Critiquing: Before You Argue for God from the Existence of Evil, You Have to Prove Evil Exists

April 15, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Evil’s Existence — Philosophical Grounds — Logical Fallacies — Cognitive Biases — Proof Obligation

---

Introduction

This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the content titled “Before You Argue for God from the Existence of Evil, You Have to Prove Evil Exists.” The analysis will identify logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and potential cognitive biases, while providing a thorough critique from a secular and empirical standpoint.

Logical Inconsistencies

1. Assumption of Universal Knowledge of Evil

The argument posits that everyone is aware of evil and its existence is evident to all:

“There is something everyone knows, no matter where they live or when they live… that there’s something wrong with the world. And this is what we call the problem of evil.”

This claim assumes universal consensus on the nature and existence of evil without accounting for differing cultural, philosophical, and individual perspectives on morality and ethics. This overlooks the diversity in human thought and the subjective nature of moral experiences.

To strengthen this point, consider the following reductio ad absurdum argument:

Premise 1: If everyone knows and agrees on the nature and existence of evil, then there would be no significant disagreements on moral issues across different cultures and philosophical traditions.
Premise 2: There are significant disagreements on moral issues across different cultures and philosophical traditions.
Conclusion: Therefore, not everyone knows and agrees on the nature and existence of evil.

This reductio syllogism highlights the inconsistency in assuming universal knowledge and agreement on the nature of evil. The assumption fails to account for the vast array of moral perspectives and experiences that exist globally.

2. Conflation of Subjective Experience and Objective Reality

The content asserts that the perception of evil is analogous to perceiving a physical object, like a ballpoint pen:

“We have perceptual capabilities that allow us to see this thing. And that’s adequate as evidence for the thing itself.”

This analogy is flawed because it conflates subjective moral experiences with objective physical reality. Perceptions of evil are influenced by individual, cultural, and societal factors, unlike the objective existence of physical objects which can be empirically verified.

To illustrate this flaw, consider the following reductio ad absurdum argument:

Premise 1: If the perception of evil is analogous to the perception of a physical object, then it should be possible to empirically verify the existence of evil in the same way we verify physical objects.
Premise 2: It is not possible to empirically verify the existence of evil in the same way we verify physical objects because perceptions of evil are subjective and vary across individuals and cultures.
Conclusion: Therefore, the perception of evil is not analogous to the perception of a physical object.

This syllogism underscores the error in treating subjective moral experiences as equivalent to objective physical reality. The analogy fails because it does not account for the inherent subjectivity and variability of moral perceptions.

3. Circular Reasoning

The argument that evil’s existence is self-evident and requires no proof is circular:

“So, I don’t bear any burden at all of responsibility to prove evil exists.”

This stance relies on the assumption that evil exists because people perceive it, without providing independent evidence for its objective existence.

To clarify this point, consider the following reductio ad absurdum argument:

Premise 1: If the existence of evil is self-evident and requires no proof, then any perceived concept that people claim to be self-evident should also require no proof.
Premise 2: There are many perceived concepts that people claim to be self-evident (e.g., supernatural phenomena, conspiracy theories) that clearly require proof to be accepted as true.
Conclusion: Therefore, the existence of evil cannot be considered self-evident and requires proof.

This syllogism demonstrates the problematic nature of claiming that something is self-evident and beyond the need for proof. It opens the door to accepting any concept without evidence, which undermines rational discourse and critical thinking.

Unsubstantiated Claims

1. Evil as a Privation of Good

The content presents evil as a lack or privation of good:

“The classical understanding of evil is that it’s a privation of good. It has no ontological status.”

This claim is philosophical and lacks empirical support. It assumes a specific metaphysical framework without substantiating why this view should be accepted over others.

2. Universal Moral Awareness

The assertion that everyone recognizes moral virtues and vices is presented without evidence:

“We can recognize examples of good. And we see them. And we know that these are moral virtues.”

This overlooks the complex and varied nature of moral reasoning across different cultures and individuals. The content fails to provide evidence for the universality of these perceptions.

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias

The content displays confirmation bias by selectively interpreting evidence to support pre-existing beliefs about the existence of evil and the nature of morality.

2. Availability Heuristic

The reliance on personal anecdotes and familiar moral intuitions illustrates the availability heuristic, where immediate examples are taken as representative of broader truths.

Logical Fallacies

1. Argument from Ignorance

The content implies that disbelief in evil’s existence is a result of ignorance or impaired perception:

“And if your vision wasn’t impaired and you kept denying that it was there… people would start thinking you’re being a little bit cantankerous.”

This fallacy assumes that skepticism arises from a lack of understanding rather than a legitimate difference in viewpoint.

2. Straw Man Fallacy

The content misrepresents materialist and atheist perspectives, suggesting they deny the existence of evil outright due to a presupposition against non-material entities:

“A materialist can say evil is not a material thing and therefore evil can’t exist.”

This oversimplifies and distorts the nuanced positions held by materialists and atheists regarding morality and ethics.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

1. Burden of Proof

The content dismisses the need to substantiate the existence of evil:

“I don’t bear any burden at all of responsibility to prove evil exists.”

However, in rational discourse, the burden of proof lies on those making a claim, especially one as significant as the existence of an ontological entity like evil. Substantiating claims with evidence is essential for intellectual integrity and credibility.

Testing Alleged Promises

1. Empirical Methods

Any alleged promises of divine intervention or moral outcomes can be approached through empirical testing and falsifiability. This would involve:

• Designing experiments or observational studies to assess the occurrence and impact of purported divine actions.
• Evaluating the consistency and reliability of these occurrences compared to random chance or natural explanations.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

1. Degree of Belief

Beliefs should be proportionate to the degree of evidence available. Strong claims require robust evidence:

“The only answer that’s going to be really adequate is going to be a being whose character is the standard, perfectly good.”

This assertion requires compelling evidence to be credible. Without substantive proof, it remains a speculative belief.

---

Invitation to Discuss

Thank you for reading this critique. I invite you to discuss the arguments further in the comments section. Your thoughts and reflections are valuable to this ongoing conversation.