Considering "The Problem of Evil"

[Poustinia]

I’ve been considering an episode of Philosophy Bites: “The problem of evil” by Stephen Law.

There are two problems:

1. The logical problem of evil which states that if God is all good then how can evil exist at all.
2. The evidential problem of evil which states that if God is all good then how come there is so much evil in the world.

I keep thinking that there are answers already quite logical and reasonable to all these questions. I think that the answer of free will pretty much answers the question. But Stephen Law made a comment that I think isn’t addressed by many defenders of the faith. He brings up the suffering of the dinosaurs when a mass extinction event happened as a result of a comet that crashed on earth.

I considered how the human abuse of free will and the consequences of original sin caused natural evil, as St. Paul points out in Romans 8:19-23. “For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that all creation is groaning in labour pains even until now; and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PYW.HTM Also CCC #400 “…Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”…” vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM

Therefore, logically, natural evil would exist after the fall of man but not before.

But, the dinosaurs existed before humans. So where did their suffering come from, if not from the evil caused by the abuse of man’s free will? (Is this why there is such controversy over evolution?)

I think that the fall of the angels has something to do with it. Perhaps, in their malice towards the inferior human beings that God loved so much, they wished to destroy the earth which God prepared specially for them. Failing that they seduced man to abuse his free will and turn away from his creator, and as a result sin, suffering and death entered visible creation.

I don’t know that much about how the fall of the angels affected creation, so these are just my thoughts. Is this in harmony with the Church’s teachings?

CCC #395 “… Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature - to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”” vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM

The Catechism isn’t specific on how purely spiritual beings affect the natural world. Nor does it go into detail about how humans, which are the only creatures which are physical and spiritual, how we effect the spiritual creation.

This information could be useful in answering atheist questions on the existence of evil.


Poustinia

 

[reggieM]

Here’s one view, which I trust is orthodox and consistent:

As stated, Satan’s sin pre-dates the fall of man. God gave the angels freedom and it was abused by some.

In creating man, God gave Adam & Eve a chance in a garden of Eden where the consequences of the angelic sin were not given to human nature, but did affect the rest of nature outside the garden.

Again, when freedom was abused by Adam, sin and corruption became the inheritance of the human race also.

Another possibility is that the universe itself was in a transcendent, undetectable form prior to human sin, and then became perceptably-finite and corrupt after Adam’s action.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Is it necessary that the dinosaurs suffered by their extinction?

tee

 

[reggieM]

Is it necessary that the dinosaurs suffered by their extinction?

tee

We might not call it suffering, but they did die and the classical teaching is that death entered the world with sin.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Is it necessary that the dinosaurs suffered by their extinction?

Well, we do not know whether they died all at once or died a lingering death. Also, we don’t know exactly the manner of their dying. We evidently benefited by their passing, so I thank them for their sacrifice.

 

[Caelius]

We might not call it suffering, but they did die and the classical teaching is that death entered the world with sin.

Can a dinosaur sin so gravely that their entire species is deemed worthy of extinction?

 

[colmcille1]

Very interesting topic. I read through to the end of said chapter in Romans:
31 What shall we then say to these things (hope and the call to sainthood)?
If God be for us, who is against us?
And further:
35 Who shall then separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation?
or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution?
or the sword?

Though we are* in* this world of sin, it seems to me that it is our duty not to be* of *this selfsame world.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[awatkins69]

Certainly plants died before the fall, as is evidenced by their being eaten. Also, we must understand that original justice meant that it was possible to not die, rather than impossible to die. And I’m not sure whether this all applies to all creatures, rather than just humans.

 

[tonyrey]

He brings up the suffering of the dinosaurs when a mass extinction event happened as a result of a comet that crashed on earth.

I considered how the human abuse of free will and the consequences of original sin caused natural evil, as St. Paul points out in Romans 8:19-23. “For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that all creation is groaning in labour pains even until now; and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PYW.HTM Also CCC #400 “…Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”…” vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM

Therefore, logically, natural evil would exist after the fall of man but not before.

