The Problem of Evil

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Problem of Evil

Post by Paidion » Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:45 pm

Steve wrote wrote:The difference between small pains and intense ones, between brief pains and persistent ones, between slight injustices and total violations, is a difference in degree, not kind. Some sufferings are minor, some major, but they are all the same thing—suffering. If we cannot justify the greater, we will be equally at a loss to justify the lesser. Some degrees of pain may seem disproportionate—especially when the pain is great and the victim relatively innocent—but disproportionate to what?

If we were arguing that suffering is justifiable because it is deserved, we would be in trouble on this point. People suffer disproportionately to what they seem to deserve. However, I am not arguing that suffering is justified by the guilt of the sufferer, but by the results sought by the surgeon. We don’t have complete information or insight into the specific goals God has for each patient, but we know they are good ones.
I can't make sense of this argument. I understand God working as "the Surgeon" in order to heal and deliver a person from wrongdoing. What I cannot understand is your view that all suffering is but a difference in degree rather than in kind. While it is true that the little seven-year old girl who is raped and tortured to death involves a very great degree of pain, is this event not also a genuine difference in kind? If you believe that God as the Surgeon is "allowing" this event to happen, then even without "complete information or insight into the specific goals God has for each patient" you surely, in some general way, could propose that of which the divine surgery might consist. In what way does this little girl need such extreme "surgery", and why she rather than the majority of seven-year old girls who do not have to undergo such an atrocity. We both agree that the girl didn't deserve this. But what possible reason could God have for "allowing" it? It won't do, merely to express ignorance of God's reasons. For we must have some idea of God's purpose, or our affirmation that God did it or allowed it as a loving Surgeon, appears ludicrous. Indeed, because of some people ascribing such atrocities to God (either in the sense of causing them or "allowing" them), others who take this view to heart become violently angry at God, and wail in frustration, "Why did God allow this to happen to my little girl!" I think a much more realistic answer, and one that honours God, is that He has nothing to do with such atrocities.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The Problem of Evil

Post by steve » Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:30 pm

I will not renew our debate on this, because this and every other objection you raise to my points has been discussed in what would amount to volumes, in previous threads. I have certainly answered these points of yours, and will not take the bait. If you wonder about my answers (that is, if you have forgotten them) you are welcome to review them in the many previous threads that have been filled with this topic and our discussions of it.

The truth is, you fall prey to the false dilemma of the atheist. The skeptic says, "If God is all good, and all powerful, He would not allow suffering to exist." Your answer is, "God is all good, but not all powerful." My answer is, "God is all good and all powerful, and therefore when He allows what His omnipotence could have prevented, His purposes are good, and will be found, in the end, to more than justify His decisions."

Those who cry out (in your example), "Why did God allow this?" are more truly answered by our saying, "God is good and omnicompetent. He would have intervened if He had not a better purpose in withholding His hand," than by our saying, "Gee, God never wants anyone to get hurt, but, heck, He was just incapable of stopping that rapist!" A God who cannot stop a rapist cannot topple a king, and cannot defeat a devil.

In fact, a God who cannot stop a mortal man from committing a crime is less a god than the criminal himself is. He is more like the gods that Jeremiah describes: "They cannot speak; they must be carried, because they cannot go by themselves. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, nor can they do any good" (Jer.10:5). By contrast, Jeremiah describes the real God thus: "‘Ah, Lord God! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You" (Jer.32:17). I believe in that God.

It is no cop-out to acknowledge that we may not see, from our limited perspective, precisely what God's purpose is in every specific case, nor how the procedure is connected with the cure. You can only claim this to be a poor answer if you are assuming every purpose of God is transparent and understandable to humans. I suppose a god no more powerful than ourselves could be no more intelligent than we are, as well. This is a prime example of man making god in his own image. You are welcome to this less-than-human deity, if it helps you sleep better. I sleep better in the care of the real God who created the universe and who has been known to wipe out 185,000 hostile troops, in a single night, in order to protect those who trust in Him. There is no rapist that He is powerless to stop.

The entire message of the Book of Job seems to be that God's purposes (specifically in allowing unjust suffering) are generally inscrutable to us. Job and his friends could find no justice in the good man's agonizing sufferings. To their terror, God showed up and said all He wished to say. In the end, Job and his friends knew no more than before about God's reasons, but they were justly humbled. (As I recall, you disregard Job, along with vast portions of every biblical book. This, of course, requires you to disregard James, also, who told us to be inspired and instructed by Job's example. There can be little encouragement, when in real life suffering, in remembering a fictional character).

When I say we may not know the reason, I mean the "specific reason" for this "particular case." We do, in fact, know the meta-reason, because we have been told, that God's dealings and purposes are good and redemptive. Small children often do not understand the specific reasons why their mother does not let them neglect the brushing of their teeth (the invisible mysteries of microbiology are above their pay grade), but they are expected to trust that she knows what she is doing. The gap between the child's knowledge and his mother's does is incomparable with the gap between ours and God's.

