While I’d prefer more syllogisms this book by James P Sterba I found it informative. I’d warn though that its length would give the false impression that it is difficult to refute the rationality of belief in an all-powerful and all-good God when you look at the viciousness and suffering in the world.
There are a number of things I would like to address. I'll not dwell on how natural evil, as distinct from moral evil, could be moral evil if a God allows it out of bad intentions and how holding it may happen for a good reason does untold harm for it can have a soothing effect eg people setting up home in volatile places and when the earthquake hits it is too late.
I am not surprised about the following. “What is especially surprising, given that most of the defenders of theism in this debate are self-identified Christian philosophers, is that the central underlying element in the Doctrine of Double-Effect, what has been called the Pauline Principle – Never do evil that good may come of it – has been virtually ignored by contemporary philosophers despite its relevance to the problem of evil”.
There is a problem with people being grifters telling people what they want to hear. Their work is not valid period. By their fruits you know them. It amounts to callous lying about suffering that belongs to others for nobody will never comprehend or sense how much suffering there is and how terrible it is for they are only one person or creature among billions. It is easy for them to surmise that it fits a God.
He writes in a footnote that “The Pauline Principle is morally justified with its focus on prohibiting intentional harm (or evil) and its more permissive stance towards foreseen harm (or evil). It is because those who suffer harm have more reason to protest when the harm is done to them by agents who are intentionally engaged in causing harm to them than when the harm done to them is merely the foreseen consequences of actions of agents whose ends and means are good.” He explains that a “restriction against intended harm only limits our actions when our ends or means are evil or harmful and it would seem that we have stronger grounds for acting when both our ends and means are good than when they are not.”
The fact that we see our actions even good ones may bring harm and often do does means that we think, "If there are casualties, if somebody is hurt, then that is okay. It is what I want under the circumstances so if it happens it happens." And the point that evil always has more going on than it appears is ignored. We will outline how evil is a catalyst later. For now, you know that evil will appear in one form or another and you say yes to that.
He writes, “Moral philosophers do recognise a distinction between doing and permitting evil. Doing evil is normally worse than permitting evil. But when the evil is significant and one can easily prevent it, then permitting evil can become morally equivalent to doing it.” He says this applies to God too. Christianity by the way says God teaches us that doing is worse than permitting.
This is all about intentions. A good intention is risky for it is too much about self-approval. People can cause grave loss of life and feel they are still good people.
If you foresee an evil that could be the attraction. To worry about what you intend more than the harm you do is a sign of callous supercilious smugness.
The teachings here are not considered.
"Evil or sin, is seen as a rejection of God’s just and loving authority over the universe and human life. So even a 'small' evil then is a very big thing in terms of the message it sends to God. If God is good for the universe and all in it then that sends a message to everybody else too. And to yourself. The self-abusing element is interesting. If you want to be harmed you will not be satisfied for harming yourself gives rise to wanting a new way to do it or to do more of it."
“Evil is a parasite on good and hides among good things. You only see a tip of the iceberg. It may even look like a specific kind of evil and be another kind.”
“Evil does not satisfy so it will get worse.”
“Evil acts like a supernatural thing even if it is not. What if there is a Satan who uses it in ways we cannot understand to make it worse or craftier?”
“Many evils we claim we have to do, that are necessary evils, are not necessary at all”
“Evil has an uncanny way of acting like an infection. Seeing evil can plant a seed. As we have dreadful and malicious capabilities, seeing evil can stir them up and make us feel if we do harm at least we are not the only ones doing it.”
“Evil likes to seem forgiven and incapacitated so it can bounce back”.
“Evil does devastating and surprising things on its own and its servants help it along.”
"Adam and Eve wanted the tree of good and evil as if they could look at and understand evil without being captured or polluted by it. The Church says that was their mistake. They were indeed captured and ruined. Their experiment put evil in them. They didn’t even need to go and steal or murder. It got in there and then. If evil is that adept and effective and clever with beings made good and innocent, imagine what it would be like with beings like us who are not! We all experiment with evil. We do it over and over again as if we are finally going to get a good and ideal result the next time."
“Evil is a Pandora’s Box. You make a crack in a wall and the flood gets in and sweeps all away. Evil is evil and that is the principle whether you harm one person or billions. You have no idea how much harm may come and you still do it.”
Evil has too much deception in it to sustain the notion that a God plants good seeds in it for the greater good to come. It would "want" you to think it is forgiven or being dealt with so faith in God's providence backfires.
