The Problem of Evil/The Meaning of Words
Over on this Triablogue post, I’ve had a bit of an interesting discussion. It’s about to drop off the main page (which is the equivalent of blog purgatory), so I wanted to put some comments on my own bog. The post itself is on the strawman aspect of the Problem of Evil. In the comments section, I noted that atheists (such as Daniel Morgan and John Loftus) never bother to define evil when they bring up the Problem of Evil. If “evil” is undefined, then there is no “problem of evil.”
Ironically, a fellow named Doubting Thomas made the claim that the Bible itself never defined what evil was. I pointed out that, if such a claim were true, then it would be impossible to argue that there is a problem of evil for the same reason as above–if evil is undefined, there is no “problem” of evil. To his credit, Tom agreed with this assessment, but continued to insist that the Bible never defines evil.
But is that the case? Obviously Scripture is not a “dictionary.” That is, it is not a list of words with definitions after them. This does not mean that Scripture leaves its key concepts undefined in the least though, anymore than the fact that I do not define every single word I use in a blog post means I don’t have any meaning in mind as a write.
The problem here is the idea of postmodern deconstructionalism. Ultimately, it’s the belief that words don’t actually have any meaning at all, not just that the Bible doesn’t. This, of course, becomes self-refuting (for how can you use words to argue words have no meaning?).
But let us look specifically at whether or not Scripture defines evil. I gave specific examples in the comments (click on the link to the Triablogue post to read them) where the Bible said, “X is evil.” X can be either a behavior (e.g. supressing the truth) or a specific action (e.g. killing a man). It doesn’t matter; the Bible describes many different things as being evil.
As a result, we can say that “evil” is defined by the Bible as a list of those behaviors, actions, thoughts, etc. that are specifically called “evil” (or one of the synonyms of evil, more commonly used in Scripture, such as “unrighteousness” or “sin”).
The Bible, therefore, does provide a bare-bones list of what is evil. Thus, we have the context to determine what “evil” is when the Bible uses the term outside of specifically linking it to something. In other words, when the Bible says, “The soul that sins shall die” we know what “sins” means because the Bible has elsewhere established what behaviors, ideas, etc. are sinful. This statement does not need a “sins are X, Y, Z…” definition.
Words are primarily defined by their usage. These meanings are nearly always more general, with lots of room for variation and nuance. The specific context of the author who uses a general word will provide us with the specific nuance the author intends. Using this principal, we can indeed understand what the Bible speaks of when it speaks of evil.
In other words, there is a Biblical definition of evil. It’s defined by the entirety of the Bible and the scope it is used within the pages of the Bible. There is no specific, short-sentence form, but such a form is rarely found outside of the dictionary (and then, only in pedantic philosophical books that seek to look at one specific nuance of a word, or an explicit technical term).
So, if you want to know how the Bible defines evil…read the Bible.






January 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Nothing new here, except added misrepresentation.
You wrote: “Ironically, a fellow named Doubting Thomas made the claim that the Bible itself never defined what evil was. I pointed out that, if such a claim were true, then it would be impossible to argue that there is a problem of evil for the same reason as above–if evil is undefined, there is no “problem†of evil. To his credit, Tom agreed with this assessment, but continued to insist that the Bible never defines evil.â€
To say that I “made the claim that the Bible itself never defined what evil was†and that I “continued to insist that the Bible never defines evil†misrepresents what I actually stated. I nowhere “made the claim that the Bible itself never defined what evil was,†nor did I “insist†that it does not define it. I simply asked what the Bible’s definition of evil is.
For instance, I originally asked: “What exactly is the Bible’s definition of evil, and where can it be found?â€
You responded to this, saying: “First, try actually reading the Bible in it’s historical and grammatical context. Read it as it was meant to be understood. You’ll learn a lot.”
That did not answer my question, so I asked again, as follows: “So which passage in the Bible do you think gives the biblical definition of evil?â€
Asking where and how the Bible defines evil and claiming (or insisting) that it does not define it, are two different things.
You then suggested “Let us, for the sake of the argument, define evil as a supression of the truth,†but here you needed to be corrected again, for my question is not how you or I define evil, but how the Bible defines it. As I stated in response to this: “I did not ask for our definition of evil. I asked for the Bible’s definition. Where does the Bible say “evil is the suppression of the truthâ€? If the Bible doesn’t define it, just say so. Or, would you prefer to suppress this fact if it is the case?â€
You wrote: “Obviously Scripture is not a “dictionary.â€
But that does not address my question. A book does not need to be a dictionary to provide definitions of crucial terms. Either the Bible offers a definition of evil, or it does not (in which case we need to find our definitions outside the Bible). Which is it? You seem to want to give the Bible a pass by saying it’s not a dictionary, but you also seem to want to say that the Bible does define evil, though you do not cite what that definition is or give the passage coordinates.
You then gave a list of examples, but as Alepy pointed out, a list of examples is not a definition. A definition isolates the meaning of a word, while examples merely demonstrate certain applications of the term, which may in fact not be exhaustive. Even if it were exhaustive, this would not be the same as a definition (which, unlike a long list of examples, is a condensation of a term’s meaning). Simply listing specifics is not the same as providing a definition. Any English teacher should be able to vouch for this if you don’t take it from me.
You then wrote: “Words are primarily defined by their usage.†On the contrary, their usage is determined by their definitions. What defines words is the isolation of the essential characteristics of the objects they identify. No wonder you have it all backwards!