Now look! You have drawn me in again! However, the last four paragraphs of my first post, in this thread, fully anticipated your objections, and answered them biblically. No need to repeat them here. They are still posted, one mouse-click away.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Problem of Evil

Post by Paidion » Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:04 pm

Steve, I had no intention of drawing you into a debate. I sincerely want to know your answer to the question that I posed in the previous post. But you didn't address it. Nor have you ever addressed it in the past. All you say repeatedly is what you said in your post above or its equivalent, "He would have intervened if He had not a better purpose in withholding His hand." But you NEVER suggest what that purpose could be, in withholding his hand in cases such as I have described in my last post. You continue to avoid answering this question, while appearing to answer it by repeating your mantra, "He would have intervened if He had not a better purpose in withholding His hand." Can you not even suggest a possible reason for God to withhold his hand in such cases? Actually, I don't think you can, and that's the reason you don't answer the question. That is the only question I want answered. If you have a reasonable answer, I will truly consider your position.
Concerning the Problem of Evil, you wrote:Your answer is, "God is all good, but not all powerful."
Actually, that is not my answer. That is Rabbi Kushner's answer in his book, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People."

My answer is "God is all good, and all powerful, and all loving, but He usually does not interfere with people's choices because He wants a race of free-will agents who will freely choose to submit and follow Him—not a race of robots.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The Problem of Evil

Post by steve » Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:12 pm

Right, but that is just saying that God doesn't intervene because He has "a higher purpose" for not doing so (namely, to preserve free will). When I say that He has "a higher purpose," and give relevant biblical references, you scorn it, and say most of the biblical writers misunderstood God.

Your "higher purpose" of choice is drawn from your philosophical assumptions, not from any statement of scripture. Where did God ever say, "I didn't intervene in that crime because I value the free will of the perpetrator more than I value the life of the victim"? Bizarre theology!

By contrast, I have provided scripture after scripture providing biblical statements of God's purpose and goal in allowing suffering (free will is not among them—and a good thing too, since free will plays no role in a large percentage of human disasters). As you demonstrate, a theology of suffering drawn from extrabiblical philosophical premises ends up having to dismiss the vast body of biblical texts that explain the situation differently.

While I agree that God does not want a race of robots, and that this is why free will exists, it requires only a moment's reflection to realize that God could easily have made men free, with respect to their love or hatred for God, without allowing their bad choices to impact innocent people adversely. And whose free will would be violated by God intervening to stop a tsunami? Your answer does not begin to answer the largest part of the problem of suffering.

The higher purposes that the Bible identifies are actually so great and glorious—both to God and to His people—as to more than justify the horrendous suffering He, in His self-restraint, sometimes permits (again, cf., the last four paragraphs of my first post). It is not clear why your "higher purpose," human free will (a phenomenon which, in the case of most men, proves to confer no advantage, either to them or to God), would be regarded by God to be more wonderful than a girl being raped is horrible! In rejecting the testimony of the scriptures, you are left to create an inferior god, who can only be defended by illogical arguments. The true God has never succumbed to logical disproof. By definition, the truth can not be logically disproven.

You say I have not answered your question. I would point out that the last three longish paragraphs in my last post do so. Also, in past threads, I have given a long list, from scriptural examples, of specific benefits that God may intend to be derived through the endurance of intense sufferings. The bottom line is the production of Christ-likeness in humans. If I can find that post again, I will call it to your attention. However, I am not motivated to trouble myself much with it, since your memory about such things seems very short, and my posting it again will not prevent you from claiming, a month from now, that I have never answered your question.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Problem of Evil

Post by ApostateltsopA » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:56 am

See, I take a night off and I get books to read through ;)

I'm actually really happy with the volume of response I'll try and hit the high points for steve and mattrose who I think I have the greatest degree of disagreement with.

Steve,

Just a quick note on your comments on what atheists do and think. Much of your initial paragraphs in your large response amount to ad homenim attacks. I've seen exactly the same behavior in many atheist forums where it is the atheists who are claiming that theists are emotional reasoners and sweet logic is on their side. I don't believe either statement is true. You claim that Dawkins and Hitchens use emotional arguments. I don't doubt it, emotional arguments are the more persuasive. Emotional arguments backed by reason are more persuasive still, and if you were to watch material by David Smalley, or Matt Dillahunty I think you would see that they are wrapping both emotional reasoning and logic into their arguments. Perhaps you wouldn't. What I can say is that people who have had their ability to feel emotions damaged have a very hard time making decisions. I believe that we are creatures of emotion and reason and should practice both in our lives and our decision making. I don't hold with people who try to be Vulcans, or with the idea that using emotion for thinking somehow makes ones thinking suspect. I don't believe that research or experience bear out the ideal of a purely rational mind. Empathy is an emotion and failure to heed it's call has led to atrocity after atrocity through out human history. If you want to talk more about this though I ask you to start a new thread or add to one of the two others I've been active in as it detracts from the problem of evil.

