A Reflection on the Problem of Evil

[Marc_Anthony]

The problem of evil is, if you think about it the fundamental human problem. Our search for “meaning” is really a search to figure out why evil and suffering exist.

Thus when atheists present to us the problem of evil, they’re not telling us anything new. The whole point of Christianity is to tell us the solution to the problem of evil.

Thus the debate is not, “How do you reconcile Christianity with the problem of evil”, but instead, “Does Christianity succeed in its attempt to solve the problem of evil?”

Discuss.

I don’t know if my thinking is accurate and I’m not a philosopher, so I’m interested to see the discussion centered around this.

 

[underacloud]

Our search for “meaning” is really a search to figure out why evil and suffering exist.

I think the search for meaning is to figure out why I exist, not why I or anyone else suffers.

Why am I here? What am I supposed to do with my life?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think the search for meaning is to figure out why I exist, not why I or anyone else suffers.

Why am I here? What am I supposed to do with my life?

But isn’t the reason that we wonder why we exist because otherwise we’re just stuck in a world full of suffering?

 

[underacloud]

But isn’t the reason that we wonder why we exist because otherwise we’re just stuck in a world full of suffering?

Well that can be easily cured…if there was no purpose to existence and no afterlife, suffering can be alleviated by suicide. Or we could take a Buddhist approach, that suggests the highest goal is the alleviation of suffering, which essentially equals non-existence (apologies to Buddhist for my clumsy description here).

Without purpose, suffering might simply be seen as a reality of nature. Nature, for whatever random reasons, involves a constant battle for survival…each animal, of which humans are but one type…struggles with two biological purposes, being the preservation of their own life (ultimately futile as it turns out) and the propagation of their genes. But there is no meaning to be sought in all this, it’s just random. Isn’t it?

If we seek to find meaning in suffering, it’s because we wonder about the purpose of existance. Surely we aren’t meant/purposed to suffer? So perhaps it may be that suffering prompts us to contemplate our purpose, but it is purpose that we seek an answer for ultimately.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well that can be easily cured…if there was no purpose to existence and no afterlife, suffering can be alleviated by suicide. Or we could take a Buddhist approach, that suggests the highest goal is the alleviation of suffering, which essentially equals non-existence (apologies to Buddhist for my clumsy description here).

Without purpose, suffering might simply be seen as a reality of nature. Nature, for whatever random reasons, involves a constant battle for survival…each animal, of which humans are but one type…struggles with two biological purposes, being the preservation of their own life (ultimately futile as it turns out) and the propagation of their genes. But there is no meaning to be sought in all this, it’s just random. Isn’t it?

If we seek to find meaning in suffering, it’s because we wonder about the purpose of existance. Surely we aren’t meant/purposed to suffer? So perhaps it may be that suffering prompts us to contemplate our purpose, but it is purpose that we seek an answer for ultimately.

Okay, I can agree with that. So what do you think of the idea that Christianity is the answer to the problem of evil? This, of course, would change the traditional debates about the problem of evil from, “How do you reconcile Christianity with the problem of evil?” to, “Does Christianity succeed in its attempt to solve the problem of evil?” Do you think this makes sense, and if so what is your opinion on the implications?

 

[underacloud]

I once heard it said that Christ didn’t come to explain suffering, but to insert Himself into it.

To an extent, Christ and Christianity don’t attempt to explain the problem of evil, but to solve it nonetheless through Christ. On the other hand, there are explanations of the origins of evil, as a consequence of free will. Free will is necessary for love (we need to choose love for it to be real), so when God allows free will so that we will choose to love him, evil is a potential choice that is also necessarily available. This covers man’s evil, but the more complex issue is the “evil” that is inherent/observable in nature. Genetic disorders, natural disasters, etc that cannot be escaped no matter how good people are. These do not seem on the surface to be a consequence of the fall. But perhaps they are nonetheless. In matters such as this, I find it sufficient to acknowledge that I cannot know all the answers and that my tiny mind cannot comprehend the complexities of God’s creation. (sorry if this seems a cop-out)

 

[tonyrey]

I once heard it said that Christ didn’t come to explain suffering, but to insert Himself into it.

To an extent, Christ and Christianity don’t attempt to explain the problem of evil, but to solve it nonetheless through Christ. On the other hand, there are explanations of the origins of evil, as a consequence of free will. Free will is necessary for love (we need to choose love for it to be real), so when God allows free will so that we will choose to love him, evil is a potential choice that is also necessarily available. This covers man’s evil, but the more complex issue is the “evil” that is inherent/observable in nature. Genetic disorders, natural disasters, etc that cannot be escaped no matter how good people are. These do not seem on the surface to be a consequence of the fall. But perhaps they are nonetheless. In matters such as this, I find it sufficient to acknowledge that I cannot know all the answers and that my tiny mind cannot comprehend the complexities of God’s creation. (sorry if this seems a cop-out)

The Catechism clearly states (as one might expect) that natural evil is not primarily due to moral evil:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

 

[tonyrey]

The problem of goodness is also a fundamental human problem! In a valueless, purposeless universe it becomes a human convention…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The problem of goodness is also a fundamental human problem! In a valueless, purposeless universe it becomes a human convention…

tonyrey, what do you think of the very interesting “Tale of the Twelve Officers”: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

This was my response:

"I think that that theists probably have a different idea of what the moral is than atheists. Atheists, with the writer as an example, seem to think that the moral is to show how silly attempts to solve the problem of evil are.

I think that a better moral of the story is that the story shows just how silly it is when we decide to play God. The author didn’t intend for this to be the moral when he wrote it, of course. But I think it’s still true.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey, what do you think of the very interesting “Tale of the Twelve Officers”: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

This was my response:

"I think that that theists probably have a different idea of what the moral is than atheists. Atheists, with the writer as an example, seem to think that the moral is to show how silly attempts to solve the problem of evil are.

