Critiquing: Can You Argue Straight from the Existence of Evil to the Existence of the Christian God?

February 19, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Argument from Evil — Moral Justification — Comparative Theism — Abraham’s Test — Trust and Faith

---

Introduction

The content discusses whether one can directly argue from the existence of evil to the existence of the Christian God, the moral implications of Abraham’s command to sacrifice Isaac, and the distinctions between various monotheistic religions. The following analysis will critique the logical coherence of the arguments presented, highlighting any logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, cognitive biases, and potential fallacies.

Argument from Evil to the Existence of God

Logical Structure of the Argument

The core argument presented is that the existence of evil necessitates a transcendent moral law and, therefore, a transcendent moral lawmaker, which is claimed to be the God of the Bible. This argument follows these steps:

1. Existence of Evil: “If there is a problem of evil, that’s because… it has to be objective evil.”
2. Moral Law: “Bad things have been done… that means some kind of moral obligation or rule or law has been violated.”
3. Moral Lawmaker: “That requires a law maker that is adequate to the task… it has to be a transcendent moral law maker.”

Critique of the Logical Consistency

The argument assumes that the existence of objective evil directly implies the existence of a transcendent moral lawmaker. This leap lacks sufficient justification:

• Assumption of Objectivity: The claim that evil must be objective is asserted without supporting evidence. Subjective or culturally relative interpretations of evil are not addressed.
• Transcendence Requirement: The necessity of a transcendent lawmaker for the existence of moral laws is assumed rather than demonstrated. Other explanations, such as social contract theory or evolutionary ethics, are not considered.

Example of Logical Leap:

“If there is a problem of evil, that’s because… it has to be objective evil or else there’s no problem of evil.”

This statement ignores the possibility of subjective interpretations of evil and does not justify the requirement for objectivity.

Moral Justification and Comparative Theism

Moral Argument and Monotheistic Religions

The content contrasts the God of Christianity with other monotheistic religions, particularly Islam and an unspecified small monotheistic religion:

• Comparative Claim: “The God of the Old Testament is triune… not the same with Islam.”

Critique of Comparative Justifications

The argument here suffers from several logical issues:

• Unsubstantiated Claims: The assertion that only the Christian God provides an adequate moral framework is not substantiated with evidence. The moral frameworks of other religions are dismissed without thorough examination.
• Circular Reasoning: The claim that Christianity is the only religion combining justice and grace is based on the presupposition of Christian theology’s correctness.

Example of Unsubstantiated Claim:

“Christianity really is the only religion where you have justice and grace.”

This statement is not supported with comparative analysis or evidence from other religious doctrines.

Abraham’s Test and Moral Commands

Discussion on Abraham’s Sacrifice

The content explores whether Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, as commanded by God, would be considered good. The argument hinges on the nature of divine commands and God’s inherent goodness:

• Divine Command Theory: “If God commands something and God is good, then the command is a good command.”

Critique of Moral Reasoning

This reasoning introduces several philosophical and logical issues:

• Euthyphro Dilemma: The argument skirts the issue of whether something is good because God commands it or if God commands it because it is good. This is a fundamental challenge to Divine Command Theory.
• Moral Arbitrary: The claim that all commands from a good God are inherently good fails to address potential arbitrariness in divine commands.

Example of Circular Reasoning:

“It’s that he’s a good God. So everything he commands is good and we can reason that it’s good because he commanded it.”

This creates a circular logic loop where God’s goodness is both the premise and the conclusion.

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies

Observing Cognitive Biases

Several cognitive biases and logical fallacies can be identified in the content:

• Confirmation Bias: The argument selectively cites aspects of Christian theology that support the existence of a moral lawgiver while ignoring other potential explanations.
• Strawman Argument: The portrayal of other monotheistic religions as lacking moral coherence is an oversimplification and misrepresentation.

Example of Strawman Argument:

“If Allah wills [that] kind of thing, that’s my understanding too, but I cannot flush that out very well for you.”

This statement oversimplifies Islamic theology without engaging with its complexities.

Substantiation of Claims

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

The content makes several unsubstantiated and dubious claims:

• Objective Evil: The necessity of objective evil is asserted without evidence.
• Moral Lawmaker: The need for a transcendent lawmaker is assumed without addressing alternative explanations.

Example of Unsubstantiated Claim:

“The simplest, most straightforward way of understanding the reality of evil in the world is the reality of objective good.”

This claim is made without presenting alternative perspectives or evidence.

Testing Alleged Promises of God

Potential Methods of Testing

To substantiate the claims about divine promises, empirical and falsifiable methods should be proposed:

• Empirical Verification: Propose experiments or observations that could test the outcomes of divine promises.
• Degree of Belief: Encourage mapping the degree of belief to the degree of available evidence, aligning with principles of evidentialism.

Example of Need for Evidence:

“We can only pray for that kind of trust.”

This statement underscores the reliance on faith without empirical support.

---

To discuss these arguments further, please join the conversation in the comments section.