It does not follow that all natural evil is the result of moral evil. Human selfishness has polluted the earth but **physical evil **is generally the result of the interplay of **physical **laws. Misfortunes and unintended coincidences are inevitable in an immensely complex system. Sooner or later living organisms are bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. How could they never be killed by an earthquake or a volcanic eruption? Within the framework of Design there is an element of Chance. It is absurd to expect perfect harmony in a material world…

I think that the fall of the angels has something to do with it. Perhaps, in their malice towards the inferior human beings that God loved so much, they wished to destroy the earth which God prepared specially for them. Failing that they seduced man to abuse his free will and turn away from his creator, and as a result sin, suffering and death entered visible creation.

I don’t know that much about how the fall of the angels affected creation, so these are just my thoughts. Is this in harmony with the Church’s teachings?

CCC #395 “… Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature - to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”” vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM

The Catechism isn’t specific on how purely spiritual beings affect the natural world. Nor does it go into detail about how humans, which are the only creatures which are physical and spiritual, how we affect the spiritual creation.

The Catechism isn’t specific because it is impossible to know the exact extent to which human beings, let alone purely spiritual beings, affect the natural world. Our activity has had both beneficial and harmful effects on nature but the complexity of the biosphere is so great that its full ramifications are obscure and impenetrable. What we do know is that there is interaction between all three types of existence. There is plenty of evidence of both divine and diabolical inspiration in human affairs. One could ask with equal justification why reality should be divided into three separate, distinct and totally unrelated compartments!

 

[tonyrey]

Certainly plants died before the fall, as is evidenced by their being eaten. Also, we must understand that original justice meant that it was possible to not die, rather than impossible to die. And I’m not sure whether this all applies to all creatures, rather than just humans.

A good point! It would be interesting to know how there could be one set of physical laws for humans and another for other forms of life at the same time on the same planet…

 

[reggieM]

Satan and the fallen angels’ sin have some consequence in the universe and that can explain why there was death-in-nature before the sin of Adam.
Adam’s sin could have affected only humans – and their death.
Once there was evil in the world, God would not want humans to be immortal in this world anyway.

 

[Poustinia]

Adam’s sin could have affected only humans – and their death.

In my original post I quoted Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church explaining that Adam’s fall affected all creation: Romans 8:19-23. “For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that all creation is groaning in labour pains even until now; and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PYW.HTM Also CCC #400 “…Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay"…” vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM

Once there was evil in the world, God would not want humans to be immortal in this world anyway.

Since the fall, mankind was separated from God. If man were immortal then he would live in that state forever. God was merciful and just in allowing man to die. Death was the consequence of the broken covenant and then man was not subject to the covenant agreement. Then man could then await the new and saving covenant in the living blood of Jesus Christ. See the 1 Peter 3:19-22. vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P123.HTM

Poustinia

 

[reggieM]

In my original post I quoted Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church explaining that Adam’s fall affected all creation: Romans 8:19-23. “For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that all creation is groaning in labour pains even until now; and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PYW.HTM Also CCC #400 “…Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay"…” vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM

True, and I didn’t read that carefully enough - so thanks. It doesn’t specify exactly how Adam’s sin affected all creation, but just that suffering and corruption resulted (which would be logical and correct in a just-universe). Could it be possible that Satan’s sin had already corrupted the universe in some ways, and then Adam’s sin added to that corruption somehow?

Since the fall, mankind was separated from God. If man were immortal then he would live in that state forever. God was merciful and just in allowing man to die. Death was the consequence of the broken covenant and then man was not subject to the covenant agreement. Then man could then await the new and saving covenant in the living blood of Jesus Christ. See the 1 Peter 3:19-22. vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P123.HTM

That’s right. Good point. Adam and Eve were created to be immortal. But this would mean that the universe could not be corrupted and dominated by temptation, sin and the effects of Satan – because that kind of immortality would not be good.

Once Adam & Eve fell from grace, death entered, and as you rightly say – death was a mercy by God to free us from this place of trial.

I forgot to mention in the previous possible-answers to the problem, perhaps the simplest one (in concept, if not in proof) that some offer is that humans pre-date dinosaurs. So, the first humans existed in a state of grace and then after the Fall, there was death in sentient nature. Some mention death of plants, but that might not necessarily be an evil caused by sin.

 

[traillius]

The proximal cause of evil is that Satan’s pride caused his rebellion and subsequent fall.
The ultimate reason God allows evil is because He intends to bring a greater good out of it.

