Active will vs. permissive will?

[zyzz]

The usual defense against the problem of atrocities committed by humans is that God does not want or will those actions to happen, but simply allows them to occur, without endorsing them.

There are three major problems with this concept.

The first one is, that it does not matter if God does not want these actions to happen, or merely allows them to happen. The point here is that if someone has the power to prevent such atrocities, but chooses not to intervene, then he is exactly as responsible for the actions as the active perpetrator. No one can hope to escape the responsibility by saying: “Well I was aware that the terrorist was about to detonate a bomb, and I had the opportunity to stop him, without any risk to myself… but if was his decision, not mine!” What would be the reaction of a jury to such a “defense”?

The second one is even more serious. God is not just a passive agent, he is an active participant in the events - due to the fact that God actively sustains the participants and the tools which are used in these actions. God is said to be not just a “first cause”, but also a “sustaining cause”. Whatever the human perpetrator decides to do would be impotent, if God would not sustain the tools which are needed to put the decision into practice - just like the bomb in the previous scenario.

But the most devastating one is the third one. God is supposed to be sovereign. There is nothing and cannot be anything “contingent” in God. Also God is perfectly “simple”, meaning that God’s essence or knowledge or will cannot be separated from each other. Yet, the “permissive will” says that God does not WANT these events to happen, he merely allows them to happen. Let’s put it this way: “God is not the primary causative agent in the atrocities, the human person is the primary causative agent - God just goes along for the ride - maybe unwillingly”. But that means that God is “being forced” into doing something that is against his will. The human agent “yanks” God chain and forces him to do something against his “active will”.

The logical contradiction is glaring. Either God is sovereign, and then he is the primary causative agent (with us being just puppets on a string), or God is contingent upon our decisions and actions. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are there some competent apologists out there, who wish to share their thoughts?

 

[mikekle]

The way it seems to me, God used to intervene in earthly life quite a bit, many times in dramatic fashion, Tower of babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. in these cases, he is choosing to step in and throw a wrench into the works of humans, all for the greater good, but not so much in recent history, I have a feeling if mankind were to attempt to build another Tower of babel and try to reach heaven by ‘manual’ means, I doubt anything would happen.

Plus, whether you believe it was metaphorical or literal, its still the same, in modern time, man is trying to ‘reach’ heaven, the ways we think we should, so just like a metaphorical tower to the heavens, if you believe it literal, man has built MUCH taller structures than the original TOB, heck, we have gone into space…yet still…God does not intervene like he once did…??

Not a matter of infringing on our free will either, as those people back then had the same free will we do.

I dont think we are meant to understand any of this, we know for a fact God only gives us a very small piece of a much larger puzzle, so its only logical there is likely a whole lot, we just cannot comprehend.

 

[BarbTh]

*** Mikekle stated*: “I dont think we are meant to understand any of this, we know for a fact God only gives us a very small piece of a much larger puzzle, so its only logical there is likely a whole lot, we just cannot comprehend.” **

Well stated. Human finite understanding cannot fully comprehend (sometimes not comprehend at all!) The Infinite Wisdom of God.

CATHOLIC CATECHISM:
Providence and the scandal of evil
Paragraphs 309 to 314

309 If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil. [164, 385, 2805]

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. [Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 25, 6] But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. [Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, SCG III, 71] [412, 1042-1050, 342]

311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. [Cf. St. Augustine, De libero arbitrio I, 1, 2: PL 32, 1221- 1223; St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 79, 1] He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it: [396 1849]

For almighty God…, because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself. [St. Augustine, Enchiridion II, 3: PL 40, 236]

312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, “who sent me here, but God… You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.” [Gen 45:8; 50:20; cf. Tob 2:12 (Vulgate)] From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God’s only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that “abounded all the more”, [Cf. Rom 5:20] brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good. [598-600, 1994]

313 “We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him.” [Rom 8:28] The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth: [227]

**St. Catherine of Siena **said to “those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them”: “Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind.” [St. Catherine of Siena, Dialogue IV, 138 “On Divine Providence”]

St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: “Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best.” [The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More, ed. Elizabeth F. Rogers (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947), letter 206, lines 661-663]

Dame Julian of Norwich: “Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith… and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that ‘all manner [of] thing shall be well.’” [Julian of Norwich, The Revelations of Divine Love, tr. James Walshe SJ (London: 1961), ch. 32, 99-100]

** 314 We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of its history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God “face to face”, [1 Cor 13:12] will we fully know the ways by which - even through the dramas of evil and sin - God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest [Cf. Gen 2:2] for which he created heaven and earth. **

 

[littlestsouls2]

Ultimately, I believe that certain truths are, in principle, beyond our comprehension. (We are not eternal, pure Act, infinite Knowledge etc.) Still, I’ll try to offer a brief, quick answer (it will be imperfect).

