This is part of a larger paper that I am writing and working on. Law’s “Evil-God Challenge” is simply a section in the paper. In coming across Law’s “Evil-God” challenge, I’ve seen numerous Christian philosophers offer up an explanation to how we can know God is good (such as Edward Feser). While all make good points, I think they are overcomplicating the issue and that the answer is actually quite simple. Hence, I post part of my solution here:
One must understand that God is wholly good and not imperfectly good, or good with a little bit of evil. God is a whole and must be perfect. To use the language of Robert Spitzer, since God is the unconditioned reality (nothing precedes Him), by logical necessity God must be simple (not composed) and perfect (lacking in nothing).[1] Since God is perfect, He must either be good or evil, and wholly so. He cannot be both (as this would violate the law of non-contradiction).
Therefore, if God were evil then He would be perfectly evil. Were one to treat evil as a substance (which is difficult to imagine), one would ask what is at the core of all evil acts. Through a simple use of deductions, one would easily arrive at the conclusion that pride is at the core of all evil acts.[2] Yet, pride can still be used in some good ways when it is used in moderation. In its extreme, however, pride is motivated by narcissism, or extreme love of the self. The more narcissistic a person is, the more apathetic he is to those around him. Narcissism requires the love of the self to the exclusion of all others. A narcissistic mother does not torture her baby; rather she neglects the baby if the baby interferes with the mother’s desires. Therefore, if God were evil He would be the ultimate narcissist.
If God were the ultimate narcissist, then nothing would exist; since something exists, it shows that God is not a narcissist and therefore God is not evil. If the root of evil is narcissism and narcissism is the focus on the self to the exclusion of others, and if God were wholly perfect in all things, then God would be too focused on Himself to have ever created anything to begin with. Yet, something exists. Therefore, God is not evil, which apophatically means God is good.
Turning to Stephen Law, one reads,
“Consider a different hypothesis. Suppose the universe has a creator. Suppose also that this being is omnipotent and omniscient. However, suppose he is not maximally good. Rather, imagine that he is maximally evil. His depravity is without limit. His cruelty knows no bounds. There is no other god or gods – just this supremely wicked being. Call this the evil-god hypothesis.”[3]
Thus, one could argue that even if God is supremely narcissistic, He created humans simply to gain pleasure from torturing them. Certainly, this would still be an act of narcissism. One could also theorize that being a narcissist God wanted other lesser beings to recognize how great He is and to serve Him fully, irrespective of how He treats them.
Law’s objection to God’s goodness holds no weight when one considers narcissism as the root of all evil. In fact, the implications of his argument actually defeat the argument. First, if God created humans in order to torture them so He could gain pleasure, this would indicate that God had a need for something. Of course, a perfect being can have need of nothing, thus if God had need of something then he would not be God.
The traditional Christian narrative concerning creation is that God created out of love, not out of need; He created as a sacrifice, not as a gain. He gained nothing out of creation, thus no perceived need was met. If God needed humans in order to be more loving, then He would not (1) be loving (as He would be creating humans for personal gain) and (2) God would not be God, as He would need something. Likewise, if God created humans to torture them, He would not be God, as He would have need of something.
Secondly, and more importantly, we can imagine a God who would create humans in order to torture them. Yet, we can think of a God even more evil that would not create humans because He would be so concentrated on Himself He would never think of humans. Therefore, the original syllogism – that because something exists, God must be good – stands true.
[1] Robert Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), Section II.
[2] One might argue that pride is not involved in natural acts of evil. However, since God is a person, one must discuss evil solely on personal grounds. In such a case, no person ever commits evil via a natural act; there is always a willful choice in committing an evil act. At the core of that willful choice is the person’s pride, or self-love. Furthermore, willful acts of evil are seemingly worse than natural acts; a Tsunami killing 200,000 people in Indonesia is horrible, yet society is more aghast at a dictator that would willfully kill 50,000 of his own people on a whim.
[3] Stephen Law, “The Evil-God Challenge,” Religious Studies (2009): 4. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltexttype=1&fid=7247672&jid=RES&volumeId=1&issueId=1&aid=7247664&fromPage=cupadmin&pdftype=6316268&repository=authInst (Accessed November 30, 2011)
It’s been so long since I got an email from here, that I thought I had gotten the banhammer! I’ve heard over and over that God created us in his own image, and we were put on this Earth to worship Him. I’ve heard that since childhood, were they wrong? That’s pretty narcissistic to me, wouldn’t you say? Anyway, it’s all mind games because God is neither good or evil. Gods are not real
Good post!.
Posted by AKron | November 30, 2011, 8:21 pmDon’t worry Akron, we don’t ban anyone unless they’re extremely rude. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean you lack an important voice in this conversation.
I would say that two possible responses could defeat my argument; first, to show that narcissism isn’t the root of all evil (of course, that would be extremely difficult to defend), and secondly to make the argument you’ve made. To point out that we were created to worship God, which is a supposedly narcissistic act. However, I can think of a few replies to that:
1) We were created to be loved by God and to in turn love Him . The Bible is clear that God loved us first and that we are to love Him because He loves us. That He is the first actor in love means He is making a sacrifice. The whole, “We were created to worship God” is partially true if we put “worship” under “love.” The problem is that in many Protestant churches, people fail to do this and they emphasize the fearing and worshiping of God, leaving out the love aspect. But in the end, God has sacrificed for us by creating us, which isn’t something a narcissistic being would do. I actually show this in the entirety of the essay, but it’s one I probably won’t publish here as I plan to submit it for peer review in the near future.
2) God would need to be purely narcissistic, meaning He wouldn’t even have the time to think about us. A perfectly narcissistic God wouldn’t have time to think about anything but Himself. In order to create something lesser than Himself He would have to think about it first. This is why Aristotle’s god falls short logically; if that god is too busy to think about others, then how does anything else exist?
3) If we say that a purely narcissistic God would need people to admire Him then He wouldn’t truly be God. This is pretty self-explanatory.
And I do agree that none of this proves God exists. Rather, it’s meant to show that the atheist suffers no harm in granting the premise “God is good” when debating the cause of evil or other aspects of God. Certainly it does no harm to atheism to admit that if God exists, He is good or to grant such a premise to a theist in a debate. That’s the whole point of the explanation.
Posted by Joel | November 30, 2011, 9:55 pm