if god exists he is perfectly good this is the position of traditional monotheisms such as christianity not only does a supernatural creator exist but he is maximally good and cares about you and me on a personal moral level but there's a famous problem with this view called the problem of evil if an all-powerful god exists who is capable of eliminating all the evil in the world then why doesn't he why does evil exist why do people get cancer and murder each other and put pineapple on pizza the atheist philosopher j. l mackey famously concluded that since if a good god existed he would want to remove all evil and would have the power to do so the existence of evil in the world therefore shows that a good god doesn't exist okay you probably already know this but here's something for your attention religious believers have many many ways in which they respond to the problem of evil and offend the idea that a good god exists despite the existence of evil call this the good god hypothesis religious defenses of the existence of a good god in response to the problem of evil are sometimes called theodicies and include arguments like evil is necessary to obtain higher order goods or evil exists due to human free will things like this but today i want to show you why most theodicies that the religious put forward to defend the good god hypothesis can actually be reversed and used with equal plausibility to prove that if god exists he is in fact maximally evil and we can call this the evil god hypothesis now hold on though this is ridiculous obviously god can't be maximally evil that's a ludicrous suggestion clearly the world could be worse than it is and a maximally evil god would make it worse and clearly there's so much good in the world as well beauty and love and laughter things that a maximally evil god wouldn't allow to exist it should be obvious that these everyday observations are incompatible with a totally evil omnipotent being just look around see all the good in the world and you'll see how ridiculous it is to suggest that god is maximally evil but that's kind of the point most religious believers immediately reject the evil god hypothesis based on these kinds of simple observations but if the religious can say look at how much good there is in the world this disproves the evil god hypothesis why can't the atheists say look how much evil there is in the world this disproves the good god hypothesis well as i say the religious can use theodicies philosophical arguments to reconcile the existence of evil with a good god but what if these same theodicies work in reverse and can also reconcile the existence of good with an evil god well it would mean that the religious believer has no more reason absent other factors to suggest that their god is good than they do to suggest that their god is evil and so unknowingly by responding to the problem of evil with theodicies the religious are simultaneously using arguments that just as validly support the existence of an evil god this is the problem posed by the oxford philosopher dr stephen law in his 2010 paper the evil god challenge most theaters say that the idea of a good god is far more reasonable than the idea of an evil god but if the arguments for defending the first work just as well in defending the latter then they're unjustified in claiming that the good god hypothesis is more rational than the evil god hypothesis here's the crux of stephen law's argument he doesn't try to prove or disprove the existence of any god good or evil and he doesn't pass judgment on whether religious theodicies are successful he just says that if the religious easily dismiss the evil god hypothesis because of the existence of good they should just as easily dismiss the good god hypothesis because of the existence of evil but if the religious think that theodicies can defend the good god hypothesis against evil then they should also think that these same theodicies can defend the evil god hypothesis against good he says and i quote theists typically dismiss the evil god hypothesis out of hand because of the problem of good there is surely too much good in the world for it to be the creation of such a being but then why doesn't the problem of evil provide equally good grounds for dismissing belief in a good god okay so to understand this challenge properly because it might well not be clear yet we need to return to the good god hypothesis and the problem of evil how do say christians defend the good god hypothesis against the existence of evil well let's have a look at three of the most popular examples of theodicies that are widely used by the religious and you've probably yourself heard them before first evil exists because god gave humans free will for human beings to be truly good and be able to love god they need to do so freely right if we were all robots determined by god to always do what was good we'd be compelled into loving him and doing good deeds which isn't true love or true goodness at all loving someone because you're forced to isn't really love it has to be given freely so god thinks a world in which there is free will is far more valuable than one without it and he gives humans freedom to do as they please unfortunately to be truly free we need to have the freedom to choose evil and many humans do and that's why evil exists it's the price we have to pay to be able to be genuinely freely good as well we can call this the free will theodicy here's a second one evil exists because it is necessary for higher order goods to obtain for example take the good of bravery bravery can only exist in the face of danger right if there's no such thing as fear and danger there can be no such thing as bravery similarly without the existence of uncertainty and trepidation there can be no such thing as hope so god allows these lower order evils because they're needed to produce desirable higher order goods like bravery and hope which only exist as responses to evil we can call this the higher order goods theodicy finally here's a third theodicy evil exists because without it we couldn't have a conception of good if everything was good all the time we wouldn't notice it and so couldn't appreciate it as c. s lewis timelessly put it in a slightly different context a man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line unless we know what evil is we can't know what good is since we have no reference to compare it to and so we could never even recognize its presence we could never truly appreciate it so call this one the appreciation theodicy okay so there we have arguably the three most popular ways in which the religious defend the existence of a good god against the problem of evil and most religious people watching this will probably subscribe to at least one of them but what has this got to do with the evil god challenge well stephen law asks us to consider the existence of a maximally evil god this would of course disprove christianity and religions like it because the christian god is a good god so dr law asks how might the christian respond to the suggestion that god is actually maximally evil well the answer would be what we could call the problem of good right if a maximally evil god exists why is there so much good in the world why isn't there more evil and suffering and more troublingly many people around the globe live peaceful lavish and wealthy lives even if not everyone does but surely if god was maximally evil then we'd all be living horrible lives all homeless and poor and sick right the existence of such lucky people living in luxury seems to suggest that god can't be truly maximally evil because if he was they wouldn't exist stephen law's point is that most religious people reject the evil god hypothesis because it's so obvious that we're not living under the most evil circumstances possible but now hold on i just offered three theodicies