There is a mismatch between what a religion teaches or implies and how the ordinary member lives it.  Religion says that good is the only power and evil is just a distortion of good and is nothing in itself and is not a power.  You need to see that for yourself.  You cannot.  You cannot look at somebody's sickness, their depression, their hate and not see a bad thing.  It is a thing not a ghost or an evaluation.  If evil is a lack that is something that only thinking might work out but it is not what our experience gives us.

So you need to really experience that evil is a lack.  And even if you can, that does not mean that there are evils out there that are not lacks but powers.  But what religion does is this.  It surmises it for its the only way to evade the notion of a perfectly good God making evil.

Human nature needs to see good and evil as opposites.  It is how we are constituted.  It is not about it being true that they are.  It gives us an emotional drive to fight for good and fight against evil.  Religious belief is known to lead to fighting and hate and war but what if it stops people defending the innocent as well as they could?


The argument that evil is not truly evil but a distortion is evil for it is about a person, God, who might not even exist. It is very seriously wrong to present such a serious claim that evil is our fault and not God's without clear proof and evidence.  There are two points here.  It is wrong to regard God as innocent of something so serious for that is a matter for evidence and proof and investigation.  It is wrong to regard humans as to blame.

To say there is a sense in which evil is not real and thus not created except by us to spite God is terrible unless you can place the existence of that God beyond any serious doubt.

Belief in God is not enough to justify this assertion.  It is not based on a high enough standard.  Religion says belief is necessary.  If it is then belief is a necessary evil. It is something we have to make do with when we have no proof.  Fair enough but that means that having religions and ceremonies and Jesuses to celebrate God is evil.  You do not have the right to celebrate necessary evil.  Once you do that you are making unnecessary evil.

By proof we are not unfair enough to demand 100% proof.  Belief in God is an example of something that shouldn't be based on faith but on proof. It is odd to use something that is evil, such as belief, in order to excuse evil! It is hypocritical and hypocritical in the face of great evil and suffering is criminal. The argument that God makes no evil for evil is a lack, is evil for it doesn't care about how evil affects us. It may agree with Jesus who said we must be willing to give up everything even health and our very existence for God. But it is proof that those who link God and true humanitarianism are lying, mistaken or stupid.


Most people will tell you that fair implies the existence of unfair and vice versa. They say that good is the opposite of evil so that would be no surprise.

I would answer that in a fair universe, if there is no unfairness at all, that is fine.  You don't need unfairness to actually be happening.  Or evil.  It only matters that it can happen.

They are not opposites if one is unreal and the other is real. Religion wants you to say that unfair implies there is such a thing as fairness. That is because they want to say that evil implies there is a God who makes good good. But one depends on the other period. It cannot be that evil implies good but good does not imply evil.

So religion incoherently wants to say that good and evil are opposites while a few breaths later it says they cannot be.


For Christians good is absolute which mean that evil is absolute as well. Why? Because if good is absolutely good then evil must be absolutely bad. Grey surely must be absolute too!

We are told, "Evil is not a thing but a lack. It is nothing or less than nothing. It does not need anybody or anything to make it or create it. As it does not know what it is doing, only creatures that know what they are doing can direct and use it." So to define evil as a lack is to blame creatures for being behind it. It is to make that judgement without looking for proof or evidence. Thus it is inherently misanthropic and judgemental. It contradicts innocent until proven guilty which really means, "Get the damn evidence first!" It is proof that this theory of evil actually shows that God and morality oppose each other. Only the atheist has hope of being a good person in her or his core principle, in how she or he sees evil. Law and lawgiver - ie moral law and God the lawmaker - do not go together. They exclude each other.


Is it bad to say evil is a power and also bad if you decide to say it is a lack of good instead?

Believers say you are dangerous if you say it is a power. They complain that it eliminates the love of God.  It makes him a cosmic criminal. 

Saying it could be a power is a softer claim.  It advocates suspicion of God rather than outright condemnation.

Those who say it is or could be a power say you are evil if you say firmly that it is not.  They warn you are helping it to escape detection and treatment.  They tell you it shows what your intention is like.

We cannot say which side is bad. Only evil can say that! Only the truth can say it. So our role is to be undecided. It is definitely evil though the way religion does not help us see the choice and wants us to think the one way, that evil is not a force.

What if there are solid reasons for thinking you do not win either way?  That would mean we should know that and not be given only one option.


Evil is not just the absence of good. To say that it is, is just an attempt to minimise how bad evil is in our experience and to desensitise those who are horrified by it and cannot see how God could be involved in it even indirectly for it is so horrendously vile.