 

[Walter_Maxey]

It does not follow that all natural evil is the result of moral evil. Human selfishness has polluted the earth but **physical evil **is generally the result of the interplay of **physical **laws. Misfortunes and unintended coincidences are inevitable in an immensely complex system. Sooner or later living organisms are bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. How could they never be killed by an earthquake or a volcanic eruption? Within the framework of Design there is an element of Chance. It is absurd to expect perfect harmony in a material world…

Your comments lead to the question: If natural evil is not due to human moral evil, then to what is it due?

If God is all good, then we assume evil was not introduced by Him when he designe the physical laws. So what caused it?

I was under the impression that Catholic theologians had hypothesized that natural evil was due to Original Sin. Am I wrong? If I am wrong, then what causd natural evil?

–Walter

 

[Walter_Maxey]

I think that the answer of free will pretty much answers the question [of the Problem of Evil].

I have always struggled with the Problem of Evil. I finally decided to believe in spite of the Problem of Evil.

But your comment struck me, since I never found the free will answer to be a very good one, even though it is the most common answer to the Problem of Evil.

I ask the question: Is free will is an intrinsic good?

If it is, does that mean that God has it (since he is all-good)?

If God has free will, and yet He does not choose evil (since He is also all-good), then free will, by itself, is not enough to lead to evil. After all, if God has free will, then it is possible to have free will and yet not choose evil over an infinite number of choices. So free will does not explain the Problem of Evil.

If, on the other hand, God, an all-good being, does not have free will, then free will must not be a good thing to have. And yet, being an all-good being, He wouldn’t have given us a non-good thing. If free will is not good, then how did it enter the world? We must look further than free will to explain evil in the world. Whatever led to us having free will is the explanation of the Problem of Evil.

I welcome comments on this.

–Walter

 

[tonyrey]

If God has free will, and yet He does not choose evil (since He is also all-good), then free will, by itself, is not enough to lead to evil. After all, if God has free will, then it is possible to have free will and yet not choose evil over an infinite number of choices. So free will does not explain the Problem of Evil.

God has free will but He does not choose evil because He is not only infinitely good but also omniscient. He knows that evil is negative, destructive and dysteleological, i.e. opposed to the purposes for which He has created everything. Moreover if He chose evil He would be imperfect and could not be eternal because evil is self-destructive…

 

[reggieM]

If, on the other hand, God, an all-good being, does not have free will, then free will must not be a good thing to have. And yet, being an all-good being, He wouldn’t have given us a non-good thing. If free will is not good, then how did it enter the world? We must look further than free will to explain evil in the world. Whatever led to us having free will is the explanation of the Problem of Evil.

I can understand your concerns. I think the above paragraph contains a number of issues that can help resolve the problem.

First, God doesn’t really “possess” things or characteristics. So, God is not composed of “good things to have”. God simply is. He is goodness - infinite and complete. He is Being in its fullness. So, in this light, we wouldn’t say “God has free-will”.
We do talk about the attributes of God (omniscience, omnipotence, simplicity, etc) but these are integral and inseperable to the nature of God.
Because God is all-good, it is impossible for Him to choose evil. All of His choices are necessarily good, because He cannot choose something which is not Himself. He cannot add anything to His being, nor can he take anything away from it.
God is an actual infinite – nothing can be added, nothing taken away.

With that as a starting point, “free-will” is a feature of human beings. It is a gift, created by God, designed for the nature of humans.

To now consider that free-will is either a “good thing” or a “non-good thing” is to assess this gift in light of human beings, not in light of the goodness of God.

In light of human beings, free-will is good. It enables humans to experience the freedom of love in a temporal, passing world of trial and temptation.
Human life, in a temporal world, is a good thing.

God does not live a human life in a temporal world. Therefore, would we conclude that God does not possess this good thing?

Eating my favorite food is a good thing. God doesn’t eat my favorite food. Therefore, God lacks this good? Or perhaps eating is not a good?

We participate in God’s goodness by degree.
Free will is good, but like every good that we experience on earth, it is mixed with the flaws of nature, and has the potential for evil.

 

[Walter_Maxey]

God has free will but He does not choose evil…

Then it is quite possible to have free will and never choose evil, so free will by itself is not sufficient to explain the presence of evil in the world.

 

[Walter_Maxey]

ReggieM: I will have to think about that. Thanks for responding.