Free Critical Thinking About Argument On Evil

The argument of evil within the contexts of philosophy is a rich, deep tapestry of persuasion and disagreement. Theists, or theological philosophers, argue the argument of evil states there is an all-knowing being, or god, who would not allow any pain or evil to occur. At the very least, it is argue this god would not allow certain kinds of pain or evil to occur. However, logical philosophers and naturalists tend to argue that the fact evil and pain exist at all is enough proof that god does not exist, or that theological philosophers should admit they are wrong about their original assumptions about god. The two sides have bickered continuously, demanding the opposition acknowledge they are wrong. While both make good cases, philosophically it can be difficult to prove anything. However, it appears logistics win when it concerns the argument on evil.
There are theological philosophers who have refused to back down concerning arguments for a god that would not allow evil to prevail. Rather than admit defeat, they simply alter their arguments slightly in an effort to make them seem more correct. For example, in recent decades, theologians have decided instead of a god that would not allow any evil or pain at all, there is a god with a moral code enabling him to find sufficient reason to allow certain types of evil. Therefore, when certain evil and pain occurs, it is because the person deserves it, or it is part of god’s “plan,” rather than because the theologian is, simply, incorrect. They recruit utilitarianism to help their argument, citing that this god uses evil in order to achieve the greater good; one must suffer so that many may flourish because of pain and suffering.
It is clear to other philosophers, however, that the evil and pain explained to church congregations is far from the typical example given in school books regarding an obese man trapping a tour group in a cave near high tide. Rather, the theologians instigate utilitarianism incorrectly, as a dying gasp in an effort to keep their argument alive. In reality, the evil committed on earth is not at the hands of a god in order to achieve a greater good. It is just gratuitous, senseless evil that often lacks rhyme or reason. The greater good of the population almost never springs from these senseless acts that normally cause pain to everybody they touch, eliminating the theologian’s argument for utilitarianism. Instead, the argument only reinforces the argument that god most likely does not exist and we are, in fact, on our own.
In stark contrast, many opposing philosophers argue against the idea of a god, his issue against evil, or the use of utilitarianism for evil with naturalism. Naturalism is the exact opposite of everything a theologian believes, citing only natural causes, such as proven laws and forces, as being responsible for what happens in the world rather than blaming an omnipotent being in the sky. Naturalists, as they are referred to, surmise these natural laws manage the behavior and structure of everything we see, everything we do not see, and even how things behave. What things do, and how they change is a product of the naturalist laws. Consequently, if an individual commits an evil act of violence, it is likely directly or indirectly due to one of the naturalist laws, rather than a god’s bidding.
Many theologians argue that naturalism cannot account for evil acts because these acts are committed out of emotional motivation. This is often true, and naturalists have an argument for such an occasion. Regarding the argument on evil, naturalists divide their laws into two categories: ontological and methodological. Ontological laws pertain to physical laws. How things move, how they are made, and their atomic structure is best defined ontologically and has little to do with evil or manipulative motivation unless the individual commits these acts based on, for example, a chemical imbalance in their brain. In that case, the root of the issue is ontological because the chemical makeup, or natural law of how the individual is composed, is faulty and they have committed an evil act based upon it. Ontological naturalism also relies on concrete physical and chemical proof in order to prove a being’s existence, completely erasing the possibility of a god. Methodological naturalism, in turn, refers to the assumption that the methods are working without being truths, thereby leaving actions open to interpretation. For instance, an individual commits an evil act, but by the standards of methodological naturalism, the cause is debatable rather than immediately joined to god, because there is evidence to suggest other reasons may be the cause.
This is an argument that is seemingly never-ending, though it is unclear why. The application of critical thinking would tell most individuals that theologians are grasping at straws in an attempt to immobilize acts of evil or, at most, make certain somebody else is blamed. The core of utilitarianism states that few are harmed for the benefit of many. Senseless, painful acts are committed at random all day, every day. They are committed against people who do not deserve them, and sometimes they are committed against large crowds at one time. Very few times does one open the morning newspaper or listen to the morning report and hear one of these random acts of violence cost few lives at the benefit of many. Typically, many experience evil acts and there is a ripple effect; people die, and their loved ones are left to grieve and attempt to make sense of why something so senseless and cruel happened to their mother or sister or son instead of somebody else’s family member. The core of the theological argument has been whittled down so much it no longer makes sense.
On the other hand, there is the naturalist argument. While it does not account for everything, it at least offers more logic to a situation that once had none. Eliminating the option of a god by forcing natural laws such as atomic particles and physical proof to dictate presence, it demands answers where theologians settled for none. Moreover, naturalists make no excuses for humankind. When theologians say god will not allow evil or, if evil prevails there is a good reason and he will reveal it if he so chooses, naturalists say it is your fault and you should own your actions. We must all learn to appreciate the ontological, as well as the methodological naturalism, for it is the perfect combination of philosophy, logic, and science. It does not give answers, but asks them instead. Furthermore, naturalism acknowledges it is not always evil for the sake of evil, or even senseless evil. In some cases, the individual may be deeply disturbed, or suffering from a sort of chemical imbalance in the brain, as mentioned. Ontological naturalism would understand the combination of logic and science that would attempt to ascertain a cure for this imbalance, while theology would likely insist the afflicted individual attempt to pray their imbalance away. In the event they could not, it would be passed off as an evil punishment, perpetrated by god.
In sum, the argument on evil is becoming timeless, but it is also, in a way, becoming ancient. Theologians are making an argument for an idea that is essentially archaic. The idea that an omnipotent man in the sky is protecting us from all harm and evil, or striking us down because we are undeserving of fair treatment is not only antiquated, by to make both arguments is hypocritical. Theologians do not seem to understand this. Naturalists, though not completely willing to give all of the answers concerning the argument on evil, at least acknowledge a world lacking in logic needs logical answers. Naturalism asks humans to answer for actions, while also recognizing certain actions may be out of their control. Naturalists recognize the world around us, accepting it for what it is, yearning to learn more about it without attempting to ascertain unknowable answers about a man in the clouds because they understand these answers simply do not exist. Put plainly, naturalists understand the idea of an all-knowing, ever-watchful, sometimes vengeful god is not natural, and they strive to understand instead the natural workings of our world in an effort to understand ourselves better. Perhaps this is because naturalists understand, because there is no god, we are the only evil, therefore we are the only argument.