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.
We may complain about how people mostly want black and white certainty in moral and political matters. And in religious too. But the fact is that if it is very difficult to get at the truth or work out what is best that is another black and white. No matter what black and white camp you are in you like it for you feel you don’t have to rethink it for you have the answers. X is clear can be as black or white as X is unclear. You are still being definite but in different ways.
If a good God made all then he didn't make evil. Religion says that evil is not real and not a power so there is nothing to make.
The atheist says that even if evil is nothing God could still be evil and have malicious intent.
The atheist is open to the suggestion that evil is very real, and indeed a power. Therefore it would refute God.
Evil being real or a power does not mean you will understand it correctly or adequately. You understand that it is not exactly what it is. You cannot even understand a snowflake except a bit.
This lack of clarity gives the likes of the Catholic Church an opportunity to say that evil is just good that is abused but is not really anything in itself. That for all we know may be the only way we are purely evil, as in watering down substantial evil.
No matter what evil is, if is vague, we have no reason to treat it as anything other than real. To be safe so that we don't underestimate the enemy, we have to make "evil is a power not just an evaluation" our working assumption.
Religion then is out. It's bad.
This takes us to God. Religion says God does not make evil.
The atheist raises eyebrows at that.
The atheist can use evil against God in two ways in the light of the fact that only a good creator can have the right to be honoured as God.
One, the atheist sees evil and argues it shows there is no God.
Two the atheist is talking about what believers think about God - is their view internally consistent? That by extension gives us number one.
The two are inseparable. They are debating the coherence and credibility of God's love from different angles.
Think about the evil in the universe. Atheist evil and Christian evil cannot mean the same thing.
Atheist evil says that there is too much of it and depression is an example of a useless evil so there is probably no God.
Atheist evil says that evil is a power or as good as one and it is not going to take the chance of pretending it is anything else for it needs calling out and needs diagnosis.
The atheist may be suggesting if not actually saying that that evil is a real power or as good as one. She would affirm that as a good God cannot make evil, God is not God for being rivalled by evil or he is the maker of evil and thus cannot be good.
The believer refuses to admit that evil may be a real power and calls it a lack of good. Now it does not need a maker and can be blamed on us choosing the wrong goods. We choose good things in the place of God and that is evil. Evil is redefined to fit God. Using evil that way is itself evil. You cannot decide what you want to believe and then change the meaning of something dangerous to get it to fit what you want to think. That is evil. It is caring about ideology not evil. And that is the kind of evil you like, ideology.
For the atheist, unjust suffering is just evil and is obviously substantial evil. That is why it simply proves there is no God. Religion says that it is evil to believe in substantial evil for God the cause of all things should not be met with accusatory implications such as, “Did you make substantial evil? Are you so useless that you can’t tell us that evil always existed if you did not make it? What is the point of concentrating on you when evil has a mind and independence of its own?"
If evil is real then it is logically possible to know the evil and what it is. The doctrine that evil is not real or substantial but a non-substance or lack makes evil indefinite and foggy. You don't know exactly what it is in general or in any individual case. The reason is that you see it as a malfunctioning good so it is going to look reasonably good and you are going to read a good side into it that is not there. Evil is parasitic because it manages to try to look good and reasonable. You are working with evil if you see it that way if you shouldn't see it that way.
If evil and God are not obviously inconsistent for evil is vague then evil by definition is vague. Religion says it is too cynical to just take it for granted that evil does not fit the presence of a God of love. It does not tell you that evil thrives on being hard to pin down and a chameleon. Faith in God leads straight to evil turning into a success story.
Evil is felt to be bad as in something to be hated and you feel that reparation should be demanded of the bad person and penalties inflicted for some kind of inviolable standard or norm has been violated. It is impossible to see evil done by a person and willed by a person as being just good but not good enough. You have to see it is brutal and more frightening than just a failure or missing the mark.
Saying evil then is a lack of good or the wrong good is just to lie.
Religion talks a lot about conscience. Conscience is what recognises evil when it sees it and it is supposedly implanted by God. Is that saying that evil exists for conscience says so and conscience comes from God? Yes. If conscience is like eyesight and just sees that is fine. But if it is treated like a message from God, a divine computer in your head, then the premise is the conclusion. It assumes God gives you conscience so conscience is reliable.
