The Good God vs. Evil God Debate: Max Baker-Hytch vs Asha Lancaster-Thomas host Vince Vitale
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 апр 2024
- In the discussion on the plausibility of an all-evil God versus an all-good God, Dr. Max Baker-Hytch delivered a compelling argument that encapsulated the essence of the debate. He highlighted the inherent scepticism that arises when considering the 'evil God' hypothesis, pointing out that if such a malevolent deity were to exist, it would provide ample reason to doubt the reliability of our cognitive faculties. According to Dr. Baker-Hytch, the very nature of an evil God would entail a desire to deceive humanity, leading to pervasive doubts and uncertainties. In contrast, the 'good God hypothesis' stands in stark contrast, lacking the motive for such pervasive deception.
Dr. Asha Lancaster-Thomas, whose scholarly contributions have ignited significant discourse on this topic, brought her insights to bear on the discussion. Holding a PhD from the University of Birmingham and teaching philosophy at Atlanta Classical Academy, Dr. Thomas is no stranger to the complexities of metaphysics and epistemology. Her paper on the 'evil God challenge' has been a focal point for philosophical inquiry, prompting responses such as Dr. Baker-Hytch's co-authored rebuttal, "Meeting the Evil God Challenge."
Dr Max Baker-Hytch, lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Oxford received his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Oxford and subsequently held research positions at the University of Oxford and the University of Notre Dame. Max has published more than a dozen scholarly articles and book chapters on various topics within the fields of philosophy of religion and epistemology
This intellectual but friendly exchange between Dr. Baker-Hytch and Dr. Lancaster-Thomas, is hosted by fellow philosopher Vince Vitale.
#evilgodchallenge #philosophy #morality #philosophyofreligion #goodgod #evil
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / unbelievablefe
Facebook: / / premierunbelievable
Instagram: / / premierunbelievable
Tik Tok: / / premier.unbelievable
For Asha Lancaster Thomas:
Read Asha's chapter in Jack Symes' Philosophers on God: Talking About Existence (www.bloomsbury.com/us/philoso... @asha_lancaster
For Max Baker Hytch:
Twitter: @MaxBakerHytchMax Baker Hytch and Ben Page's paper onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
You can always email the show, or even send us a video - under one minute - and tell us who you are what you do and how Unbelievable? has impacted your thinking. Send to unbelievable@premier.org.uk Thank you and we hope you enjoy this show!
I appreciate the approach both pholosophers take to collaborative truth-finding. Much better than "debate".
That's what debate is
Turns out both Good God and Evil God work in mysterious ways
Fallacious thinking...There is only One God and His ways are not mysterious to those who know Him...Hey, but you know better, hey...
@@In_Paradiso58Wow, you are the first person ever to know all the answers to all the mysteries !! Congratulations !! Do you have a book coming out soon ??
@@In_Paradiso58 Indeed, we all know God exists as well as His nature.
@@wingedinfinity6715 don't expect people who can't understand their own fallacious reasoning, to understand sarcasm 😁
A lot of people are born into a "torture world".
In his classic conversations with Glenn Peoples, I remember Steven Law mentioning two sets of scales - one for evil God and one for good God - his contention being that both sets of scales tip to the negative. That helps me to remember which version of the argument he espouses ie the strong one!
What about a third hypothesis that whst we experience as good and evil is in actual fact the very core of free will?
Could you please clarify what you mean by experiencing good and evil and why that's relevant to God's moral character?
I have been noticing for a while. People who say they do not believe in God say he is evil, those who believe in him say his is good. It is interesting that we are judged by what we believe.
They don’t believe in him therefore they don’t think he’s really evil. They think nature and natural selection is often brutal. Which is evidently true
How can someone not believing in God, think that non-existent God is evil?
@@garethflook5706 they don’t think he’s evil as they don’t think he exists or….don’t know. It’s answering a hypothetical
When the non believers say he's evil, they're making an assessment based on how he is portrayed and the actions he committed as said in the book.
The same way you can asses that Voldemort is evil, or that Luke Skywalker is good. You don't have to believe they exist to do that.