You equated evil in the world to surgery, and linked it as a cause from the fall and original sin. You stated that suffering is an antidote to sinful self interest. I fail to see how a child dying of cancer or starvation is aiding anyone in avoiding sinful self interest. You have stated that you believe in a god who can do anything, but you describe sin as needing suffering to remedy the disease. This seems like a contradiction to me. On the one hand you advocate an all powerful god but then you tell us how he is forced to operate.

Your analogy is that of a surgeon, however modern surgeons use many treatments to minimize or eliminate the pain of their work. God seems not to. Since you advocate an all powerful god, then why is he not administering the correction in a manner which does not require children to die of starvation, or cancer, or tsunamis? Why did the Philippines need to be hit by multiple Hurricanes recently?

As I read your discussion I predict the answer will be that you don't know but since god is all good, there is a reason that completely justifies all of the horror visited upon all the people who have been powerless over all the years to stop the things which happen to them. Every sleepless night and grief stricken moment has a good reason. But, that leads me to believe that to you, these things are good, not evil. That they are part of the surgery and that the pain, emotional and physical, are a necessary and good part of the treatment. If that is true, how do you feel about those people who work to lessen the suffering of the world? Aren't they working at a counter purpose to God who inflicts the suffering? Should we stop helping each other? (I trust you will say no, but I want to know why).

mattrose

Lets look at your points, as I think you did a good job summing up points of disagreement. I think you are reading into scripture, where there is no information or contradictory information to what you are reading in and I'd like to know the basis of your position.

About what Adam and Eve knew of morality.

You are right, that I assume that they don't have knowledge of good and evil. This is for two reasons. The first comes from the words of the serpent, in Genesis 2 while it tempts Eve. The Serpent says that it isn't true, Adam and Even will not die from eating the fruit. They don't. God cloths them in animal skins and boots them from the garden to toil in the land and have unpleasant childbirth and be at odds with serpents. However they don't die. Now the typical apologetic I run into for this claims they would have been immortal had they obeyed god, but you suggest they were already mortal, and the bible says they would only be immortal if they had eaten from the tree of life. (In fact the reason they are kicked out is God seems to be afraid they will do exactly that.) The serpent also says that
Gensis 3:4 wrote:“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
So it claims she does not currently know good and evil and needs the fruit to gain that ability. It was right about them not dying, and I see no instance where it is shown to lie, just be crafty and tempt, so this seems reasonable to read as truth as well; especially with what god says towards the end of the chapter.

The second is from Verse 22 in Genesis 3 which says this,
[quote="Genesis 3"22 NIV"] "22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” [/quote]

God says that the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. That means he previously didn't know good and evil. It's pretty explicit in that point. So that leaves just the argument that Man must obey God whether or not he understands why, or the consequences. And it is true that in Genesis 2, God is pretty explicit about not eating from the tree of knowledge or the tree of life. Eve even tells the serpent that they are to stay away from them. However Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, in a few places. First they change the order of creation. Genesis 1 had humans created last, just before God rests. In Genesis 1, God gives the people dominion over the earth and explicitly tells them they may eat, well here read for yourself.
Genesis 1:29 wrote:29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
The other contradiction is that in Genesis 2 the plants are created after people, with only those in the garden predating them.

So now we have two people who do not know good from evil, and who have been given contradictory instruction from god, they either get to eat of all fruit bearing trees or they have a couple they aren't allowed to eat from. Neither chapter makes direct reference to the other except that they both describe the actions of god.

My understanding is that the Hebrew people were originally pagan, worshiping multiple gods, who have been rolled into one character in the current bible. This explains the use of the plural in Genesis 3. Also in commandments where there shall be no gods before god. If Genesis 1 and 2 are not stories originally crafted to work together this makes sense. They would be separate myths about different topics, one addresses the origin of the world, the other the reason for suffering. Together I don't see them being a coherent narrative. Genesis 2 is explicit that the land was barren except for Eden, and Genesis 1 is explicit that there was green growth all over the place. In Genesis 1 Man and Woman are created together, in Genesis 2 Man is created first, and then names all the animals and only then, when he can't find a partner, is woman created. In Genesis 1 humans are blessed, in Genesis 2 they are cursed. These aren't the same fable.

Your claim, though, that they did know what they were doing and were punished justly doesn't seem to float. If the accounts do go together then they had received conflicting instructions. We are given no clarification on which set occurs first as only one of the stories has a garden or special trees. The other just says have all the earth, be fruitful and multiply.

