Enlightenment: Part 1

I'd like to start out this blog with a series of arguments that form the basis of my atheism. I will start out with a little history in part 1, free will will enter in part 2, and part 3 will hopefully wrap it all up. I'm not sure if that's the guaranteed order yet, but I'll change it here if it isn't!

It all began on a fateful car-ride I took with my good friend Dan. I believe Andy was there as well. Probably Justin, too, and I think either Pat or Mark, but I forget which. We used to take long car-rides a lot when we were in high school. It was a time of coming to understand ourselves better, and of course to talk and have fun!

That night, we had been talking about god. This was around the time of our confirmation, if I'm not mistaken. We talked and talked and talked. I forget exactly what our arguments were, and even what the exact conclusions that we came to were, but I know that that was the point that I became an agnostic. I had decided that it was just very improbable that god existed, and if god did exist, then it was extremely unlikely that Catholicism was the right path. There was just too much crap in it, frankly. We all thought our parents knew best, but we realized that they were also probably wrong about this: It was all they had really known, so how could they have ever understood anything else?

A few other things happened to me, which I prefer not to speak about here, but it caused me great harm. The typical questions of, "Why me?" and so on of a troubled youth crushed me into a wreck. My good friend Hillori saved me there, and for that I am forever in her debt.

What that made me realize was that there is simply way too much evil in the world for there to be an all-good god. What I did not know was that that was the Problem of Evil, a problem that philosophers and theologians have been grappling with forever. It is in fact the major reason for my enlightenment, or discovery of atheism.

There are generally speaking two types of Problems of Evil: Logical, and evidential. The logical Problem of Evil is usually stated something like: The existence of evil is contradictory with the very nature of an "all-good" god. Most theologians will simply dismiss this argument with, "There is nothing contradictory with some evil existing, even if god is all-good. He could allow some evil in order to produce greater goods."

This argument always confused me. Is their claim that evil is allowed, as long as the end result is more good than bad? If so, then I am certainly confused as to why they believe evil is bad at all. When something seems utterly horrible, they may claim that we can't see the end result, and therefore the end result may be a net gain. But the fact is, why does god have to allow ANY evil, if he is all-powerful? Could he not bring about these same goods while not allowing the evil? For example: A man could go insane and kill people. Normally, this person would kill a lot of people, but couldn't god stop the man from killing all those people, and still have others become compassionate regarding the ATTEMPT to murder people? In other words, I see no reason to actually allow the murders.

Further, would the theists who simply dismiss the logical Problem of Evil argue that the ends justify the means? I know at least one famous author who would disagree with them!

The evidential problem of evil is also very strong. It is usually stated as: Granted, some evil may be needed to provide the most good, but does there really need to be so much? The typical responses to this are that god cannot take away peoples' free will; that evil is a necessary choice to be able to be made if we are to have free will. Theists also claim that even though there seems to us to be a lot of evil, if it's all part of god's plan, then it must lead to more good.

I will deal with the free will "argument" in my next post. I'd like to deal with the whole "god's plan" thing. People who argue that god has a plan, and that the existence of evil must be part of god's plan (otherwise, why indeed WOULD evil exist?), are in fact just committing the fallacy of begging the question. Instead of producing logical steps starting from premises in order to prove the conclusion, they just assume the conclusion is true. Well, I have news for you: It is not.

The above reasoning is just a cold, hard rationalization that many common believers have adopted, but it seems to be prevalent in the theological realm as well. But it is also ad hoc, not unlike the claim that god exists outside of time. I once asked a friend who believes to prove that god existed outside of time, and he simply said he didn't have to; that it is obvious! That made me laugh and laugh and laugh.

Anyway, the point is that if we look at all the evil and can see no point in it, but we ASSUME that god exists, has a plan, and evil is part of it, then why do we think evil is bad? Obviously it's not! We should all revel in the evil, and indeed commit as many atrocious acts as we can. For, if god has a plan, are we not part of it? Can we not do whatever we want, and claim that we are simply doing it for god's plan? Of course we can! Because it's all part of god's plan, and god's plan can't be wrong. . .unless, wait a minute. Unless there's no god. Or unless god exists, but doesn't have a plan. Or unless god exists, but the plan is flawed. Do you see how many ad hoc assumptions one would have to make in order to really be a believer?

That's all I have for now. I will deal with the other claim about free will next, in another post.