Those who believe in God however, say that he is good because they need a compelling reason to justify their beliefs without making themselves look foolish.
That's why even when presented with the facts that their God committed acts we'd generally called evil, they have to come up with justifications to make it appear as if it's reasonable/not actually evil. Even at the cost of contradicting some previous belief.
Nope.
In reference to the pleasure machine, I think an important bit that is left out is that the machine is not reality. People might still choose a mixed reality over a pleasureful non-reality, but would they actually choose a mixed reality over a bliss reality? I know I wouldn't. I'm 100% for a Bliss World, and for anyone who thinks that the bliss would lose its luster or not actually be blissful because you don't have negatives to compare it to... that's not what bliss is. Boredom doesn't exsits in Bliss World. In a Bliss World, happiness wouldn't need negatives to compare it to, and it wouldn't lose its luster. In a world where literally everything you do and see makes you happy, how could you ever possibly get bored of that?
It's like there's a weird Stockholm Syndrome that people have with negative experiences. Let 'em go, folks! Let 'em go.
1:00:00 I think this question really comes down to what attributes we consider evil. Is pride evil? Is selfishness evil? If we have a prideful and selfish God then it may be the case that it doesn't want to destroy itself. It has too much pride in its existence and it's not selfless enough to want to destroy itself. So I really do think it comes down to what attributes you want to subscribe to as evil.
God has every reason to be proud of Himself & seek to display His wonderful attributes.
@@martinploughboy988 pride is a sin. So therefore you're saying God has every reason to be sinful.
@@displacegamer1379 Pride is a sin for us, not God.
@@martinploughboy988 Cool it hear. So, you just said sins are not evil.
@@displacegamer1379 No.
I bet I know which hypothesis Job would accept! 😳
Yes! He was certain God is perfectly good and just.
@@Mentat1231 I bet his first 10 children disagreed
@@RLBays
They will agree in the resurrection which is foreshadowed by Job receiving double of everything except children (the originals will also live). When they find out it was Satan who killed them, and God who made sure they came back in Paradise, I think they'll be quite happy.
@@Mentat1231 That sounds a bit psychotic actually.
@@RLBays
I don't know why you say that, but fair enough if that's how it sounds to you.
46:47-47:05 It is a bit odd when a theist says that if given the choice he would rather be in mixed world than in bliss world which is basically what heaven is supposed to be like. Now there is this situation where god is saying if you people behave well your reward will be to go to a place where I know most of you dont really wanna go. Something is not right here.
6:50 when I present this challenge I also present one additional premise. Both gods are trying to convince humanity that an all good God exists. The all good God is trying to convince people that it exists because it does exist in this worldview. And the evil God is trying to convince humanity than in all good God exists because it's goal is to deceive humanity as an act of evil. So both gods also have the same aim.
But this evil god is contradicting himself whenever a good thing happens, or anything good exists.
@@rsandy4077 no contradiction at all. In fact it's actually working towards his aim whenever anything good happens.
In reference to the bit at ~24:00, I think a good god could ask us to ignore our cognitive abilities, such as when the god of the Bible tells us to have faith in things unseen. So, while I disagree that a good god couldn't have us distrust our cognitive faculties, I do agree that this undermining of our cognitive faculties is a really strong reason to reject the hypothesis that the god of the Bible is real. I don't think this is a good non-mirror for the evil god.
Neither one of the links to the individual papers work.
God has to be good in order for hope to function properly
Can a “good” God also be the creator of necessary evil? Isaiah 45:7
What is the reasoning provided for why an all evil God would create anything in the first place?
To create sentient beings who would suffer, would be one hypothesis.
@Amos1910 OK, but we aren't constantly suffering, so it isn't an all evil god. But some suffering would fit with an all good god that gives free will (which is itself good).
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Evil God creates in order to manifest His names and attributes. Just like the good god.
Evil God gave you the ability to have children so that he can enjoy your increased misery when they quickly die of childhood cancer etc.
In short, the evil god 'permits' goods in order to achieve greater bads.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway perhaps constant suffering would actually be less suffering because we would lack the contrast between pleasure and pain. Also constant torture might not be very satisfying for an evil god, he might prefer to have many variations of suffering.