“… if someone has the power to prevent such atrocities, but chooses not to intervene, then he is exactly as responsible for the actions as the active perpetrator.”

What about the Crucifixion? God Himself experienced the greatest atrocity, but from it came the greatest good.

“God is not just a passive agent, he is an active participant in the events…”

If a child in its mother’s womb could curse and hate, would this make the mother responsible?

*“God is not the primary causative agent in the atrocities, the human person is the primary causative agent - God just goes along for the ride - maybe unwillingly”. *

God wills everything in some sense, but He is never the cause of evil. Again, I think that the Crucifixion, though a great mystery, helps us to see the goodness of God.

Ultimately, you appear to accept that moral goodness exists in the universe. Arguments about free-will aside (without which there can be no morality), how can we account for this goodness? Does it not reveal that the First Cause is good?

But, we might object, evil also exists. True. But God is “simple”, so He cannot be a combination of good and evil. How, then, do good and evil co-exist? I don’t know exactly, but I do believe that St. Thomas made a good point. He says that a being which is pure evil cannot exist. (Evil has no substance of itself; it is a privation, absence or corruption of being). God, therefore, must be perfectly good.

"Truly you do not know how you were created. But now, O human, you wish to investigate Heaven and earth, and to judge of their justice in God’s disposition, and to know the highest things though you are not able to examine the lowest; for you do not know how you live in the body, or how you may be divested of the body. He Who created you in the first human foresaw all these things; but that same most gentle Father sent His Only-Begotten to die for the people, to deliver humanity from the power of the Devil.”

• The Eternal Father to St. Hildegard

 

[eazyduzit]

For the time being or for this dispensation, as scripture says, God is letting us rule ourselves, so we will fully see how that will work. The time will come when God will intervene and He will “rule the nations with an iron rod”. There will be perfect peace at this time although I suspect that there may be some who are still not satisfied, which may be why the Bible says that near the end of the thousand years Satan will be loosed for a short season.

But worry not, everything is working for the glory of God. We just don’t have the master plan

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Granted, God permitting evil actions of his rational creatures does make him responsible in one sense, but it does not follow that he shares their blame. Physical evil (injury, sickness, death, etc) is not blameworthy in itself, but is made blameworthy by a sinful intention. If a doctor, for example, amputates a limb to improve someone’s quality of life, the patient is grateful because the doctor is performing a service. But if someone swings a knife at me in order to rob me, even though he misses, I am angry with him, because of his intent to do evil.

Moral evil is evil in itself, but again the blame for a moral evil attaches to the agent with the evil intention, not to the Lord who made the intellect and will and permits them to operate.

Given that God is infinite, it is perfectly understandable that we should not always see the good he is bringing about by permitting physical and even moral evils. It is also understandable that we should ask why, when he allows something particularly bad; but in the end, being finite we can only say that we do not see why, not that we see all possible reasons why, and that none of them is just.

 

[zyzz]

Granted, God permitting evil actions of his rational creatures does make him responsible in one sense, but it does not follow that he shares their blame.

Why not? Give me a reason for this statement. As I presented in the OP, if you are in the position for prevent a terrorist act, and you fail to intervene, any judge of jury will hold you equally responsible for the act. There will be no excuses.

Moral evil is evil in itself, but again the blame for a moral evil attaches to the agent with the evil intention, not to the Lord who made the intellect and will and permits them to operate.

Again that is just an empty claim. Why not? Would you accept the defense of the one who did not interfere with the terrorist, if his defense would state: “Yes, I could have prevented him from pushing that button, but that would have been robbing the guy of his free will”!

Given that God is infinite, it is perfectly understandable that we should not always see the good he is bringing about by permitting physical and even moral evils. It is also understandable that we should ask why, when he allows something particularly bad; but in the end, being finite we can only say that we do not see why, not that we see all possible reasons why, and that none of them is just.

The same problem arises. We cannot know the long-term, final outcome of a terrorist blowing up a dirty bomb, but that ignorance should not prevent us from passing a judgment based upon the available information.

You also did not take into account the two other problems. God is never a simple bystander, who just “allows” things happen - at least according to the church. He is the sustaining force, who keeps the bullet on its trajectory all the way to the victim’s heart. He is an active participant in the actions.

Furthermore there is the problem of God being sovereign. God cannot be contingent upon our whims and desires. If God merely “allows”, but does not endorse these acts, then WE are the primary causative agents, and God just follows our will.

---

It is quite interesting, that I quote these three official catholic teachings, and show the contradictions they lead to. But no one even tries to argue against that. Aren’t there trained apologists who can answer these questions?

 

[zyzz]

What about the Crucifixion? God Himself experienced the greatest atrocity, but from it came the greatest good.

