Gratuitous Evil and God

The Evidential Argument from Evil is often cited as the most powerful extant argument for atheism. Roughly, the argument says that there probably exist gratuitous evils in the world (evils that don't serve any higher purpose or are not necessary for any equal or outweighing good) and that this makes God's nonexistence probable, since God would not allow such evil if He was real.

I think this argument has been sufficiently answered by theistic philosophers in the past and into today. Philosophers the likes of William Alston, Peter van Inwagen, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and Daniel Howard-Snyder have all presented powerful refutations of the argument.

But I recently ran into a response to this argument from evil that many have not noted. It stems from a passage in a chapter by philosopher Richard Gale, who apparently used to be an atheist, but now thinks that there is good evidence that some kind of God exists. Gale brings up this item in his debate with Bruce Reichenbach in *Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion* edited by Michael Peterson.

Gale presents an argument for the reality of a god who is similar to the theistic God but who is not apparently fully omnipotent or ominiscient. He is very powerful and intelligent but not necessarily maximally so.

Gale's conclusion is that this diminished god exists in all possible worlds. Interestingly, he explains to the reader that he cannot believe that a full-blown omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being could exist in this way because if He did, counterintuitive things result. For instance, notes Gale, if this God exists in all possible worlds, there is no possible world where gratuitous evil exists. But, he says, there is surely a world where such an evil exists, therefore this maximally great God must not exist in all worlds.

What's interesting about this argument is that Gale never states why he's so confident that gratuitous evil could exist but a necessary God could not. Indeed, here the theist might have an ingenous reply to the evidential argument from evil. He could reply that God's existence is just as conceivable as the reality of gratuitous evil, but if God exists, gratuitous evil does not. That is, it certainly appears that this God exists in at least some possible world. This possibility seems just as obvious as the reality of gratuitous evil in our own world. But if God possibily exists, such evil is impossible.

So, we at least come to a standstill about which reality appears possible gratuitous evil or the necessary God. If we cannot decide which is possible and which is not, we havd to admit that this argument from evil is inconclusive. It thus can't disprove theism.

Is MMA Unethical?

Many people have argued that my favorite sport, Mixed Martial Arts, is inherently unethical. This sport, they say, is intrinsically violent and therefore immoral. It is wrong, supposedly, for fighters to try and end a fight either by knocking their opponent out or forcing him to submit. Thus, many, especially media pundits such as the annoying Donny Deutsch and opportunistic politicians like the annoying John McCain wish to see the sport banned globally.

Here, I take issue with their typical arguments against MMA or at least what precious little they've set forth as argument.

1. MMA is intrinsically brutal and violent and is thus immoral

This is the main criticism of the sport, but it is flawed. Firstly, MMA is not intrinsically brutal if by "brutal" we mean gratuitously violent, as shown by the fact that there have been myriad fights where neither fighter gets harmed, let alone brutalized. See, e.g., Lee Murray vs. Jorge Rivera or Forrest Griffin vs. Bill Mahood. Both are UFC fights which ended in around a minute by a submission hold that was broken up before any fighter was hurt. These sorts of fights happen all the time. Thus, it can't be said that MMA is inherently brutal.

Is MMA inherently violent, however? This seems so only if by "violence" we mean something like two parties trying to combatively defeat the other. But even if MMA is like this, it's not clear why that is immoral. For one, I've noted that many fights end without injury. Secondly, there many other sports that are equally as violent in this sense and yet are considered great sports by mainstream media. Boxing, football, and rugby are but three examples. Even the Olympics has combat sports like boxing, judo, karate and the like which are violent, but no one wants these outlawed.

2. There have been too many deaths and serious injuries in MMA. It should thus be banned

But this just seems factually false. The only known death in an MMA match was an unsanctioned one that didn't take place in an organized MMA entity. But then that doesn't count as an official MMA match. Of course, serious injuries do take place in MMA, but they also take place in most other sports. Thus, if you can't fault other sports for this feature, you can't fault MMA either. Even more, football, boxing, and even pro wrestling have resulted in far more serious injuries and deaths than MMA ever will. Thus, those should be banned far before MMA, if we're using death and injury as a main criterion.

3. "Cagefighting" is human cockfighting and is thus primitive and resorts back to tribal behavior

This odd objection never made sense to me. Martial arts are performed all the time outside cages, so why aren't those also considered "human cockfighting" or primitive? What difference does a cage make? Moreover, the cage is not there for atmosphere or primitive feel. It is there to make sure the fighters don't fall out of the octagon (like they do often in boxing, resulting in injury), which lessens the number of injuries in the sport. Secondly, fighters are grown men, and thus not helpless animals being thrown into a fight at their unknown peril. People should have the right to fight professionally if they want to, just like boxers and martial arts practitioners do all the time.

4. Martial arts like karate and judo aren't bad themselves, but it is bad to combine them all into one sport

I've seen this weird reasoning from Donny Deutsch. Unfortunately, he never gives anyone any reason to believe it's true. If the individual combat sports aren't inherently bad themselves, how can it be inherently bad when they're done in tandem? Critics have never answered this. Indeed, we could say the opposite: those trained in various combat sports know the various defensive moves of those sports and therefore are better prepared to protect themselves than are other martial artists.

In the end, the various objections to MMA mostly come down to unjustified assertions. Critics can't just outlaw MMA because they dislike it. They have to give well-reasoned criticisms against it, which they virtually never do. Nor do they apply their poor reasoning to equally "brutal" and combative athletic events.

Is Apologetics Combative?

Having studied apologetics for around 8 years now, I've continually seen apologists and authors announce in their writings that in doing apologetics we shouldn't see things as "us vs. them". When we encounter unbelievers and discuss or debate with them the intellectual merits of Christianity, we should see ourselves as trying to win a convert for Christ, not as an enemy to be defeated. I've heard this sort of outlook from Hank Hanegraaff (The Bible Answer Man) and R. Douglas Geivett, for example.

But I just can't get myself to agree. For instance, in confronting an avowed skeptic of Christianity who in effect challenges the truth of our faith important things are stake. Firstly, the person is in effect trying to show you why your belief in Christ should be abandoned. But to abandon Christ is evil and thus the skeptic here is trying to perform an evil act on you, so to say. But how can one defend against an evil act if he doesn't combat it? We can't simply see this as a friendly exchange of ideas, for eternal destiny is at stake. Evil has to be combatted in order to be stopped and doing apologetics is one way of doing so.

Secondly, skeptics often wish to sway other people away from the faith. This too is of course evil. Thus, in doing apologetics and arguing against the skeptic here we are, in effect, fighting for eternal destiny. Again, this seems incompatible with a view whereby we're somehow sympathetic to our skeptic friend and want to stay friends so long as we don't come off as combative. Better to be combative than to lose souls to evildoers.

Lastly, Jesus Himself seemed combative in His dealings with detractors such as the Pharisees. Jesus confronted these false teachers in the intellectual arena and did so with vigor and urgency. He wasn't overly nice or empathetic: He sought to stamp out evil and hatred for God where He found it and before it evaded the masses further. We also see Jesus overturning the temple marketplace and calling Herod a "fox". Jesus was by no means pacifistic when it came to apologetic encounters.

Apologetics ultimately reduces to a battle of good vs. evil: a battle to save men from the evil forces (whether they be human or Satanic) who wish to turn him against God. And the battle against evil is always combative.