@donaldmcronald8989 The act of Creation is a good, and an All Evil God is incapable of doing good.
Is there another angle you can try?
According (reportedly) to Jesus, only God alone is good. Thus the creation, seen as something (at least somewhat) separate from God, would have to be evil to some degree. Thus the problem of evil concerns not the necessary existence of evil in the world but rather whether the amount of evil is more than it had to be for a separate creation to subsist. And about that we have and can have no idea, it being infinitely above our pay grade.
Jesus meant that in this fallen realm, no one is good because we all have a darker side that has to be transformed. We originally were light and we transformed down into this dark world. Jesus taught us what we must do to get out of here. This is not our home.
24:47 I think that this would be determinant on the aims of this evil god. If the aim of this evil God is to deceive us into believing that this all good God exists then It might be reasonable for that evil God to create a world much like ours that has certain foundational requirements. Such as our ability to be logical. If it's goal is deception then it needs a foundation of logic to facilitate this deception.
Great point. It undermines the hypothesis that under an evil god we could not trust our faculties
@@realLsf Correct.
You cannot have evil without good. neo platonic philosophy explains that evil is a parasite, it does not have an existence on its own, it depends on the good to have existence. Also common sense tells everyone that good is more the goal and what it ought to be, also by looking at nature we can see goodness. How can there be an evil god behind and interprenetating everything?
Neoplatonic philosophy says that evil is non-Being.
And not even God can create non-Being.
Imagine you were in court and a bunch of ants were all sitting around judging you, each with their own personal ant opinion about ant things.
Lol, they would rightfully conclude that I am not omnibenevolent towards ants (to put it mildly)
47:01 Whoa, hold up, Max! Not preferring to be plugged into a bliss experience machine *while the actual world remains mixed* is not equivalent to preferring a mixed world over a bliss world *as the actual state of the world*. Wearing a neural override device that makes a tiger (to borrow another bad Plantinga scenario) eating me alive experienced as a cuddle session with a big cute kitten does not change the fact that I am being eaten alive. Those inclined to plug into the bliss experience machine will quickly get "eaten" by the "tiger" that in fact exists in the actual world. God, on the other hand, had the power to have fundamentally constituted the actual world as bliss world, and therefore bears the responsibility for not having done so.
A mixed good and evil world may just be step 1 to give you hope and dash all your hopes for step 2: eternal suffering. So, a mixed world is not inconsistent with evil god.
it's really hard for me to wrap my mind around the psychology of an evil god. note that your assumption is that an evil god wants to dash all our hopes after giving us a glimpse of goodness in a mixed world. what is strange to me. for what reason? so that the evil god could derive some sort of pleasure (goodness)? which set us up to a discussion of the metaphysics of goodness. and in the privation theory of goodness, an all-evil god just can't get off the ground because it is metaphysically impossible. that is to say, there is absolutely no reason why we would expect an all-evil god to put so much effort in maximizing his good pleasure of giving us a mixed world and then dashing all our hopes. an all-evil god probably wouldn't do that.
@@wilkielaiI think we can strengthen or generalize the Evil God Challenge by positioning a God that is not necessarily evil, just not maximally good.
And I think this Not-Maximally-Good God Challenge is much much stronger.
And we don't need for there to be an exact symmetry, or an isomorphism. We just need something like a bisimulation for the challenge to work.
@@wilkielai it's just as arbitrary as a good God. For what reason does it want us to be good?
And it gets more confusing if we go with divine command theory. Under that, there is no such thing as an evil God. Anything it wants is automatically good. Your suffering IS good, should that be in his will.
But still, the motivation would be arbitrary.
Motivations don't need reasons. We know minds can be sadistic. It may simply be the arbitrary nature of this god to be sadistic. Maybe it also gets a kick out of showing lesser beings how much lesser they are. There are infinite reasons, but at the end of the day, it's motivations are JUST as arbitrary as a good god's. Unless that good God is contingent upon something else, then it is by definition completely arbitrary.