Point 2 God wants us to have freedom to choose

Ok, why do you think this freedom was given in the form of a curse and punishment? Since Satan choose to rebel against God, and with apparently better information to go on, it seems that we could too if we knew God as well as Satan does. Why were the people commanded not to eat of the tree, if God's plan was for them to disobey him to give their descendants this freedom?

You say that love has requirements that place constraints on god, since you say that love must require choice. This seems like an argument for a limited god.

Taboos
I'm sorry, I expect I was not clear in my point on this. When Adam and Eve see they are naked, and earlier in the story when it described them as naked but unashamed, these verses seem to reflect the cultural taboos and ideals of the author. Since they lacked knowledge the author has, they are depicted as innocent, like babies in their lack of concern for nakedness.

I pointed out that this cultural taboo is not universal, but limited. So it seems at odds with what I would expect that gaining knowledge of good and evil they also became ashamed of their nakedness. Cloths were not invented yet. The idea of not naked was not present. So the presence of this taboo arising from eating fruit seems to me to indicate that a culture with a taboo about nudity wrote the story, as a story, not a historical account of actual events.

Inherited sin
According to Christian doctrine, I live in a world which is "fallen" and the trouble, suffering and doom here are results of Adam and Eve's actions. Sin is in my nature because of original sin. I'm born guilty, not because of actions I have taken, but because of these people who were set up in Eden. That link will take you to a page on got questions.org which seems to sum up what I am getting at here.

So my nature was decided before I was born, by actions I had no control over, and the person I am is skeptical so the one unforgivable sin, refusal to believe, is part of who I am. The deck seems to be heinously, unfairly stacked against me, for my own good. However it is just this kind of contradiction that pulled me out of my faith in the first place. How do you make sense of this?

Paidion

I agree with you that a good god should not be involved with children suffering and dying, yet the reality of our world is that children do suffer and die with abhorrent regularity, though less and less as we progress. For me the suffering is a consequence of living, and our lack of advancement in social interaction and scientific progress. Reality is how it is, until we make it better. These things aren't Evil, in the sense of some personified adversary, just unpleasant aspects of reality we can work towards correcting for the future. Do you believe that the world is how god designed it to be, or that something happened that thwarted his plans? If his plans were thwarted, that would seem to be the limited god Steve accused you of believing in, if they are part of the design why do you think they are part of the design and are we working at odds with that design when we do things like eradicate polio?


Thanks everyone for your responses. I'm looking forward to where this will go.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The Problem of Evil

Post by steve » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:30 am

Apos,

This discussion is taking place at a very busy season, in which it is very inconvenient to become deeply embroiled in a discussion that is in no sense time-sensitive. Nonetheless, I like your objections and challenges to my thesis, and do intend to address them as soon as possible. Watch this space. I will post my response here, unless the thread gets too long below it, in which case, I will post at a later position.

------------------------------------

Okay, I found a few minutes to jot down some thoughts. I don't know if I will soon be able to respond to whatever challenges you may raise to this present response:

You wrote:
Just a quick note on your comments on what atheists do and think. Much of your initial paragraphs in your large response amount to ad homenim attacks. I've seen exactly the same behavior in many atheist forums where it is the atheists who are claiming that theists are emotional reasoners and sweet logic is on their side.
Actually, this is not an example of ad hominem argumentation. If I were to say something like, “Atheists are emotional people, so their philosophy is suspect,” I would be using an ad hominem argument. That logical fallacy is the dismissal of an opponent’s conclusions, based upon the disparaging of his character. On the other hand, it is not ad hominem argumentation to say, “My opponent’s arguments are not rational” (which is what I said). Ad hominem attacks the character of the person. I am critiquing the character of the arguments themselves—which is the opposite of ad hominem argumentation.

(I want to clarify that the atheists' arguments themselves are not entirely "irrational." That is, they do not lack some rational cogency. But they do not lead to the atheistic affirmations about the existence of God. My point is that their arguments do not require that anyone rationally reach the conclusion that there is no God. The proof for a universal negative would require far better arguments, and it is not rationally sound to say that any of the ones on the table compel a rational thinker to adopt the atheists' conclusions.)

Of course, in saying that a position’s arguments are all based on visceral, rather than rational, considerations, one invites the possible response that visceral factors are as good as, or better than, rational ones in determining what is true. One could put forward a case for this proposition, though no one would be required to agree with it until compelling evidence of a rational kind had been brought forward in its defense.

