DEFINITIONS: Evil as a Mere Lack: Evil isn’t real on its own; it’s just the absence or corruption of good—a weakness or flaw that depends on good to exist.
Evil as a Real Substance: Evil is an actual, independent force or power that can act on its own and influence the world directly.
NOTE: Many think evil has to be one or the other. Others say both may happen.
NOTE: No matter how people define evil, we detect elements of supernatural thinking in them.
Supernatural: beyond the laws of nature (e.g. God, demons)
Paranormal: unusual but possibly still within nature (e.g. telepathy)
Magic: human-manipulated supernatural/paranormal forces
FOREWORD
Substantial evil is a neglected subject. That is no coincidence. Religious ideology does not like the questions it raises.
If evil is substantial you can meaningfully compare it to electricity. It may be natural and still be scientifically undetectable. Or it may be something not of this universe, supernatural. It may have paranormal or supernatural effects. Some evils may be natural and others supernatural. Or an evil may be a mixture.
We are told that it is dangerous to think evil is substantial if it is not.
When you ask why you soon learn that that the real danger is that it contradicts, "An all-good God cannot create evil." Hardly a real danger!
It can be bad if you think you are targeted by evil forces. Religion while denying that evil is substantial still has demons and devils so there is no improvement there.
Evil is dangerous whatever it is. As we don’t know anything about the supernatural, we have no right to rule out evil being substantial supernatural reality. We might not believe it is but we have to treat it as a possible supernatural force for the sake of caution.
The arguments that we should consider evil just to be a lack of good and not a substance contend that it is wrong and harmful to think it is anything else. But if supernatural beings do evil, whether it is substance or not, then we may as well call evil substantial. We end up with the same alleged dangers.
FIRST
Substantial evil is the notion that evil is a power or energy. It is the claim that evil is a noun and is as real as electricity. It says it is not just something falling short of its good potential - a lack of good or absence. It is a power in its own right just like good is.
RELIGION
Religion says there would be nothing without God. And that God is all good so he did not make evil. For it, evil is real as in a problem but is not real as in a substance. It is a lack.
DEEP DOWN
It is suspected though that religion deep down does believe in substantial evil and for many spiritual believers, that evil would be supernatural or paranormal. It acts like it believes as do many non-religious people.
In other words, some power bigger than the material universe or that is not subject to its rules made evil. Or perhaps evil always existed.
ATHEISM
Can atheists believe in substantial evil?
It would seem that if they say that evil disproves God, then they are tacitly saying that substantial evil is real. Well substantial evil would indeed disprove God. But even atheists who think evil was not real but a privation, an absence of a good that should be there, could argue that "Evil shows no sign of being handled by God and there is too much of it so there is probably no God."
The atheist who affirms substantial evil is saying that evil is real and is natural.
The atheist is also saying that the doctrine of God is substantial evil. If substantial evil is a disproof of God then God is an evil doctrine for it demands that you deny substantial evil. It is bad in principle for evil does not deserve to be watered down. Also evil will catch people off guard. If it is hard to handle, it will be impossible to handle when it cannot be diagnosed right. No diagnosis no proper treatment.
Atheists who reject God over the problem of evil do not understand their argument. Many betray it by giving money or their children to religion. It is a matter for grave disagreement and tolerance of a high degree is necessary. There can be no compromise. The atheist conscience cannot be asked to further or promote religion or permit it.
THE OPTIONS
What is evil if it is substantial?
Is it a natural force?
Is it a paranormal force?
Is it a divine force?
Is it a supernatural force?
Is it some combination of these things?
Is it a person or artificial intelligence? An energy? Does that matter? Why?
Nobody denies that it does act like an intelligence and a deceiver. For some, evil is substantial. For many, Satan is also real. So united they are something we cannot really handle and which is a step ahead every time.
Observation supports artificial intelligence for you don't need to go beyond that. You assume the workings of your calculator are artificial intelligence for that is all you need to suppose. Same here.
Not only that, we must help it act like an intelligence and a deceiver. Thus to wield violence to destroy evil, means we have to be destroyed too. I think at this point of images of Kali in Hinduism. Evil is represented as heads etc that she has decapitated and she evidently enjoys how she attacks.
NATURAL EVIL
Is substantial evil a natural force - something that just happens without anybody doing it?
Is it a natural force that exists in persons as well? Do you have to become evil incarnate to make evil?
Is natural stuff like the plague evil in and of itself? Or should real evil only apply to human actions? Or should it apply to God, gods, demons or spirits assuming that person-hood is not always a human thing?
One thing for sure, if evil is natural that is not how we feel about it. It has a supernatural air even if that air is only imagined. We will still see evil as a sort of magical bogie man. That makes it too easy for people to slip into supernatural ideas that are not even needed. It may help pave the way for faith in God. Faith is not a good thing if that is what it depends on!
CRITICISM OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIL
It is argued, "Belief in substantial evil is harmful and foolish. Such a belief is only possible if you believe in magic or the supernatural. You may call it natural but do you really think it is natural? Deep down you think it is a supernatural or paranormal force."