Or maybe it's the case that the god is just insane. Or maybe it isn't all good or all evil. Maybe we are an abandoned side project to it's actual goal and it's just completely indifferent to us. It doesn't matter. Any "most high" god is going to be completely arbitrary in nature.
An all-good God has it's own contradictions, which is why I think an all-good or and all-evil god are just silly hypotheses on their face.
Assuming an evil God is just sadistic and/or narcissistic, why wouldn't it put effort into coming up with ways to make us suffer? Isn't that the motivation of the supposed Satan? What makes his sadistic desires any more or less believable just because he isn't the highest supernatural being?
The god of the Bible is not all evil, but is still quite evil. He is narcissistic, selfish and jealous, hypocritical and treats humans as mere instruments for his will, rather than free agents deserving of self ownership. Anything good he does for them is explicitly to increase his own glory. And this was typical of deities in the near east pantheons.
So, definitely possible to have a very vain and cruel god who at times shows favor and kindness to those he likes, while being unreasonably evil to those he doesn't like. That motivation, self absorption, narcissism, a lack of empathy, that psychology makes total sense, in the context of the Bible, and just as a being of immense power.
It brings to mind a quote from the wonderful 3 body problem series: "if I decide to destroy you, what business is it of yours?" We are just bugs to god. Maybe he has affection for some of us, as many of us are bug collectors, and pet lovers, but wouldn't give a second thought to squishing other bugs, or trapping mice, or shooting rabbits. 🤔
It wouldn't matter whether it knew what was good or bad, that doesn't mean it's motivated to do good or to do bad, that's totally separate. So, if I can demonstrate what is objectively good, that alone does not give a REASON to act good. Even if I can demonstrate good is in one's self interest, one may be motivated to harm their own interests. Motivation is it's own beast. Correctness is another.
@@CharlesWinnip yeah idk why it has to be all good or all evil. Both have problems. But a mostly evil or partly evil God is perfectly compatible with apparent reality.
@@SnakeWasRight Yes, to the unthinker...
How is an "evil God" even a coherent notion?
how is a ‘god’ even a coherent notion?
If you already are buying into unfalsifiable notions, anything is coherent and possible. God can be an evil immaterial cheese-loving goat while we’re at it🤷♂️
Which part are you struggling with most?
@donaldmcronald8989
The idea itself. God's nature is very thing that defines what is good. It's logically impossible for the definition of good to be evil.
@@MrSheepishLion Does His nature create them because they are good or are they good because they leave His nature?
@@MrSheepishLion that's one definition of morality/god. if we think a bit deeper about what's been commanded or sanctioned by a god in particular, we can measure against our own moral sense.
if any person or god commands mass murder, mass rape, or slavery, we would call that person or god evil.
and, with regards to the chistian god, unfortunately, it ends up looking really really bad.
We are at 43:07 and I just had the thought that you can run the theodicy that there is a supernatural war between good and evil and that's why there is some good in the world. Evil God Lucifer kicked out the deviant angel Yahweh and gave him some power in the earthly realm. At the end of times Evil God will sleigh the good angel and evil will prevail. Then you will understand why you must pledge allegiance to this evil God.
The evil God challenge is the one Satan made in Heaven. God is good, so what is the opposite of good? The knowledge of good and evil is the concept and the acted-out experience of the answer. The qualification that defines evil is the demonstration that God would die and become a contradiction of Himself. So the ultimate evil is when God took and accounted for every sin on the cross at Calvary. His death is the evil God.
Evil is a state of being that destroys everything. The 'very good' earth is now cursed and nature has both good and evil in it. If God was evil he would be the opposite of existence, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent therefore destroy himself and nothing would exist. Good could only exist because God is essential and necessary for upholding existence.
If a person says why does God allow evil, then I would ask them, is it the evil that others do or is it the evil that you do, or do you think you are not producing evil, yet, if evil little or great both come from the same place, in other words, what you are asking is, why does God allow me to do evil, and in this, it should answer your question, so what is the answer.
With all due respect, your comment is very incoherent. Are you trying to make the point that God allows people to do evil because of free will?
