Simon Blackburn's Argument Analysis

There are those who believe wholeheartedly in an all-powerful, benevolent, creator God, and those that believe putting one’s faith in such a thing is ludicrous. Simon Blackburn questions the existence of such a God with “the problem of evil.” Essentially, it means since there is evil, pain and strife in the world it would be illogical to believe in an infallible, benevolent God. Why would God create a world with so much evil? If this God exists, then the world would be perfect. The world is not perfect. Therefore, there can be no such God. Blackburn confronts many possible criticisms to his argument. He attacks the idea of the world being a test for who goes to heaven or hell, our misunderstanding of God’s morality as human morality and the free-will argument. I believe he successfully debunks these criticisms, but he does not address the issue of dichotomy. Everything in the world is relative, and things are defined by their opposites.

Black means nothing without white. This means when God created good he inherently created evil. Blackburn’s premise is false because his definition of perfection is false, and “the problem of evil” cannot be used to debunk the existence of God. This means Blackburn’s entire argument is invalid, and it in conjunction with the issue of dichotomy, Blackburn’s defenses can be invalid as well.
First, let me address dichotomy and why it is essential to the universe.

Everything in the world has meaning, and this meaning is defined by its relation to other things. Often, things, especially concepts, are meaningless without their opposite. This holds true for things as simple as north and south but can be extended to complex things such as good and evil. Creation and destruction. Love and hate. Hope and despair. The list goes on, but the point is things cannot exist without their opposites. If God created the universe, it is true to say he created both good and evil. And Blackburn believes there lie the problem. A benevolent God would only want the best of qualities, but to create good one must also create evil. What does it mean to be good if everyone is? It would lose all meaning, it would become one’s state of being more akin to being alive than being morally altruistic. Villains need to exist, so heroes can rise against them. Evil is not a problem, but a necessity, and when creating the universe, it cannot be

omitted.
This idea of dichotomy also debunks Blackburn’s defense for the world being a test for whether one is rewarded with heaven or condemned to hell. Blackburn uses an analogy to prove his point. In it, one is living in a rundown dormitory with numerous defects, and management is behind a door never to be seen. He argues it would be illogical to assume management cares about your well-being. However, this argument relies on the fact that management is responsible for these defects, and they are things that be rectified. But a building is too simple of an analogy to illustrate the entire universe. When puts a door in a building it does not create an “anti-door.” A door is a concrete object not a concept, like evil, and therefore needs no opposite. The dormitory does not need these defects, whereas the universe needs evil. Evil needs to exist. This does not prove there is such an afterlife, just as Blackburn’s argument did not disprove it, but I would argue this makes the belief in heaven and hell more plausible. They are themselves a dichotomy, reward and punishment. If everyone is rewarded or everyone is punished, then what point is there?
Blackburn also defends against the idea of free will. Blackburn is arguing against the idea that God created a perfect world, and using the free will He bestowed us, we brought evil into the world. He argues this is many ways. He states that God could create conditions where people would not abuse their free will. Secondly, there are ills, such as disease, want, and accidents, that have nothing to do with free will. Finally, a benevolent God would be expected to protect the weak from the misuse of free will of the stronger. I believe these can all be successfully countered with the idea of opposing forces. For starters, God would have already have created evil in a “perfect world” and giving us free-will would allow us to chose it, not introduce it. These conditions where people do no evil are unattainable and unrealistic. Additionally, the ills with nothing to do with free will are part of their own dichotomies, health means nothing without disease. And if God is protecting the weak and interfering, then it is not even free will. Therefore, if God created the universe, with evil as a necessity, and gave us free will, evil as a practice would exist in this “perfect world.”
So far, I have only argued that evil is necessary to define good, but this leaves an apparent objection open. How much evil is necessary? Surely a benevolent God would create the world with the least amount of evil possible, and it certainly seems that world has more evil than necessary. One could conceive a world where the notion of evil, without the practice of it, is enough to define what it means to be good. This world would have far less suffering and strife. But I would argue that this world is not plausible. As stated before, if God were to create the universe and give us free will, then evil must exist and be an option for us. In this proposed scenario, the option is never chosen. Possibly because God created a world where no one would feel the need to do so. But this world presents its own set of problems. Good has still lost all meaning. If everyone only ever practices good, then no one is special, making the world boring and stagnant. I do not associate these two qualities with “perfect,” so some amount of evil must exist. Additionally, one cannot say how much evil must exist, they can only argue there should be less. However, in a world defined by opposites with people who are free to choose, the “perfect” amount of evil to define good is incalculable. It is entirely possible we are living in a “perfect” world, with the exact balance needed.
Blackburn believes there is a problem with evil, but I believe the concept of dichotomy proves that evil must exist in even a perfect universe. The world would be one of stagnation and conformity without it. A benevolent, creator God is plausible because a world without evil can only exist without free will. What boring world would we live in without trials and tribulations? The idea of a perfect world as Blackburn defines it is not only unattainable, but undesirable. Dichotomy successful disproves Blackburn at every stage of his argument. It is more plausible to believe we are currently living in a “perfect world” than believing that a world without evil would be better. The inherent dichotomy of the universe may not prove we are living in such a world, or that a benevolent God watches over us, but it certainly proves there is no “problem of evil.”