anarchy is the philosophy of “Do what thou wilt.” This selfish philosophy does injury to society which is a mutual necessity for the individual and the collective. 

In the end, all arguments for euthanasia and suicide are either fallacious, subjective, or both. The argument for euthanasia is not built on rational arguments or facts. Further, for the past 2,500 years the physicians and doctors of the West have take then Hippocratic Oath where in it is written: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” The very idea of euthanasia disagrees with the medical arts, and with our common ancestors

To recap, there is a difference between having the right to die and the right to kill oneself. We may choose to not be resuscitated; we may even decline treatment or cure for life threatening diseases. We may choose martyrdom over self-defense, or we may even prefer to be killed instead of killing. These instances differ from euthanasia, because we are not killing ourselves, neither are we hastening the inevitable. Man does indeed have the right to die, but he does not have the right to hasten the inevitable and take his own life, because it is against the natural law. Therefore, no government can make right what is inherently wrong in nature, even if they should legalize it; and if a government cannot make right what is wrong it most certainly should not try and give license to the people to do what is wrong. There is no sufficient evidence to support the right to kill one’s self in nature, in philosophy, in science, in antiquity, or otherwise. If anyone can effectively make the argument for suicide and euthanasia, proving that it is indeed good and beneficial for mankind to practice, then let them make their argument and better mankind. 

Otherwise, we must submit to the facts. It is a question of law and not of passions and opinions. To quote John Adams,” Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidences.” We must judge this matter based solely on the evidences produced for and against euthanasia. When our liberty is destroyed through the abuse thereof, we are returned to the tyranny of our passions. We have liberty for a purpose, and not for the sake of itself. Liberty does not give us the right to do whatever we want; liberty and lawlessness are not synonyms. Euthanasia, suicide and all other such practices must remain illegal, because we are a society of laws; laws which extend from and expound on our fundamental rights as human beings.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~