@@onionbelly_ free will is not the answer try again
@@TempleofChristMinistries Is it not possible for you to clarify what you meant without being condescending?
@@onionbelly_ I'm not being condescending, I'm asking someone a question do they know the answer to it, I'm giving other people a chance not just you, can anyone answer it. Then think about it and try again.
@@TempleofChristMinistriesI also assumed your question had the premise of free will theodicy so I am a bit confused as well. I'm not upset, I'm just confused. That's all.
Also, to your original point, yes. God removing evil would include God helping me to change my character to be more loving. There are times where I have accidentally said hurtful things to people, and those are times where it would have been nice for God to at least give me some forewarning as a preventative measure.
What an absolute waste of time. A discussion based on human philosophy with no reference to the Bible.
They pretended that we do not know God exists & His nature, ignoring entirely their own knowledge. The creature, arrogantly putting God on trial.
Half way through and we have not touched on the sacrifice of Jesus, the righteous life He lived and the prophecies fulfilled, the facts all pointing to the resurrection event as the best explanation of the data we have all proving He is the GOOD GOD.
Game over.
Why would an all evil god step into our world, live a life of goodness, faithfulness, and love as an example set to mankind?
Why would an evil god uphold Holy scripture that lifts up justice and righteousness and love your neighbor as the highest of good?
That's what Jesus did. He changed the world for the good. Just as an all GOOD GOD would. This smacks in the face of an all evil God.
An all evil god would do no such thing, as Christianity has alleviated so much harm in the world. Why allow Christianity to flourish if he is all evil?
Even if you tried to claim he deceived billions of Christians into believing in Jesus. Why? Believing in Jesus has brought hope to billions of lives stuck in this mundain world where everything is slowly running down. Our youth, our health,, our successes. All will be gone. An all evil god (if all evil) would cherish this no hope mentality. But instead we have hope. Wonderful hope in Jesus.
We are comparing an all good God, to an all evil God. It is easy to see the good that can come from suffering so its easy to see why a good God would allow it. The patience, heroism, empathy, kindness, faithfulness, endurance, love overcoming evil that can be born out of suffering. Our God says He brings beauty from ashes, and that is exactly what we see proving He is a GOOD GOD.
These kind of things would fly in the face of an all evil god. He would snuff out any beauty coming from any suffering if he is all evil.
in mental band width
This good God vs evil god is interesting, but totally futile thinking. It really is a waste of mental band width when you think on it for 2 seconds.
58:05 we should also keep in mind that what we see as torture is that because we have an understanding of what it is to not be tortured. If we were just born into a torture world I'm not so sure that we would understand it as torture. I think the fact that we have a sense of what it is to not be tortured is what makes torture so much more agonizing. So it could be the case that this evil God would want us to at least have an experience of non-torture so that when we do experience torture it is so much more.
Right but experience and common sense tells us the opposite. That we start with no torture and afterwards torture comes. This can be also said of an evil god. Its the same whatever order. But what breaks this circularity is the sense that good ought to reign over evil. If this is a deceptive trick we would not know it, we would not doubt that God is good.
@@rsandy4077 your comment seems to be a non sequiter. Do you mind linking what you just said with what my comment said in a more direct way.
Doesn't Christianity present a world in which the god is good but you can't trust your own reason?
No.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Yes actually. Just read Proverbs 3:5, Jeremiah 17:9 or Ecclesiastes 9:3. Do not trust your own reason but trust God is clearly what the Bible teaches.
@onionbelly_ Isaiah 1:18
Why would God ask us to reason together if we can't trust our own reasoning (which is a gift of God and sets us apart from animals)?
On matters of physical transcendence, we shouldn't rely on our own understanding of the physical universe in an attempt to understand God. We can not study nature and come to know God, as that is a spiritual journey.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Because the Bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Why would the Yahweh character in the Bible tell us not to trust our own reasoning in the aforementioned verses if he wanted the people of Judea to reason together in Isaiah 1:18?
Non-human primate species can also reason and engage in logical inferences.
@onionbelly_ Did you not read my comment? I explained the different contexts of the verses, but you blew right past that to strut your atheism. Oh well, God bless.