You cannot speak of an “atrocity”, if the victim is a willing participant. Jesus == God, God wanted to forgive the humanity, so he arranged the whole procedure. Of couse, I have never seen a rational explanation why was that whole crucifixion NECESSARY. Why God could not have simply forgiven humanity? How can the “sacrifice” of an innocent atone for the actions of others? Simply makes no sense. It is just a leftover from the old, pagan religions, where the angry gods had no be appeased by sacrificing some animals.

If a child in its mother’s womb could curse and hate, would this make the mother responsible?

There is no need for analogies here. The church teaches that God maintains the existence and the trajectory of the bullet. He is an active participant in the murder.

God wills everything in some sense, but He is never the cause of evil. Again, I think that the Crucifixion, though a great mystery, helps us to see the goodness of God.

What is this “in some sense”? In every sense. As Isaiah 45:7 says: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” God admits creating good and evil.

But, we might object, evil also exists. True. But God is “simple”, so He cannot be a combination of good and evil.

That is not the point. Is God “sovereign” or “contingent”? If we, humans, make evil decisions, and God is a participant against his intentions, then God is NOT sovereign.

This thread is not about the problem of evil, it is about the logical inconsistency within the church’s teachings.

 

[littlestsouls2]

You cannot speak of an “atrocity”, if the victim is a willing participant. Jesus == God, God wanted to forgive the humanity, so he arranged the whole procedure. Of couse, I have never seen a rational explanation why was that whole crucifixion NECESSARY. Why God could not have simply forgiven humanity? How can the “sacrifice” of an innocent atone for the actions of others? Simply makes no sense. It is just a leftover from the old, pagan religions, where the angry gods had no be appeased by sacrificing some animals.

Martyrs and heroes willingly die for another. This doesn’t negate the fact that the crime which led to their death is evil.

St. Thomas answers these questions in his Summa. If you want a good commentary, Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange expounds the doctrine of St. Thomas.

There is no need for analogies here. The church teaches that God maintains the existence and the trajectory of the bullet. He is an active participant in the murder.

He does not, cannot, move the will to evil. Physical actions are morally indifferent in and of themselves.

What is this “in some sense”? In every sense. As Isaiah 45:7 says: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” God admits creating good and evil.

I was distinguishing between active will and permissive will. “I am God creating woe, that is, permitting hardship.” (Jesus to St. Bridget of Sweden)

That is not the point. Is God “sovereign” or “contingent”? If we, humans, make evil decisions, and God is a participant against his intentions, then God is NOT sovereign.

His intention is to permit evils, so He remains Sovereign.

This thread is not about the problem of evil, it is about the logical inconsistency within the church’s teachings.

My point was relevant; please consider it again. You admitted that God is pure simplicity. And you admit that good and evil exist in the universe. But how? If you cannot reconcile this reality with a First Cause then you can either deny that there is a First Cause (which leads to absurdity), or you must admit that we are both as clueless as each other.

 

[zyzz]

Martyrs and heroes willingly die for another. This doesn’t negate the fact that the crime which led to their death is evil.

There is a difference. Those heroes and martyrs did not VOLUNTEER to be killed. There were two strange people in Germany a few years ago. One of them volunteered to be killed (and eaten or cannibalized) by the other. And so it happened. Their act cannot be called an “atrocity”, because the victim was a willing participant. For some act to be called an “atrocity” it is necessary that the victim would NOT be a willing party.

He does not, cannot, move the will to evil. Physical actions are morally indifferent in and of themselves.

Correct, but you miss the point. The murderer acts on his volition, but for the murder to actually take place, God must maintain the bullet on its course. As such God is an active participant in the act. Even if God does not cause the murderer to carry out his action, he must sustain the physical parts (the bullet) of the act.

His intention is to permit evils, so He remains Sovereign.

It is more complicated than that. The evil “decision” is not enough for an evil “act” to happen. If we are the primary causative agents, and God participates in the action, then God is contingent upon our actions. God is supposed to be “sovereign”, which means that he is NOT contingent on anything - outside himself. But if we have free will, and act on our own, then God is “forced” to maintain the physical aspects (be they good or not) of the action. And as such God is contingent upon our decisions. That is the contradiction I am talking about.

My point was relevant; please consider it again. You admitted that God is pure simplicity. And you admit that good and evil exist in the universe. But how? If you cannot reconcile this reality with a First Cause then you can either deny that there is a First Cause (which leads to absurdity), or you must admit that we are both as clueless as each other.

I accepted that God is considered pure simplicity, yes (for the purposes of this discussion). No, “good” and “evil” are NOT ontologically existing entities. Yes, there are “good” and “evil” actions in the world. According Isaiah both come from God. So it contradicts to assumption that “God is pure simplicity”. That is not a “mystery”, it is just another contradiction. By the way, the “first cause” is not part of this discussion. The “sustaining cause” is. According the “sustaining cause” principle, God must maintain the universe every second, because otherwise the universe would simply flicker out of existence.