If you agree with that, then if evil is just there and is part of nature then that is bad enough. But to start suggesting there is supernatural or paranormal evil makes it worse. Now instead of one evil belief in substantial evil in nature, we have more. And they are even by definition worse than natural evil for they have hidden or magical power and are superior to nature and can control it or aspects of it.
They are worse than blind natural evil for they act like they are persons and are possibly paranormal or supernatural personal intelligences.
People say that there is evil in you if you want to believe that evil is a real force. They say it is malicious wishful thinking. They are right for it is something somebody should only come to agree with against their will. I mean you look and you see and that is not your fault but looking for it to be there is not the same thing. You look for what you want to see.
If evil is not substantial then if you misrepresent it as one you are telling people not to fight it for the power will just do what it will do and nobody can do anything about it. If you deal with evil you cannot be sure if it was going to stop anyway or if it was you. So you cannot take the credit.
If evil is a power then people can be part of that power and should be hated. You cannot help hating evil if it is substantial!
The main point is that if belief that something is evil in and of itself then that belief is made worse by bringing in miracles and magic and paranormal and God and supernatural and so on.
SUGGESTING RATHER THAN BELIEVING
Believing in evil as a real power is then definitely dangerous. But even suggesting that it exists is bad too when it so serious. It is as evil as suggesting that the world suffer nuclear annihilation.
If belief in substantial natural evil is mistaken and harmful, then if you believe in the divine, the supernatural and the paranormal or any combination of these then that is worse for it is adding to the danger .
But you are suggesting that it is possible that substantial evil is real.
If belief in substantial evil is an error and it makes you evil then even suggesting the possibility is heinous. There is no logical or empirical test to show that supernatural substantial evil does not exist. So once you say you believe there is more than just nature out there you are saying it is possible. It does not matter how small the possibility is. If you have to admit natural substantial evil may exist, opening the door to supernatural being real is worse!
If natural evil is scary, paranormal or supernatural evil is scarier for it is stronger and above nature!
BLIND "INTELLIGENCE"?
Nature often appears purposeful, but it's not. Could evil work the same way? You may say that natural evil as in real force is presupposing magical supernatural evil. The logic is that evil in nature working like an intelligence sounds remarkably like a demon or ghost or something. That is debatable. Blind forces can act like they are directed. That happens in nature all the time. Nobody designs a snowflake.
EVIL IN RELIGION DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS EVIL IN PSYCHOLOGY
Religion is the only social phenomenon that sees evil as something more than harm, lawbreaking and immorality. We are told to intuit something even worse and unimaginable beyond that. To be blunt, we are being asked to intuit some kind of black magic. Religion will not admit that and that is one reason it does not like anybody being too clear with regard to what evil is supposed to be. Seeing that occult malevolence comes first with them. The harm does not. It is merely seen as a symptom.
Why would anybody want to intuit that? For the same reason one would believe in Satan.
Point: Cultural indoctrination.
Point: Fear of the unknown.
Point: Also, people want to feel, "Yeah I did something heinous but if I had not done it somebody else would". That is a weak justification for bad behaviour but it is undeniable that occasionally it is spot-on. It is a strong justification if evil is indeed performed by supernatural beings or if it is substantial in its own right. So the evil will get somebody to do its work if you don't. You may even reason that it could have been worse had you not done it. Those are the reasons. For many, and we can't tell who is who, the main reason will be so that they can rationalise the cruelty they did by saying it averted somebody else doing worse.
In psychology, wrongdoing has little to do with being bad but your thinking and your environment and your upbringing - in effect your past and current circumstances - make you what you are. They make you a thief more than you do. But surely you are consenting and letting them? You are but that does not mean consent is everything. It makes it part of the mix but not the whole of it.
Clearly religion connects evil to something very dark and exaggerates human evil and the potential for evil. Its outlook does not fit something that really thinks that evil is merely falling short of a standard. It is more than just putting a lower standard out there rather than the high standard that should be there.
Psychology should start attacking the religious view of evil more directly. It won't do that for there is money to be gotten out of counselling and treating the people religion asks it to help.
FINALLY
Atheism assumes substantial evil exists but as a natural thing.
Superstitious and religious thinking influences everybody unconsciously. It is successful social propaganda. The temptation to see evil as paranormal or supernatural or both will arise.
If belief in substantial evil is bad and corrupts then suggesting other forms of substantial evil such as it being a supernatural or paranormal is worse. Substantial evil will always be around or may be temporary but in either case we can do nothing about it. If evil is a noun not a verb then those who say it is a verb are helping it by obscuring recognition of its true nature.
If evil is substantial you are helping it by saying it is merely a lack of good and not real and not a power.
If if evil is not substantial you are helping it by saying it is.
Incredibly the answer to how an all-good God can let evil be is simple. He cannot for even the very question is evil.
APPENDIX
I wish to add that there is no evidence or proof that if evil exists, that it is a mere lack. All of us are impacted by that uncertainty. Holding that evil is a substance has spiritual and social repercussions. Eg - if the evil in a murderer is even partly a substance then forgiving that murderer is only enabling him. If holding has that much power, then suspecting or being unable to refute that definition, will as well. It puts us on a slope down which we may slide slowly but surely. Some come down it faster than others.