that the religious like to use to defend the existence of a good god but what if we can use the same theodicies to defend the existence of an evil god despite the existence of all this good in the world well as it turns out we can let me demonstrate this to you now by defending the evil god hypothesis against the existence of good using exactly the same theodicies that i used a moment ago to defend the opposite so if god is maximally evil why does so much good exist in the world theodicy number one the free will theodicy good exists because god gave humans free will for human beings to be truly evil and to be able to harm each other maliciously they need to do so freely if we were all robots determined by god to always do what was bad we'd be compelled into doing bad deeds which doesn't truly make us bad at all since we wouldn't be responsible for the actions as stephen law writes an evil god could have created a universe populated with puppet beings that he ensured always behaved unpleasantly but the behavior of such puppet beings lacks the dimension of moral responsibility that transforms such acts into actions of the most depraved and despicable kind to maximize evil an evil god would want us to perform cruel and selfish acts of our own volition so that's why a maximally evil god would give people the freedom to be good because it's the price he has to pay to be able to create people who are also capable of being genuinely freely evil theodicy number two the higher order evils theodicy good exists because it is necessary for higher order evils to obtain for example take the evil of betrayal betrayal can only exist in the face of trust and friendship if there's no such thing as trust and friendship there can be no betrayal similarly without the existence of love there can be no such thing as heartbreak without the good of having something pleasant there can be no such evil as loss or grief so god allows these lower order goods like trust and pleasantness because they're needed to produce desirable higher order evils like betrayal and heartbreak and loss and grief so god allowing these goods to exist is actually a way to maximize evil overall theodicy number three the appreciation theodicy this is the most interesting to me good exists because without it we wouldn't have a conception of evil if everything around us was evil and depraved all the time we wouldn't truly appreciate it because we'd have no context or reference for comparison by providing a world containing lots of beauty and virtue evil god provides a contrast against which we can fully appreciate how bad the existence of evil is as stephen law puts it if everything were uniformly maximally ugly we wouldn't be tormented by the ugliness half as much as if it was peppered with some beauty not only this but consider the fact i mentioned earlier that some people have wonderful luxurious lives and this seems to suggest that god isn't maximally evil but by allowing some people to live in luxury it makes it all the more painful and depressing to live in poverty and sadness the fact that a homeless man is living on the street and freezing to death in the winter is surely evil but if that man is freezing to death right outside a mansion in which other people are living comfortably and warmly in luxury doesn't this make it more evil that the homeless man is freezing to death isn't it more bad to think that someone is suffering when there are others who are not and who have the capacity to help him but refuse by allowing some people to live luxurious lives evil god makes the suffering of others all the more acute and impossible to bear and the randomness of either being born into wealth and health or poverty and sickness makes being born into the latter all the more evil since it's so arbitrary so to maximize the suffering of those people an evil god would allow some people to live luxuriously to provide a painful point of comparison so what does this all show well it shows that if you're a religious believer who thinks that these kinds of theodicies work to rationalize the existence of a good god you should be aware that they work equally well to rationalize the existence of an evil god as i've just shown and if you're convinced that the good god hypothesis is far more rational than the evil god hypothesis you'd better find a special reason to justify this position unless you're willing to grant that both hypotheses are equally plausible you shouldn't so easily dismiss an evil god because of the problem of good if you're not also willing to dismiss a good god because of the problem of evil now to be clear i'm not trying to argue that an evil god actually exists or even that these theodicies are bad theodicies i'm just trying to say that if you think these theodicies succeed in defending a good god against evil you should think they work equally well to defend an evil god against good and i'm pretty sure that this is all stephen law is saying too i mean i don't know that i'm not stephen law but stephen law is stephen law so why don't we ask him the theist typically has a a kind of belief system put together with various arguments for defensive moves and so on and it's striking how to what extent you can build a very similar kind of belief system around another core belief that there's an evil god which the theist will typically reject is absolutely absurd um and and really the point is this that they're right [Laughter] it is completely absurd right not notwithstanding all of the clever convoluted maneuvers that i might engage in in order to defend this belief system their first impression is completely correct it's ludicrous uh you need only look out the window to say that this is not the creation of a supremely powerful and malevolent deity and if that is true of an evil god then it can be true of a good court too and for this argument to work you don't actually need to offer any analysis of whether the religious theodicies the defenses against the problem of evil are good or bad you don't comment on whether they're good or bad you just say if you believe these and if you think that they're sound if you think that they work you should be aware that they also work just as well to defend the hypothesis that god is maximally evil and if you find that ridiculous maybe you should question the theodicy in the first place yeah exactly my thanks of course to stephen law for letting me pick his brain a little bit now just before i go i've got a fun announcement i'm going to be speaking at vegan campout 2021 vegan campout is the uk's biggest vegan festival it's like glastonbury for the plant-based and it's going to be held on august 20th to the 22nd it's three days of camping of course but also with talks live music after parties and a huge variety of amazing food and check out the lineup russell brand is going to be there as well as joey carbstrong who i've had on my podcast before along with chris peckham heather mills and patrick babumion who you may recognize from the netflix documentary the game changes you'll also get to see benjamin zephaniah and p money at the music stage and of course i'll be giving a talk too and will be around for the whole festival over 40 of the tickets have already been sold so if you do want to come go to vegancampout.
co. uk or use the link in the description to secure your place i'm really excited about it and it would be great to see as many of you there as possible it's also a great opportunity of course to meet other vegans from across the country or maybe bring along some friends who are considering giving up animal products either way i'll look forward to seeing you but anyway i just want to take a moment to remind you that everything i do is supported by you on patreon and a special thanks as always to my top tier patrons if you like my content please do consider supporting the channel at patreon.
