Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


I politely request that you only reply to this forum topic and question if you already read the whole book, since the book both explains what is meant by the claim "there is no problem of evil", and more importantly the book provides my reasoning and argument for the conclusion that there is no problem of evil.

In fact, the book contains an entire chapter titled, "There Is No Problem of Evil".

Among other important things, the text in that chapter states, "there is no problem of evil because there is no evil".

After reading the book, do you agree with that? Do you agree that there is no problem of evil?



---
The book is available for purchase from all major book retailers in both ebook and hardcover format.

[Hannah Neely]

To answer the question, yes, I do agree that there is no problem of evil. The evil is created by us, humans, because of the choices we make. I believe that consequences are the reason evil exists. In a humans reality our biggest downfall is because we have freewill, the options to choose. The fact that we get to make choice means we can make mistakes, this sometimes results in unwanted consequences of our actions, thus resulting in an evil fighting against us.

[Amy Luman]

No, I don’t. As a Christian, I believe that there is evil in the world, brought about by Satan and the fall of man. Now, whether we let evil overcome us, make us continue the evil, is another story. A person can encounter evil and not let it continue through them. All evil is from Satan and is intended to destroy man through his acceptance of it.

[Aditi Mehta 1]

I agree that there is no problem of evil. Good and evil both are created by humanity. If there will be no evil, we won't appreciate the good.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

No, I don’t. As a Christian, I believe that there is evil in the world, brought about by Satan and the fall of man. Now, whether we let evil overcome us, make us continue the evil, is another story. A person can encounter evil and not let it continue through them. All evil is from Satan and is intended to destroy man through his acceptance of it.

Interesting.

I find the claim that 'there is evil' to be the best and strongest argument against the belief in the existence of god.

I would agree with this statement: "If evil exists, god doesn't."

I agree with that for the same reason I believe this statement is also true: If eternal reality should be different than it is, then an omnipotent god does not exist.

In other words, if unchangeable eternal reality (e.g. the past) is not the way it 'should' be, then to me that means there must not be a god, at least not in the sense of a singular all-mighty loving god.

In yet other words, if eternal creation is bad, then there is no all-powerful loving god.

In contrast, I believe reality as a timeless unchanging whole is beautiful. I believe (as stated in my book) that insofar as the word 'should' has any meaning, then everything is exactly as it should be. In other words, to me, the whole of eternal creation is a wonderful beautiful perfect harmony worthy of love.

I don't think it's evil. I don't think it's bad. Thus, I think that if there is a god, then he did a good job. A great amazing perfect job, in fact.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Among other important things, the text in that chapter states, "there is no problem of evil because there is no evil".

After reading the book, do you agree with that?

To answer the question, yes, I do agree that there is no problem of evil. The evil is created by us, humans,

I'm sorry; I don't understand what you mean.

Are you agreeing that there is no evil or not?


You may also be interested in the topic There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'. In that topic, I recap a bit more the explanation from the book about why there are no shoulds or oughts (and by extension no evil, i.e. no thing that should/ought be different).

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Among other important things, the text in that chapter states, "there is no problem of evil because there is no evil".

After reading the book, do you agree with that?

I agree that there is no problem of evil. Good and evil both are created by humanity.

I'm sorry; I don't understand what you mean.

Are you agreeing that there is no evil or not?


You may also be interested in the topic There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'. In that topic, I recap a bit more the explanation from the book about why there are no shoulds or oughts (and by extension no evil, i.e. no thing that should/ought be different).

[Shondranika Ford]

No, I don’t. As a Christian, I believe that there is evil in the world, brought about by Satan and the fall of man. Now, whether we let evil overcome us, make us continue the evil, is another story. A person can encounter evil and not let it continue through them. All evil is from Satan and is intended to destroy man through his acceptance of it.

I agree with Amy. I’m a Christian as well and still believe there’s evil after reading the entire book - which was amazing. I say there’s evil because people have choice and “see what they want to see.” If that’s true, they choose to see or not see evil and either accept or deny its existence.

I also saw the answer, “if evil exists, God doesn’t.” To me, evil exists to oppose God because God doesn’t co-exist with evil. He doesn’t delve in it but doesn’t deny it - actually, He acknowledges its existence. God doesn’t force us to choose in the spiritual battle, but the enemy tempts us by forcing us to choose.

I want to thank the original poster for creating a beautiful, healthy discussion!

[Owuamanam Eberechukwu]

Based on the book's content and logical presentation, your argument is watertight. However, what is the parameters for defining the concept? Is your definition of evil concurrent with the interpretation and universal definition of evil?

[beckybelvin]

First of all, let me say that I enjoyed the book. Some things I agreed with, but others I didn't. I don't agree with the statement that there is no evil. I don't see how anyone could believe that there is no evil if they live on the same planet that I do. There is evil rampant today. It is true that we create it ourselves, but it's there, no matter where it came from.

[Meghan Sica]

I, one hundred percent, do not agree that there is no evil. My personal beliefs are not set in stone, or led by one religion or another. It is mainly just a feeling, intuition, that the world is in a constant state of balance. To balance good, there must be an equal counterpart, evil. I have read and researched many horrible events that have transpired and I have to honestly say, the only way these events could have happened is if the person who committed the crimes were truly evil.

[Meghan Soderholm]

I do agree with the statement that there is no problem of evil, and here is why. In life, we go through struggles, challenges, trials, and tribulations. As a Christian, I do agree that there is evil, and it does exist thanks to Satan. However, evil can be conquered and in certain areas of life not so strong and abundant. Evil does exist, there is no problem, and most importantly it does not have to be powerful.

[Salah bourouba]

I don't really. Evil came down to earth with Satan when he tricked Adam and eve to eat from the apple tree when god told him not to. So it exists from the beginning of man. However it does depend on people's nature to follow and do evil or not

[abstactlemon]

I believe the concept of good and evil is flawed. As humans we like to paint things in black and white, but there is just morality, and the line is different for every individual. That being said I think a good rule of thumb is to keep yourself within the lines most people agree on.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Based on the book's content and logical presentation, your argument is watertight. However, what is the parameters for defining the concept? Is your definition of evil concurrent with the interpretation and universal definition of evil?

Thank you for your question!

To me, the idea of 'evil' is merely just another way of saying 'should not' or 'ought not'. To me, saying "past is evil" is the same as saying, "the past ought not be the way it is" or "the past shouldn't be the way it is".

To me, seeing things as 'evil' in that way is simply another form of not accepting what one cannot change/control.