Another response that such a statement invites would be an actual demonstration from the other side that this evaluation is incorrect—that is, the presentation of strictly rational arguments that logically demand the atheist’s conclusions. I am saying that this cannot be done, but am very welcoming of any attempts at disproof of my assertion.
I don't believe either statement is true. You claim that Dawkins and Hitchens use emotional arguments. I don't doubt it, emotional arguments are the more persuasive. Emotional arguments backed by reason are more persuasive still, and if you were to watch material by David Smalley, or Matt Dillahunty I think you would see that they are wrapping both emotional reasoning and logic into their arguments. Perhaps you wouldn't.
I truly wish I had the time to listen to every atheist’s presentations in order to evaluate them. I certainly would agree that a less emotional approach than that of Dawkins and Hitchens can be imagined. However, I doubt that anyone, regardless of their Vulcan tendencies, can find a compelling rational argument establishing beyond reasonable doubt the absolute negative that atheism affirms.

For example, the discussion I provided above concerning the existence of evil and suffering will not appeal to many—certainly not to atheists, and as you can see, not even to all Christians. However, the only objections that can arise to it are emotional responses, not logical ones (notwithstanding the seemingly logical challenges you present, which I will address).

It is in the nature of logic to demonstrate, from reliable premises, that some conclusion is necessarily true. I said from the beginning that not all will accept my premises. However, given my premises (which may be disputed, but cannot be found irrational, nor even improbable), I do not think it possible to impugn the logic of my conclusions. If a logical fallacy has entered my reasoning processes, I would be indebted to the person who can show it to me.

By contrast, even accepting the premises of the atheist, I do not think the existence of a mandatory morality can be derived, without resorting to logical fallacies.

What I can say is that people who have had their ability to feel emotions damaged have a very hard time making decisions. I believe that we are creatures of emotion and reason and should practice both in our lives and our decision making.
I fully agree. Emotions play a very large and legitimate roll in our lives and relationships, but not in our logical reasoning. Emotions must stand in judgment over raw logic in certain relational situations, but logic (the more raw, the better) must stand in judgment over emotions in determining or views of ultimate cosmic realities—e.g., things in the mathematical and factual domains.

There are many times, even in relationships, where logic must override emotion—as when a woman has become emotionally infatuated with a man whose history and character indicate a tendency to abusive behavior, or when a parent must reasonably say “no” to a child, while being emotionally drawn to pamper and coddle the child’s feelings. I have used this illustration previously (in other threads): My son broke his arm, and by the time the doctors could get to him, they needed to re-break it in order to set it properly (I have used this previously as an analogy to God’s needing to painfully break us in order to set us straight). My son was a minor, so the doctor needed my permission to break his arm. All my parental instincts (emotions) rebelled at the suggestion of causing additional pain to my son, but, rationally, I knew this was necessary. I went with logic, rather than my emotions. Today, my son is happy that I did so.
I don't hold with people who try to be Vulcans, or with the idea that using emotion for thinking somehow makes ones thinking suspect. I don't believe that research or experience bear out the ideal of a purely rational mind. Empathy is an emotion and failure to heed it's call has led to atrocity after atrocity through out human history.
It is not rational thinking that has led to atrocities in history, but adherence to evil values. I said before that one’s worldview generates the premises from which one reasons. A heartless tyrant may be acting logically, according to the premises generated by his worldview.

Hitler, for example, and Darwin before him, both believed the ultimate principle in the cosmos is progress through the survival of the fittest. Darwin said that it is as illogical to preserve mentally ill and otherwise defective human beings as it is for a cattle breeder to promote the reproduction of his inferior specimens. Hitler agreed, and put into practice what Darwin merely philosophized about. A bit of emotional compassion would have prevented Hitler from committing his atrocities, but there was nothing in his worldview that indicated that compassion is a guiding principle of reality. Darwin and Hitler’s conclusions were consistent with their worldview.

By contrast, no one who consistently holds to, and logically follows, the values of the Christian worldview has ever, while doing so, committed any atrocity.
You equated evil in the world to surgery, and linked it as a cause from the fall and original sin.
It is a niggling point, but I would clarify that I said nothing about “original sin.” The term has ramifications that originated with Augustine, and which I do not necessarily endorse. I did say that we are all infected by sin, like a disease. I did not say whether the disease was congenital or whether it was acquired in our youth. The one thing both observable and biblical is that everyone carries the virus, and it is killing them.
You stated that suffering is an antidote to sinful self interest. I fail to see how a child dying of cancer or starvation is aiding anyone in avoiding sinful self interest.
You know, of course, that I addressed this with Paidion—namely, that it is consistent with Christian belief (and with non-religious belief, too!) to acknowledge that there are things that we do not understand, but which are nonetheless true.

Again, from the premises I listed, it is necessary to conclude that all that God allows is, in some way, toward a better end than would be His not allowing it. This is the necessary result of believing in an all-good and all-powerful God. Your statement that you “fail to see how” something could end up working for good agrees fully with what I have said. I agree that you cannot see it, and, in many cases, I cannot either. However, it cannot be logically demonstrated that what you and I cannot foresee is something nonexistent, and even seen clearly by a God as superior to us in knowledge as we are to our pet dog. This is a matter of faith to the Christian, but it is not an irrational belief. It springs necessarily (logically) from the premises of a Christian’s worldview. Those who think this a cruel consequence of a Christian worldview are not thinking clearly.