Then you wrote: “These meanings are nearly always more general, with lots of room for variation and nuance.â€
That’s because the meaning of a word is not restricted to its definition; rather, its definition guides our incorporation of new instances into its scope of meaning. That’s why definitions are so important. But when you have a word which is “defined†by a list of examples, you have no sure guide as to what new instances can validly be incorporated into its scope of meaning.
Then you write: “there is a Biblical definition of evil.â€
Then what is it?
Then you concede the whole point: “There is no specific, short-sentence form.†Then you can’t claim to have a definition. Duh!!
But then you try to rationalize this: “but such a form is rarely found outside of the dictionary.â€
This only tells us about the kinds of books you read. I’ve got dozens and dozens of books which are not dictionaries, but which do in fact provide definitions of their “key concepts.â€
Tom L.
January 29th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I’ll let anyone who’s interested read the entire comments section on Triablogue and come to their own conclusions (that’s why I linked it in the first place).
One thing I’ll note here. Tom said:
—
Asking where and how the Bible defines evil and claiming (or insisting) that it does not define it, are two different things.
—
Naturally, they are two different things; but Tom isn’t interested in where. The Bible defines evil in many places, as I explained. Tom wants a dictionary definition, not the Biblical definition. This is just as much an imposition of his view on to the text as Loftus’s “Problem of Evil” idea.
The fact is, the Bible was written for the common man. It was written so that people from every culture could understand it. It was not written with 21st Century Postmodern Deconstructionists and their technical needs in mind; if that were the case, the Bible would have been incomprehensible to anyone up until modern day.
This is one of the biggest fallacies not only of atheists, but of Americans in general. The idea that everything is irreducible to Americanisms is simply absurd. God has a global view, not Tom’s view.
So which way is better, for God to define what Evil is through commands that prohibit certain behaviors, reinforced by illustrations both in narrative format as well as in systematic theological concepts related through the entirety of Scripture; or for God to give a simple statement in one lump sum form for the sake of Tom alone?
Now, Tom, I have defined evil as the Bible defines it. If you are going to offer an internal critique of Biblical Christianity, you have to deal with the defintions of terms as the Bible defines them. That means you have to read the Bible and know what it says if you want to offer an internal critique. If you do not choose to do so, then feel free to offer your external critiques as much as you like; but you can no longer pretend the problem of evil is applicable.
January 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
You wrote: “Tom isn’t interested in where.”
Sure I am. Why else would I ask? If the Bible does give a definition of evil, what is it, and where is it to be found? Again, you don’t answer this.
You wrote: “The Bible defines evil in many places, as I explained.”
Then why haven’t you point it out? What is the Bible’s definition of evil? Why so cagey?
You wrote: “Tom wants a dictionary definition, not the Biblical definition.”
I want to know how the Bible defines evil. I did not ask for examples, I asked for a definition.
You wrote: “The fact is, the Bible was written for the common man. It was written so that people from every culture could understand it. It was not written with 21st Century Postmodern Deconstructionists and their technical needs in mind; if that were the case, the Bible would have been incomprehensible to anyone up until modern day.”
Now it appears you’re trying to excuse the Bible for not providing a definition of evil (which you still have not produced). And yet, you claim over and over again that it does give a definition of evil (now you even go so far as to say that it “defines evil in many places”).
You wrote: “This is one of the biggest fallacies not only of atheists, but of Americans in general. The idea that everything is irreducible to Americanisms is simply absurd. God has a global view, not Tom’s view.”
So, asking what the Bible’s definition of evil is (even after you have asserted that it “defines evil in many places”) is fallacious? Come now, don’t be so absurd.
‘dude: “I have defined evil as the Bible defines it.”
I didn’t see it. Why don’t you restate it? This time, make it clear that you’re giving the definition you claim the Bible gives it.
‘dude: “If you are going to offer an internal critique of Biblical Christianity, you have to deal with the defintions of terms as the Bible defines them.”
Well, let’s see “the definitions of terms as the Bible defines them.” Oh wait, it’s not a dictionary, right? You’re arguing out both sides of your mouth, and apparently don’t realize it.
Seems that we’ve struck another dry well…
Tom L.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Tom, how do you define a definition?
January 30th, 2007 at 5:47 am
This is incredible!
Here you go, ‘dude, just for you:
a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol
Now, what is the Bible’s definition of evil, and where is it found? You keep saying it’s there, but you never come forward and produce it. Could it possibly be that the Bible nowhere gives one???? Ya think?
Time to come out of the oven, ‘dude. You’re done.
Tom L.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Tom,
I didn’t ask how the dictionary defined the term. I asked how YOU defined the term.
But let’s parse out the dictionary’s definition anyway. Firstly, note that the dictionary doesn’t give you A statement to define a definition. What you quoted gives us TWO statements.
And that’s not all of the possible statements that could have been made, for you ignored:
c. the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.
d. Optics. sharpness of the image formed by an optical system.
e. Radio and Television. the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction
f. The act of making clear and distinct
g. The state of being closely outlined or determined
h. A determination of outline, extent, or limits
… just to name a few.
Now, Tom…does the dictionary actually define “definition”? If I said, “I want THE definition for ‘defininition’” then what would it be?
How about…all of those statements. How do we know which one is applicable in any particular situation? By the context being used.
So, Tom, when I tell you that the Bible in one part defines evil as the “suppression on truth”, that is just as accurate as saying that the dictionary, in one part, defines definition as “The degree of clarity with which a televised image or broadcast signal is received.”
February 19th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
[...] (example one and example two (see also the follow up in the comments with “Doubting Tom†this post)), the atheist demands “chapter and verse†for the definition of a theological [...]