We pose what is often the first question asked regarding
this standard by which evil is judged: is it objective or subjective? In other words, is the standard something
quite apart from what we think about it, so that people can be right or wrong
in their conceptions of it, or are we the ones who personally judge evil based
on our own standards, so that all judgments are equally right? The atheist, when given the option between
the two, is like to select the latter, since the affirmation of some objective metaphysical
standard is difficult to affirm in the context of an atheistic worldview (we
will observe whether or not atheism allows the existence of such an objective standard
in detail later). However, the atheist
often does this without recognizing that, if the world is only subjectively
evil, then their contention against God’s existence on account of evil
crumbles. The atheist who launches an
argument against God on account of subjective evil is, in essence, modifying
the original argument that I quoted in the beginning of this essay as follows:
1. An omnipotent
God could make the world good for me
2. An omnibenevolent
God would make the world good for me
3. The world is
not good for me
4. Therefore, an
omnipotent and omnibenevolent God does not exist
Though it is a valid argument in that the conclusion
logically follows from each premise, the atheist refrains from really adhering
to it because, frankly, it seems to us founded on utter complacency and
immature thinking. Apart from our
subjective aversion to the argument as a whole, though, the logic upon which
each premise is founded is clearly lacking; specifically (1) and (2).
No comments:
Post a Comment