Consider: the one thing that all acknowledge is that there is horrendous and seemingly senseless suffering in the world. This terrible phenomenon is either really senseless, or its senselessness is our misperception.

We can go one of two ways about this. We can conclude, with the atheist, that there is no transcendent purpose, no intended advantage, and nothing particularly right or wrong about this phenomenon.

By contrast, the Christian view is that, while we do not understand everything, these seemingly senseless sufferings are not entirely senseless. They are within the range of governance of an all-wise and omnibeneficent God—who loves the sufferer (as I love my son, and loathed to break his arm) and who would never allow such suffering unless there was some outcome intended that more than warranted the temporary, though often intense, suffering.

Of the two, which view is the cruel one?
You have stated that you believe in a god who can do anything, but you describe sin as needing suffering to remedy the disease. This seems like a contradiction to me. On the one hand you advocate an all powerful god but then you tell us how he is forced to operate.
I can understand your confusion. You are making a category error in drawing to exact a similarity between physical sickness and spiritual sickness. Pain is not a necessary factor in the treating of physical ailments, and be dispensed with (through anesthesia, for example) without impairing the cure. This is because healing physical organs involves things like the righting of chemical deficiencies, encouraging organ restoration, eliminating physical impediments, etc. There is nothing in the nature of these curative processes that would be harmed by the absence of pain.

However, spiritual cures involve character and behavioral change. In the case of persons whose character and behavior are wrongly directed by their preference (that is, by their free will choice), it becomes necessary, if change is to occur, for them to be made less pleased with their present choices. There is little, other than some form of consequential suffering, that will change one’s preferences. For example, if someone prefers to prey upon innocent victims, a prison sentence, or some other unpleasant remedy, is most likely to change his mind about the desirability of such habits.

Even one who changes without suffering such outward consequences must do so through another kind (a milder kind) of discomfort—namely, regret over wrongs done, and the belief that a change of habit will diminish the pain of regret. I am not saying that pain must be intense in order to be effective. The question of intensity necessary varies according to the individual “patient.”

In restoring physical well-being to a sick person, pain is not the essence, but an attendant consequence, of the treatment. In spiritual reformation, pain of one degree or another, is the active ingredient in the therapy.

To say that an omnipotent God could make this otherwise, is like saying that such a God could make any nonsensical reality that we can imagine. Humans with free will are motivated by self-interest, or self-pleasing. Suffering is simply the only means of influencing self-interest. In fact, it is in the very definition of “suffering,” that it violates self-pleasing. That which is self-pleasing is not suffering. Suffering is the opposite of self-pleasing.

If the disease were of a different nature, a different remedy would be possible. Those who say that God is omnipotent do not believe that He is capable of making two-plus-two equal five. Some things are simply inherent in logic, and a rational God cannot violate them—because rationality is part of His own nature, and He cannot be what He is not.

If this explanation is not seen as reasonable to you, it is the best I can do with my limited powers.
Your analogy is that of a surgeon, however modern surgeons use many treatments to minimize or eliminate the pain of their work. God seems not to. Since you advocate an all powerful god, then why is he not administering the correction in a manner which does not require children to die of starvation, or cancer, or tsunamis? Why did the Philippines need to be hit by multiple Hurricanes recently?
For the answer to this, I would commend my comments just above.
As I read your discussion I predict the answer will be that you don't know but since god is all good, there is a reason that completely justifies all of the horror visited upon all the people who have been powerless over all the years to stop the things which happen to them.
That is my general answer to issues that are inscrutable to us. However, not all matters are inexplicable. They may only be inexplicable to us at the moment, but may come clear before nightfall.

I have endured excruciating sufferings, for which I could find a reason, nor imagine any positive outcome. In retrospect, I can see benefits—either to myself or others, or both—from every one of them. You are right that, with reference to finally inexplicable cases, I fall back on the truth I know about God. And why not? I have every reason to believe that the same benevolence that has observably turned so many “evils” into “goods” in my observable experience, is equally at work in those cases where I cannot observe the outcomes. It is reasonable extrapolation from what is known to what is unknown. Rational people are familiar with such a process in many domains.
But, that leads me to believe that to you, these things are good, not evil. That they are part of the surgery and that the pain, emotional and physical, are a necessary and good part of the treatment. If that is true, how do you feel about those people who work to lessen the suffering of the world? Aren't they working at a counter purpose to God who inflicts the suffering? Should we stop helping each other? (I trust you will say no, but I want to know why).
Evil is not good, and should be resisted and defeated, when it is in our power to do so. In fact, for all we know, the suffering of another may have, as its primary purpose, the drawing out of compassion and intervention on my part. Compassion is the opposite of sin, and might be seen as part of its cure.