 

[Rohzek]

I have an answer, but no one here will probably like it. I invoke Divine Command Theory here. God isn’t responsible for the evil solely because he holds himself not to be. He isn’t obligated to stop any evil solely because whatever he wishes is totally just in and of itself. I find this theory more palatable than Leibniz’ “best of all possible worlds” solution.

I realize that this doesn’t issue a satisfactory answer plausibly if one holds to the theory that God is actively sustaining the existence of everything. I personally don’t hold such a position, however, so I really don’t care to defend it or explain it.

 

[zyzz]

I have an answer, but no one here will probably like it. I invoke Divine Command Theory here. God isn’t responsible for the evil solely because he holds himself not to be. He isn’t obligated to stop any evil solely because whatever he wishes is totally just in and of itself. I find this theory more palatable than Leibniz’ “best of all possible worlds” solution.

Yes, that is one way to put it. I would simply call it the “might makes right” principle. Not particularly “praiseworthy”. The biggest bully on the block makes the rules, but he, himself is exempt.

What is “good” and what is “evil” are not objectively decided, they are simply the reflections on God’s whim.

I realize that this doesn’t issue a satisfactory answer plausibly if one holds to the theory that God is actively sustaining the existence of everything. I personally don’t hold such a position, however, so I really don’t care to defend it or explain it.

Of course. I am not sure when this concept was first introduced, but it is a very strange one. Effectively it says that the so-called “laws of nature” are not really part of nature, they are God’s activities in “disguise”.

 

[littlestsouls2]

There is a difference. Those heroes and martyrs did not VOLUNTEER to be killed. There were two strange people in Germany a few years ago. One of them volunteered to be killed (and eaten or cannibalized) by the other. And so it happened. Their act cannot be called an “atrocity”, because the victim was a willing participant. For some act to be called an “atrocity” it is necessary that the victim would NOT be a willing party.

St. Maximilian Kolbe “volunteered” to suffer and die in the place of another man. He died for a greater good. Likewise, Jesus suffered and died in order to restore humanity’s fallen nature; only a theandric act could achieve this reconciliation, given that human sin is infinitely opposed to God. The fittingness of the Incarnation is discussed by St. Thomas and others.

newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm

Correct, but you miss the point. The murderer acts on his volition, but for the murder to actually take place, God must maintain the bullet on its course. As such God is an active participant in the act. Even if God does not cause the murderer to carry out his action, he must sustain the physical parts (the bullet) of the act.

“God is causally operative in evil acts (sustaining the agent), but does not cause the evil in those acts, which is understood as a gap or a lack, a falling away from the goodness which ought to be there.” (Paul O’Grady, 'Aquinas’s Philosophy of Religion)

If you want a more thorough answer, maybe try Aquinas himself. Unfortunately I am no expert on these matters.

It is more complicated than that. The evil “decision” is not enough for an evil “act” to happen. If we are the primary causative agents, and God participates in the action, then God is contingent upon our actions. God is supposed to be “sovereign”, which means that he is NOT contingent on anything - outside himself. But if we have free will, and act on our own, then God is “forced” to maintain the physical aspects (be they good or not) of the action. And as such God is contingent upon our decisions. That is the contradiction I am talking about.

Okay. Good explanation. Theologians might say that God’s transcendent will is what actualises the human will; it is what makes it free. So, in the order of causality, God is first. In the order of execution, the deficient human act (which is foreseen and sustained) is second.

I accepted that God is considered pure simplicity, yes (for the purposes of this discussion). No, “good” and “evil” are NOT ontologically existing entities. Yes, there are “good” and “evil” actions in the world. According Isaiah both come from God. So it contradicts to assumption that “God is pure simplicity”. That is not a “mystery”, it is just another contradiction. By the way, the “first cause” is not part of this discussion. The “sustaining cause” is. According the “sustaining cause” principle, God must maintain the universe every second, because otherwise the universe would simply flicker out of existence.

If the sustaining cause is the First Cause (what else could it be?), then the divine simplicity is an absolutely essential truth to this discussion. The pertinent text from Isaiah means that God permits evil; He cannot, in principle, be its author; this would negate the divine simplicity. Such would necessitate that God would be composed, in which cause He would not be God.

I have read many (what I consider to be convincing) arguments for the existence of a purely “simple” First Cause. If such is true, we cannot call actions good or evil without reference to this Cause. It makes no sense to speak of actions as good or evil, without reference to ontological goodness. How can good come from that which is indifferent (or - more problematically - blind and deterministic)? How are we to call a human act good or evil if they bear no reference to objective goodness? Furthermore, I would argue that the *will * is the efficient cause of evil, not the physical action itself.