Now you surely see that there is no real difference between permitting and doing evil. All agree that permitting can be a way of doing evil. Here we have found that it is JUST another way of doing evil. Letting evil happen is worse than doing it yourself for at least you have control over something. You never know what you are permitting for that is somebody else doing the evil. You are not going to know exactly what is going on. A God who enables and represents such a lie is mere lie himself.
He works within the Pauline Principle, “Do not do evil that good may come”.
He presents the trolley problem. He says there is no intention to harm if you divert a trolley with a lever to kill one innocent person to save five innocent persons.
He says there is an intention to do evil if you grab a big person to push them on the track to stop the trolley from killing those five.
That is nonsense. The lever is a weapon as much as your pushing the big person is. What if it were a death ray you had to use to hit him or the others? You do want to cause death under the circumstances. As evil is supposed to act crafty, you may not even detect how part of you celebrates how you are playing God so brutally and graphically. The problem far from helping us with the issue of God supposedly allowing evil, definitely declares that you are the only God here.
And it is possible to do a necessary evil, sacrifice one for many, and be evil. What if you secretly think inside, “I am glad I have to do this. I want this opportunity to do harm”? We are the species that likes the Hitlers to slip and fall into boiling oil so just because we have to cause an evil, eg "perform emergency and agonising surgery on Hitler" to save him does not mean we are good inside. It makes it easier for us to do evil that is not so necessary in future and to excuse.
There are all kinds of gruesome trolley arguments. E.g., do I hand a live baby with a disease to a starving cannibal to kill him so that he will not eat the five healthy babies?
The trolley problem is no side issue. It goes to the heart of whether morality is real or just opinion. It asks if it is coherent or not. We are here for people chose in a trolley dilemma. We have a lot of dilemmas. Mini-trolley dilemmas are a regular occurrence. Most movies we see get us to take a side in such dilemmas. The relevance of the problem must not be underestimated.
It is said the dilemma does not say morality is incoherent. They claim that the problem is that you have two moral rules, “Do not do evil that good may come” and “Save as many lives as possible” and you can’t have both.
In fact, there is the horrible teaching that life is life and is not valued in numbers meaning that rather than send the trolley at one person to save even millions, let it run its course. But doing nothing is a choice. Doing nothing is doing something.
Morality whether there is a God or not is seen as some kind of commanding force and to have practical value. But if you are told to fill a glass and keep it empty at the same time that is not telling you to do one or the other. It is telling you to do both. Reality is you don’t have a conflict of rights here. A right to life means there is to be no compromise.
I asked AI about the trolley issue and it said there is no universally right answer and it comes down to a personal decision. That is telling you that if you feel like tossing a coin that is fine! That is not justice or compassion or love and if you call that morality I have nothing left to say. AI churns out a heap of words to hide what is really meant! It is enough to say, “It is just your opinion.” But it would not. Morality that cannot tell you to push the big person to save many or not to push is not practical and is not morality. If the big person were about to jump to save you are to hold him back and let the innocents die are you?
Many would say that the trolley problem highlights that, “All you care about is your intention meaning it is about looking good in your own eyes and those of God and of others. As long as you don’t blame yourself for the damage done you are not bothered.”
With helpful acts over and beyond the call of duty Sterba says that you are not entitled to be helped and while the helper is being morally good in doing so they are not morally bad if they do not do so. What if you were, hypothetically, God incarnate? Surely God with all his power and ability could not be exempt? And remember Christianity says God is your intimate father and you are his child and his temple and thus as good as God incarnate in a very real and important sense? Why does God like Jesus not become human more often?
He points to Bergmann who says that God is creator and for that reason can allow us to suffer horrendous evil for a great purpose while humans would not be allowed to do the same thing. But God could create and decree, “I will treat my human creatures as if I were human myself.” So it does not have to be different for him. And could God incarnates have the right to look the other way as the wolves come for their friends?
I conclude that the notion of a God who can help you be moral or who represents morality is definitely a fiction and prayer is a sign of ignorance and lack of moral insight. If there is a creator, it is an impersonal force. The God concept as presented by Christianity in particular is just a way of stealing moral authority. One dreadful example is how we all act like something gave us the right to use animals as we do. The Bible selfishly and predictably says God gave it. Do not let yourself be played.
Instead of morality we need to have preferences and may include human wellbeing in them as opposed to concern for a God or his will. Whatever we put in place of morality is a human thing with human limitations. If this is weak, then it is weak but bringing a God in only makes it worse.
REVIEWED AMAZON 1 MARCH 2025