The argument supposes that from God's vantage point, the evil is really just inappropriate good and that is what matters. It does not matter that for us it is experienced as the opposite of good not its mere absence. When you are in terminal agony, telling yourself the suffering is good in the wrong place and time will only make you feel even worse and add guilt to your problems for you are blaspheming God.

Putting the experience of God before the experience of suffering that refutes the love of God is just a form of arrogant denial. It isn't logical.

The argument that evil is nothing but the absence of good does not help at all. It only worsens the problem of evil and the almighty God who can stop it but won't. It puts the problem beyond even the faintest hope of a solution. The problem then becomes not a problem but a catastrophe.


A HISTORY OF GOD, Karen Armstrong, Mandarin, London, 1994
A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6, PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ, Doubleday/Image, New York, 1964
A PATH FROM ROME, Anthony Kenny Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1985
A SHATTERED VISAGE THE REAL FACE OF ATHEISM, Ravi Zacharias, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Tennessee, 1990
A SUMMARY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971
AN INTELLIGENT PERSONS GUIDE TO CATHOLICISM, Alban McCoy, Continuum, London and New York, 1997
APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Part 1, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill, & Son, Dublin, 1954
APOLOGETICS FOR THE PULPIT, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD, London, 1950
AQUINAS, FC Copleston, Penguin Books, London, 1991
ARGUING WITH GOD, Hugh Sylvester, IVP, London, 1971
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin, London, 1990
CITY OF GOD, St Augustine, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1986
CONTROVERSY: THE HUMANIST CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTER, Hector Hawton, Pemberton Books, London, 1971
CRITIQUES OF GOD, Edited by Peter A Angeles, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995
DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION, David Hume, William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1907
DOES GOD EXIST? Brian Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1982
DOES GOD EXIST? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena, California, 1972
DOING AWAY WITH GOD? Russell Stannard, Marshall Pickering, London, 1993
EVIL AND THE GOD OF LOVE, John Hicks, Fontana, 1977
GOD AND EVIL, Brian Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1984
GOD AND PHILOSOPHY, Antony Flew, Hutchinson, London, 1966
GOD AND THE HUMAN CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1967
GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS, Paul Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1990
GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING, Philip St Romain, Liguori Publications, Illinois, 1986
GOD THE PROBLEM, Gordon D Kaufman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1973
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 2, Frederick Copleston SJ Westminster, Maryland, Newman, 1962
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM Press, London, 1963
HUMAN NATURE DID GOD CREATE IT? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena, California, 1976
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
IN SEARCH OF CERTAINTY, John Guest Regal Books, Ventura, California, 1983
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V. Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
OCR Philosophy of Religion for AS and A2, Matthew Taylor, Editor Jon Mayled, Routledge, Oxon, New York, 2007
ON THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BOOK ONE, GOD, St Thomas Aquinas, Image Doubleday and Co, New York, 1961
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996
Philosophy of Religion for A Level, Anne Jordan, Neil Lockyer and Edwin Tate, Nelson Throne Ltd, Cheltenham, 2004
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 1, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND RELIGION, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1987
SALVIFICI DOLORIS, Pope John Paul II, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1984
SEX AND MARRIAGE – A CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE, John M Hamrogue CSSR, Liguori, Illinois, 1987
TAKING LEAVE OF GOD, Don Cupitt, SCM Press, London, 1980
THE CASE AGAINST GOD, Gerald Priestland, Collins, Fount Paperbacks, London, 1984
THE CASE FOR FAITH, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000
THE CONCEPT OF GOD, Ronald H Nash, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983
THE HONEST TO GOD DEBATE Edited by David L Edwards, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963
THE KINDNESS OF GOD, EJ Cuskelly MSC, Mercier Press, Cork, 1965
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, CTS EXPLANATIONS, Fr M C D'Arcy SJ, Catholic Truth Society, London, 2008
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN, CS Lewis, Fontana, London, 1972
THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING, Alan Hayward, Christadelphian ALS, Birmingham, undated
THE PUZZLE OF GOD, Peter Vardy, Collins, London, 1990
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, Brian Davies, Continuum, London-New York, 2006
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF, Charles Gore DD, John Murray, London, 1930
THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
UNBLIND FAITH, Michael J Langford, SCM, London, 1982
WHAT IS FAITH? Anthony Kenny, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW SUFFERING? LG Sargent, Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham, undated
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW SUFFERING? Misc, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena, California, 1985
WHY DOES GOD? Domenico Grasso, St Paul, Bucks, 1970
WHY WOULD A GOOD GOD ALLOW SUFFERING? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1990







No Copyright