Surgery can be regarded as a good thing when sickness is regarded as a bad thing. It is better that a person not be sick in the first place. Likewise, it is a good thing if the person, once sick, can recover without intrusive medical interventions. Surgery is the choice of last resort. It is a good thing—though some things are better.

Suffering is intended to be temporary—sometimes fleeting. If the pain of burning causes me to withdraw my hand from the stove, that momentary pain has done its good work. If prolonged suffering is necessary in order to work some deeper advantage, then it serves its purpose. The thing is, we do not know how long God may see it necessary for a given affliction to continue. It will end someday—maybe at death, maybe tomorrow. In many cases, its end will be brought about by the intervention of compassionate responders. We are commanded to be those responders. We intervene with a genuine desire to end the suffering, if possible. If we succeed, we know that God has used us to bring temporal suffering to its proper end. Where we are helpless to defeat the suffering, we leave the matter in the hands of God, trusting that, while He may extend the treatment beyond the point of our intervention, yet He will not extend it forever—nor any longer than He sees as necessary. The question is whether we will trust His judgment, or ours, in the matter.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The Problem of Evil

Post by mattrose » Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:42 pm

Hello again Apos :)

Previously, I responded to your claim that it wasn't fair for God to punish Adam & Eve given that they really didn't know better. In this latest response, you are attempting to prove from Scripture that they didn't know better. Your argument seems to go something like this:

A. The serpent told Eve she wouldn't die from eating the fruit
B. She didn't die from eating the fruit
C. Therefore, the serpent told the truth
D. Therefore, the serpent is an established truth teller***
E. The serpent also told Eve that if she ate the fruit she'd know good and evil
F. Therefore, given "D", it must be true that she'd know good & evil if she ate it
G. Therefore, she must not have known good & evil before she ate it.
***I based this on your quote "It was right about them not dying, and I see no instance where it is shown to lie, just be crafty and tempt, so this seems reasonable to read as truth as well."

Not only do I find this logical proof flawed (I disagree with B, C, D & F), but it also avoids the real issue we are discussing. The issue we are discussing is the MEANING of "knowledge of good and evil". You say it is moral awareness. I say it is personal autonomy. Simply re-stating the Bible verses, therefore, will not further your argument (since we both grant the verses say what they say).

You then add:

H. God himself said (After they ate the fruit) that man now knows good and evil
I. Therefore, she must not have known good & evil before she ate it (G)***
***I base this on your quote "God says that the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. That means he previously didn't know good and evil. It's pretty explicit in that point."

But this is really the same issue. I agree with H & I. I just don't agree with your understanding of "knowledge of good and evil." It does explicitly say what it says. But we're interpreting the meaning of that explicit statement differently.

I think the problem you are having is that you think the expression 'Knowledge of good and evil" can only have 1 meaning (moral awareness). In fact, a number of different understandings of that phrase have emerged in the circles of biblical scholars (who, I'd think, would have some credibility on the issue). For instance, in his critical and highly rated commentary on Genesis, Victor Hamilton relates 4 widely accepted interpretations:

1. The Knowledge is an awareness of their sexuality (based primarily on their immediate reactions and the fact that the word for 'know' sometimes has a sexual connotation). Hamilton (rightly it seems to me) dismisses this view for a variety of reasons.
2. The Knowledge is comprehensive knowledge, even omniscience (based on the idea that 'good and evil' is a merism). Hamilton also (again, rightly in my opinion) dismisses this interpretation.
3. The knowledge is moral awareness (your view). But Hamilton quickly dismisses this as legitimate based on the fact that Adam had moral instruction and expectations before the eating of the fruit (as I argued).
4. The knowledge is moral autonomy (my view). The interpretation is based on the idea that 'good and evil' is a legal idiom meaning to formulate and articulate a judicial decision.

Hamilton concludes: "What is forbidden to man is the power to decide for himself what is in his best interests and what is not. This is a decision God has not delegated to the earthling. This interpretation also has the benefit of according well with 3:22... man has indeed become a god whenever he makes his own self the center, the springboard, and the only frame of reference for moral guidelines."

So when you claim:
I think you are reading into scripture, where there is no information or contradictory information to what you are reading in and I'd like to know the basis of your position.
I can only say that I am reading the biblical text in a way that seems reasonable to me and has the support of biblical scholars who are experts on the original language and culture.

