Is good or evil or the neutral the stronger?
PROBABILITY
Is good stronger than evil? Is evil stronger than good?
Christians answer that even if the universe becomes evil to the hilt, good is
stronger for good is God. God is infinitely good.
They say we must praise that state of affairs should it happen. It may never
happen but that is not the point. The principle is the point.
So if we leave God out of it, will we find that good is stronger than evil or
that evil is the stronger?
Many say that evil is just good used in the wrong way.
Believers in God say that.
So do many atheists.
If evil is misplaced good then it seems that good is stronger than evil for the
evil itself is not all bad. But that view is wrong. The universe could be full
of misplaced good while proper good does not exist.
If evil is warped good that does not mean that good is stronger than evil.
Warped good might be stronger than good even if it there is real good and warped
good in the universe.
To argue that evil being defective good means that good is stronger is itself
evil and risking false hope. It risks refusing to admit what a defective good is
and treating as a real one. It is an evil argument.
THE SCALES
The problem of good is different to the problem of evil.
The problem of good assumes that unless there is a good God then there can be no
good. If you deny that God exists then you have the problem of how you are going
to believe that good really exists.
The problem of evil is how a world of sin and suffering can fit the idea of an
all-loving and all-good God.
The question is which one counts if it has to be one or the other? If good is
what matters then it is more important to show it is real than to worry about
evil fitting the existence of a good God.
To say God exists is to say that if he exists there is a problem of evil. In
other words, an answer to the question of how a good God can let evil and
suffering happen is possible. The believers say that if he does not exist then
we have the problem of good. Some of the believers put a symmetry on the
questions. They think the scales balance. The problem of evil and the problem of
good balance the scales.
While it would be okay for the problem of good to tip the scales, religion
cannot let the problem of evil tip the scales. That would mean that the problem
of good does not prove God by itself. It would mean that the best way to prove
God is to answer the problem of evil. It would be like refusing to see how good
your wife is until you get an explanation for why she sometimes seems to do bad
things. It would be judgemental and suspicious.
So the problem of good needs to tip the scales to verify that good is stronger
than evil.
WHAT IF THE SCALES BALANCE?
Hypothetically if the scales balance then we fail to verify that good is
stronger than evil. We end up having to assume or guess. That is not much good
and is a sign of complete uncertainty.
We can assume one of the following:-
1 that the problem of good is compatible with the thought that the problem of
evil does not refute God.
2 we can assume that they are incompatible. If we assume that then we assume
that there is no God.
3 we can assume that the problem of good does not help with the problem of evil
because they are unrelated and separate issues. In that case we can assume that
we cannot solve the puzzle and so we should suspend judgement on whether or not
God exists. In that case there no reason believe in God at all. We might as well
just guess he exists or that he does not.
We have three options and two of them, 2 and 3, counsel us not to believe in
God. If each option is valid then the odds in favour of God are poor.
3 is controversial. It is said that there cannot be good unless there is evil or
vice versa therefore the two problems cannot be unrelated.
But that argument has nothing to do with God. Good would exist even if there
were no God.
Suppose good cannot exist unless there is a God. Evil happens. God is
responsible then for evil. If there is no God then evil just is and that is all
there is to say about it. If we are responsible, that is nothing compared to God
being responsible for it and evil would still happen even if we never
intentionally did evil. You need total proof before you can say there is a being
who is infinitely and ultimately responsible. You need proof for this even more
than you would need proof that Kate was responsible for neglecting her baby's
health.
DO THE SCALES ACTUALLY TIP?
The scales that hold the problem of good and the problem of evil do not balance
them.
When we try to balsance them, we end up claiming we have the right to assume
that evil and good are agreeable. That is as bad as assuming that somebody being
tortured is getting a favour. So the scales, because of that implication, are in
favour of the thought that evil is stronger than good.
Another way, it is making the problem of good equal to the problem of evil or
vice versa. This denies that God will ever triumph over evil. It certainly takes
away the attraction of believing in God.
If the problem of good is equal to the problem of evil then how do we know if we
should be saying, "Evil does not disprove the existence of a good God" or "Good
does not disprove the existence of an evil God" or both?
WHY THE PROBLEM OF EVIL TIPS THE SCALES
The scales are tipped by the problem of evil because there is no problem of
good. Without God, good would still exist for if there is nothing and no God
even, it is good that there are no people around to suffer. So you don't need
God to explain good. There is no problem of good. To say there is, is to evilly
say, "I will not recognise good even if it exists unless there is a God who I
think tells me what good is."
HYPOTHETICAL GOOD AND EVIL ON THE SCALES
If there is nothing, good still exists. It is good that there is nobody about to
suffer.
If there is nothing evil still exists. It is evil that happy people don't exist.
Does this hypothetical good and evil balance the scales?
This hypothetical good and evil matters more than actual good or evil for good
or evil cannot happen unless they are possible which means hypothetical.
Hypothetical and actual good/evil get the same treatment on the scales.
FREEDOM
If God holds all things in existence then there is no possibility of freedom
from God. Even when you sin you sin because he enables you to. We cannot have
the kind of freedom we want. All we have is the degradation of a freedom that is
implemented by God and controlled by him. The freedom is degrading for the same
reason that if you enslave yourself to a kind slave master you are still a
degraded slave. Freedom is at the root of the problem of good and proves that
the answer to the problem of good is not God. In fact there is no problem of
good. Good would exist regardless of whether God lives or not.
REAL EVIL
An interesting argument against the problem of good and the problem of evil
being unrelated is that evil is seen as distorted good and not as the opposite
of good. But some evils like total depression are not good in any form and are
comprised of bad energy. If they are good in some way to God they are not to us.
FINALLY
If good is stronger than evil then how much stronger?
The scales tip in favour of there being a problem of evil because there is no
problem of good. They make evil a bigger problem than good. So good is unlikely
to be compatible with evil. This implies that God's existence is unlikely. The
belief you have in God is asking you to say God is right to let so much evil and
suffering happen though it is unlikely that this is right. That is not a very
compassionate attitude.
Religion argues that if there is no God then there is no moral law. They say
there is no reason then why it could be wrong to roast a baby for fun. But moral
law is only a small part of good. If there are no moral agents, it is still good
when the kitten escapes from the mad dog. To ask, "Is the kitten escaping just
good or is it good because some god or law or moral law says so", shows no
understanding of what good is. It is just good so you don't need to ask the
question or to worry about god or laws. And you must not. Religions ask, "Is it
morally right for a man to stay true to his wife when it may make him terribly
unhappy for the rest of his life and he knows it?" They say it is which divorces
morality from happiness and thus show this is about rules not people. That is
not morality.
If evil is the stronger then religion and faith in God are just symptoms of
denying that. They sell false hope and lies.
We have to face the neutrality issue. There is how good and evil may be virtually balanced at least in the important things in your life. Each situation is not in isolation but part of something much more. So an event might look as if it is for the best but only if you look no further. So you never know if it is really the best when all things connected to it and that will come after it because of it are considered.
And even if good or evil will be stronger, there is the problem
of how little we see. Your intentions could in most cases or
virtually all, effectively neutral. You know that you can only
get information and you never know if you have it all or are
understanding it enough. You base an intention on that and
mean it to be good. But your intention means to be more than
that. You can fire a gun into the dark meaning good but you
know you can still shoot an innocent person so your intention is not
as good as you are telling yourself and others. A good
intention is really just about looking at the good side but if there
is a bad side and you are not wanting to see it then your intention
is dubious.