Critiquing: Episode #092 — Why are people evil? Could God be evil?

November 18, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Problem of evil — Emotional vs. intellectual — Free will — God’s goodness — Reconciling evil

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The episode presents an accurate discussion on theological aspects of evil, aligning with widely accepted theological perspectives. The factual recounting of theological concepts and biblical references is precise.
Degree of Coherence	B+	The arguments presented are logically coherent, with a clear progression from the nature of evil to the implications of divine goodness. The episode effectively maintains a consistent and logical flow throughout the discussion.
Absence of Fallacies	B	The episode avoids major logical fallacies, presenting well-reasoned arguments. However, some claims about the nature of evil and divine attributes rely heavily on theological assumptions, which may not be universally accepted.
Degree of Evidence	C+	The evidence provided is predominantly based on theological and philosophical texts, complemented by personal anecdotes and historical references. While these sources are credible within the context, the lack of empirical evidence reduces the overall strength.
Degree of Testability	D+	The theological and philosophical nature of the claims makes them difficult to test empirically. Assertions about divine nature and the existence of evil are inherently challenging to validate through conventional scientific methods.
Rational Confidence	C	The arguments inspire a moderate level of rational confidence, as they are logically sound and well-presented but lack empirical substantiation. The reliance on faith-based premises limits the degree of rational certainty.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence:

The episode heavily relies on theological and philosophical texts, which, while credible within their domain, lack empirical substantiation. For instance, the claim that “evil is an intruder in God’s good creation” is deeply rooted in theological doctrine but lacks empirical verification.

“Evil is a denial of the goodness of creation. It’s an invader, the powers of death are corrupting and distorting and destroying goodness.”

2. Degree of Testability:

The theological and philosophical nature of the claims makes them difficult to test empirically. For example, the assertion that God’s inherent nature could not be evil is a metaphysical claim that falls outside the scope of empirical testing.

“The idea that God’s character could have just as easily been evil and that actually it’s every time something good happens that’s a contradiction to his character doesn’t sit with the world that we know.”

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument #1: The Problem of Evil

Premises:

1. If a good and omnipotent God exists, then evil should not exist.
2. Evil exists in the world.
3. Therefore, a good and omnipotent God does not exist. (Conclusion implied by many atheistic arguments)

Counter-Argument:

This argument assumes that the existence of evil is incompatible with a good and omnipotent God. However, it could be countered that God’s allowance of evil serves a greater purpose that is beyond human understanding, such as the development of free will or the potential for greater goods. This theodicy posits that evil and suffering are necessary for the realization of higher-order goods that outweigh the negatives of evil. Thus, the presence of evil does not necessarily negate the existence of a good and omnipotent God, but rather indicates a more complex divine plan.

---

Argument #2: God’s Nature and the Possibility of Evil

Premises:

1. God’s nature is uncreated and immutable.
2. An uncreated and immutable nature could potentially be evil.
3. Therefore, it is possible that God could be evil.

Counter-Argument:

The counter-argument here hinges on the nature of good and evil as understood within the theological context. Good is often viewed as a positive, creative force, while evil is seen as a negation or corruption of good. In this light, it can be argued that an uncreated and immutable nature that is fundamentally good cannot logically be evil, as evil is not a substantive entity but rather a deprivation or distortion of good. Additionally, the presence of beauty, joy, and moral goodness in the world serves as evidence of a fundamentally good creator, making the hypothesis of an evil God less plausible.

---

Argument #3: Reconciling Divine Goodness with Evil in the World

Premises:

1. If God is good and omnipotent, He would want to eliminate evil.
2. Evil persists in the world.
3. Therefore, God is either not good, not omnipotent, or does not exist.

Counter-Argument:

This argument is often challenged by the free will defense, which asserts that God values human freedom and that the existence of evil is a necessary consequence of granting free will to human beings. Furthermore, the soul-making theodicy suggests that experiencing and overcoming evil is essential for spiritual and moral development. These perspectives propose that the persistence of evil is compatible with divine goodness and omnipotence, as it serves a purpose in the broader context of human growth and divine providence.

◉ Addressing Argument #3:

The Misguided Reification of Abhorrence into Evil

In the discourse surrounding morality, particularly within the Christian context, the concept of evil is often invoked to explain the presence of suffering, malevolence, and moral wrongs in the world. However, this notion of evil as an actual, tangible force is deeply flawed and unsupported by evidence. What we truly experience is the emotion of abhorrence—a visceral reaction to acts that we find morally repugnant. The transformation of this emotional response into an ontological entity called “evil” is both misguided and mendacious.

Abhorrence, a natural human emotion, is often used to express strong disapproval or disgust towards certain actions or behaviors. It is a subjective response that varies widely among individuals and cultures. Despite its powerful emotional impact, abhorrence lacks the objective reality necessary to be considered a substantive force. By reifying abhorrence into “evil,” individuals are attempting to grant their personal and societal judgments a false sense of universality and obligatory power.

This process of reification—taking an abstract concept or emotion and treating it as if it were a concrete, real entity—is a common yet illegitimate maneuver. Those dissatisfied with the limited normative power of mere abhorrence seek to fabricate an additional dimension of reality where “evil” and “righteousness” reside. This inclination to elevate subjective emotions to a transcendent ontological domain serves to bolster personal beliefs with an unwarranted aura of objectivity.

The Christian tradition and other faiths have long exploited this tendency, presenting evil as a force that opposes the divine goodness of God. This dualistic framework provides a convenient explanation for the existence of suffering and moral decay. However, this framework is inherently dishonest as it imposes a fabricated metaphysical structure onto what are purely emotional reactions.

We must exercise restraint and critical thinking to resist this impulse. Our emotions, including abhorrence, are valid aspects of human experience, but they do not possess the ontological weight to be considered forces of evil or good. To claim otherwise is to engage in intellectual dishonesty and to perpetuate a myth that serves more to comfort than to enlighten.

In conclusion, the notion of evil is an unwarranted extrapolation of the emotion of abhorrence. It reflects a misguided attempt to add legitimacy to our emotions by improperly elevating them to an imaginary, transcendent ontological domain. Recognizing this allows us to maintain intellectual integrity and avoid the pitfalls of metaphysical fabrication. Let us focus on understanding our emotions and the subjective nature of our moral judgments, rather than falsely reifying them into forces that do not exist.

---

We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Let’s engage in a thoughtful and critical conversation about the nature of morality, emotion, and the constructs we create to understand our world.