Next, you suggest that there's a contradiction and disconnection between Genesis 1:29 (eat from every plant) and Genesis 2:17 (but you must not eat from that particular tree).
So now we have two people who do not know good from evil, and who have been given contradictory instruction from god, they either get to eat of all fruit bearing trees or they have a couple they aren't allowed to eat from. Neither chapter makes direct reference to the other except that they both describe the actions of god.
Since I've already demonstrated that your first statement (bolded) need not (in fact, most likely does not) refer to moral awareness... I am left only to critique your claim that they were given "contradictory instruction" from God. Here, I can only say that further information is not a contradiction. 2:4b and forward clearly gives a zoomed up, more-precise, more-detailed view of creation day 6 and, in particular, a particular plot of ground (The Garden of Eden). It was always generally true that they were free to eat plants. Now it was specifically true that there was 1 tree they should not eat from. While I'd love to critique, line-by-line, your lengthy paragraph cataloging supposed contradictions between the 2 accounts, I think that would actually sidetrack us from the main issue (the problem of evil). Feel free to start another thread if you feel strongly about there being a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.
Ok, why do you think this freedom was given in the form of a curse and punishment? Since Satan choose to rebel against God, and with apparently better information to go on, it seems that we could too if we knew God as well as Satan does. Why were the people commanded not to eat of the tree, if God's plan was for them to disobey him to give their descendants this freedom?
I don't really understand these questions. Perhaps you could re-word them?
You say that love has requirements that place constraints on god, since you say that love must require choice. This seems like an argument for a limited god.
God didn't have to create the world. God chose self-limitation. That is a far cry from inherent limitation.
Taboos
seems to me to indicate that a culture with a taboo about nudity wrote the story, as a story, not a historical account of actual events
Even if a later compiler (possibly Moses) wrote down the story from the perspective of a culture that considered public nakedness taboo, that doesn't dictate that said author wrote the story as a fiction. It could just as easily mean that he told a true story from his own perspective.
Inherited sin
According to Christian doctrine, I live in a world which is "fallen" and the trouble, suffering and doom here are results of Adam and Eve's actions. Sin is in my nature because of original sin. I'm born guilty, not because of actions I have taken, but because of these people who were set up in Eden. That link will take you to a page on got questions.org which seems to sum up what I am getting at here.

So my nature was decided before I was born, by actions I had no control over, and the person I am is skeptical so the one unforgivable sin, refusal to believe, is part of who I am. The deck seems to be heinously, unfairly stacked against me, for my own good. However it is just this kind of contradiction that pulled me out of my faith in the first place. How do you make sense of this?
As I said before, I am aware that many Christians (following Augustine) believe in a certain interpretation of original sin. I also told you that I (along with many other Christians) do not follow Augustine's teachings on original sin. So it's "a" Christian doctrine, not "Christian doctrine" that you refer to.

In my view, you are flesh without the Spirit. You are not born in a state where you will be held accountable for this Spirit-less-ness. You will be held accountable for your own actions. You have access to the Spirit through the Gospel of Jesus Christ... so you have opportunity. The deck is not stacked against you. Eternal life is available to you right now. You can overcome your skepticism by examining the evidence carefully and continuing to search. Indeed, I hope dialogues like this (as misconceptions are cleared away) play a role in bringing you to a point of decision about Christ.

dizerner

Re: The Problem of Evil

Post by dizerner » Wed Nov 25, 2015 6:34 pm

Another view that makes a lot of sense for me is the knowledge of good and evil is experiential, not knowing information in the brain or attaining data, but actually experiencing good and evil together. This is the euphemistic use of "know," as not data, but direct experience. This also could be why "knowing" evil equals death.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The Problem of Evil

Post by steve7150 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:19 pm

If that is true, how do you feel about those people who work to lessen the suffering of the world? Aren't they working at a counter purpose to God who inflicts the suffering? Should we stop helping each other? (I trust you will say no, but I want to know why).










No not at all. It's not the evil itself that's beneficial, it's learning to overcome it that is beneficial. God gave us brains to create, to learn, to help others. He gave us a heart to be compassionate to help others, he gave us Jesus as an example to follow. Jesus overcame evil and ultimately we will too in him and we will be the better for it. BTW in my mind "evil" includes suffering. In fact it's so beneficial for us to overcome evil, that I think this fact outweighs the negative weight of just having the existence of evil.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The Problem of Evil

Post by steve7150 » Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:15 am

In Rom 8.20 as far as I see Paul says evil is part of God's will so that we can be delivered from it, so the experience of evil is worth going through it.

"For the creation was subjected to futility not willingly but because of Him who subjected it in hope, because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

So we were subjected to God's "curses" but in hope for deliverance from the bondage of corruption (sin). It's the deliverance from evil that God gives the most weight to.

The atheist will say if God existed there would be no evil, why doesn't God stop evil? (He blames God but doesn't believe in God). We all know there is mindless evil which we can't explain but didn't Job experience mindless evil, yet God worked it out in the end. I don't think it makes sense or is even scriptural to claim God has nothing to do with evil, He simply uses everything to accomplish his purposes.

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”