I think that a better moral of the story is that the story shows just how silly it is when we decide to play God. The author didn’t intend for this to be the moral when he wrote it, of course. But I think it’s still true.

The moral of the tale for me is that the author doesn’t appreciate the value of free will which is easy to take for granted until we realise the only alternative is to be robots with no originality, no capacity for love or no power of self-determination.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The moral of the tale for me is that the author doesn’t appreciate the value of free will which is easy to take for granted until we realise the only alternative is to be robots with no originality, no capacity for love or no power of self-determination.

May you explain what you mean by this please? I don’t get how this relates to the story.

 

[tonyrey]

The moral of the tale for me is that the author doesn’t appreciate the value of free will which is easy to take for granted until we realise the only alternative is to be robots with no originality, no capacity for love or no power of self-determination.

The first officer’s argument is specious because he is not God:

“It occurred to me that it was obviously better for the murderer to be able to exercise his free will than to have it restricted.”

He is making free will an excuse for doing nothing and thereby abusing his own free will. God doesn’t **always **intervene because if He did so on every occasion we would be reduced to being infallible, robotic do-gooders who are compelled to toe the line and have no opportunity to prove our power to resist temptation or demonstrate our moral worth in an artificially perfect world which leaves no scope for moral or spiritual development and is a fitting abode only for hedonists and comfort-seekers!

 

[underacloud]

The Catechism clearly states (as one might expect) that natural evil is not primarily due to moral evil:

Actually, the Church teaches that death and suffering are the result of original sin, as below. This is hard to accept and understand, but is the teaching nonetheless.

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.

413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, the Church teaches that death and suffering are the result of original sin, as below. This is hard to accept and understand, but is the teaching nonetheless.

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.

413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).

418 human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

It was spiritual death that entered the world as the result of sin. Jesus said:

“Fear not those who kill the body but those who kill the soul.”

Physical death is an essential element of the biological cycle which existed before man appeared on this planet:

"Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures…"

 

[underacloud]

Sorry, no, not spiritual death…physical death (return to the ground) as per the quote:

“the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.”

Like I said, I find this very hard to accept and understand, but it is the teaching of the Church that death is the result of the fall. I have no idea how to reconcile physical death being an inherent part of our world with the teaching that death is a result of the fall, but I must accept it on some level and trust that all will make sense in the end.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The first officer’s argument is specious because he is not God:

He is making free will an excuse for doing nothing and thereby abusing his own free will. God doesn’t **always **intervene because if He did so on every occasion we would be reduced to being infallible, robotic do-gooders who are compelled to toe the line and have no opportunity to prove our power to resist temptation or demonstrate our moral worth in an artificially perfect world which leaves no scope for moral or spiritual development and is a fitting abode only for hedonists and comfort-seekers!

Sorry to be deluging you with responses, tonyrey. You’re a good sport.

I though officers 5 and 9 in particular had issues.

If we accept that Officer 5 actually IS omniscient than his answer make perfect sense. It’s only silly because we don’t really believe that.

Officer 9’s answer is only ridiculous if you believe that his paradise is not adequate compensation for Mrs. K’s suffering. But how do we know that Heaven isn’t adequate compensation? I think it is.

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry, no, not spiritual death…physical death (return to the ground) as per the quote:

“the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.”

Like I said, I find this very hard to accept and understand, but it is the teaching of the Church that death is the result of the fall. I have no idea how to reconcile physical death being an inherent part of our world with the teaching that death is a result of the fall, but I must accept it on some level and trust that all will make sense in the end.

The very fact that the belief that the Fall led to physical death is also inconsistent with the Church’s acceptance of evolution by Design demonstrates that it cannot be true. I don’t believe it is an infallible doctrine nor that every single statement in the Catechism has the same status as an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Pope…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The very fact that the belief that the Fall led to physical death is also inconsistent with the Church’s acceptance of evolution by Design demonstrates that it cannot be true. I don’t believe it is an infallible doctrine nor that every single statement in the Catechism has the same status as an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Pope…

Well, two things:

1. The Church doesn’t OFFICIALLY accept evolution by design.
2. That said, I agree with you. I don’t think that’s even what the Catechism meant. The Pope was merely using traditional language to describe the teaching, and leaving us to make our own conclusions.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, two things:

1. The Church doesn’t OFFICIALLY accept evolution by design.
2. That said, I agree with you. I don’t think that’s even what the Catechism meant. The Pope was merely using traditional language to describe the teaching, and leaving us to make our own conclusions.

One of which is - convincingly in my view - that Christianity succeeds in presenting a solution to the problem of evil. Whether others accept or reject it is up to them!

 

[underacloud]

tonyrey;9478648:

The very fact that the belief that the Fall led to physical death is also inconsistent with the Church’s acceptance of evolution by Design demonstrates that it cannot be true. I don’t believe it is an infallible doctrine nor that every single statement in the Catechism has the same status as an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Pope…

Well, two things:

1. The Church doesn’t OFFICIALLY accept evolution by design.
2. That said, I agree with you. I don’t think that’s even what the Catechism meant. The Pope was merely using traditional language to describe the teaching, and leaving us to make our own conclusions.

Given that, as I said, I find these things very hard to reconcile, it may well be that there is another way to view it. Perhaps the meaning is more figurative than literal, with regard to death, as you both suggest. Clearly, I don’t have the answer!

Christianity succeeds in presenting a solution to the problem of evil

Well said. I don’t think Christianity explains evil/suffering, but it does offer the ultimate solution, through Christ.