The only real way to test conscience is just looking. It makes no sense to say that conscience tells you the truth for God validates it for that amounts to saying, "I believe in God and that he gave me this conscience therefore it is accurate." Belief in anything is not the same as knowing. Belief is often wrong. "I believe that 2 and 2 are 4", is a sign of doubt. You should just know. Why are you bringing belief in when it is less strong? Same idea. 2 and 2 are 4 does not need believing. It is just right period. A conscience that gets its authority from the beliefs you construct is not a conscience at all. It will corrupt. It already is corrupt.
Let us take any case where morals apply. Each moral consideration is made up of components. Nothing is ever just about one moral issue or question. Nobody's event is simple. If morality is vague and you don’t know exactly what is loving or just then each component is unclear too.
Take this example.
It seems simple that very ill Kate had an assisted suicide. No matter how much this resembles Leanne's assisted suicide the fact remains that there are many factors and differences. There are different persons involved. Each part of it is a collective, it is full of differences itself. It is full of things that to one degree or another are vague themselves. Some things that are not very vague may seem very vague to us.
Did Kate really choose the right time to go? What if she had waited a few hours? What if a lot of that time was good and a gift worth trying to live for. There is so much to consider. A lot of it cannot help with Leanne's case. So comparing may not help much. Similar is a deceiving word.
People find all the questions and facts and considerations hard to work with with. This leads to making a choice that is largely made because it has to be made and not because all the data is thought about correctly. People guess when they think they know enough.
If evil is a brute fact then what if it is vague? All this vagueness means we have no right to be so sure that evil is not a force. Maybe we are the evil force that imposes the vagueness so that evil with thrive.
Can you call somebody’s suffering vague? If it is then you don’t know if it is substantial evil or not. Or as suffering is a collective, in other words, a collection of sufferings and pains and fears, it gets more complicated again. You cannot really speak for somebody else's experience. Your own suffering is vague to you. It is going to more unclear for everybody else. There is something evil about saying that somebody else is not experiencing substantial evil. If they are then God does not exist. And you are using your ignorance of them to say that whatever they suffer does not disprove God. It is even worse if you think substantial evil can be made by God as long as he rewards you for enduring it! If you see a husband beating his wife as evil but not substantial evil even then you would not say that a reward for her enduring can make it right even a little. Imagine then if it is substantial evil.
Those who say evil or suffering is an illusion or a lack of good will not say that when they have the hernia from hell. It is easily said about somebody else's suffering. Such doctrines make you feel confident now but when the day comes that you suffer they will make your suffering worse. You will be so disappointed. You will have you eyes peeled by force.
Vague evil – means each part of the evil is vague. There is no evil – it is evils. Each evil can be divided into the evils that comprise it. Vague evil makes your assessment of the sinner as a sinner unfair. No sin is assessed in fairness either. Every evil has some aspect or component that you don't see or see properly. But everybody's conversation is really about the evil in people. They judge people no matter how much they say they do not. No matter what evil is, a power or a lack, it does not matter if people can in every important way make it real. It is real when it is in people the way a poem is real in the person who is fundamentally inspired by it.
Are we saying that if evil is not real but a lack, then if it is in people that is the same as it being real? Yes. It is hair-splitting to say that evil is a lack and not real when you say it is in people for the people make it "real". That hairsplitting is an attempt to make evil vaguer than it is and it works!
Evil may as well be substantial evil for it is possible to experience evil as real. And nobody has the right not even God to tell you this experience is wrong. Denying these things contributes to the haze that everybody finds over evil.
We supposedly have free will to reject evil and do good. We freely can do evil we are told.
But the urge to feel that the holocaust or some event akin to something happening in a slasher horror is objectively wrong and extremely objectively wrong means that your morality is forced and therefore vague. Nobody holds that you can turn off the urge so where is the free will now? Morality is turned into something vague if force is involved. It is meant to be about the value of our choices. No matter what evil is, the experience of evil is real to us and we don't want it to be so it forces that sense of reality on us. We wish we could think something that stops its power.
But moral concepts force contradictions on us when we want them to make sense. Justice has mercy. Mercy means somebody has the right to let a Hitler go scot-free and jail the adulteress. Love has a dark side. These contradictions show that they cannot be absolute values.
If evil is real it may make its own fog. Make a fog around the foe and the foe then can get the upper hand...either way it is trouble.