evil God?

[Arizona_Mike]

Now, if recreating the earth is what this is really about (and not worshiping an anthropomorphic bronze age autocrat) then why do Christians invariably support conservative politics

Like the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Daniel Berrigan, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Bishop Oscar Romero, Dorothy Day, William Jennings Bryan…?

I’m generally quite conservative, but I honor and respect some of the people in that list (who are generally well-regarded by “liberals”) for their commitment to their values.

Granted, there will be many on this forum who will say that at least three of those aren’t “true” Catholics for their support for abortion, but there are many Catholic and many Christians in general who claim support for their liberal politics in their understanding of the Christian faith. In some cases, that may be simple opportunism to support their election base, but undoubtedly many feel that their beliefs are informed by their Christian values.

 

[tonyrey]

If God doesn’t exist evil doesn’t exist!

“Too”?!

God bless

 

[tonyrey]

I will concede that I’m persuaded that I don’t think a hypothetical Creator could be both absolutely evil and omnipotent. However, it’s difficult for me to see how goodness and omnipotence are evidenced by the state of affairs in the world.

Most philosophers agree that evil is consistent with omnipotence in a physical universe but some argue that it is excessive.

 

[danserr]

Danserr:

I wonder if we’re not looking at this all wrong. Consider how the angels fell. According to a Thomistic cosmogony, there are three (to five) levels of Heaven. The Vision is at the topmost level. The earth resides at the bottommost level. The angelic level(s), in between.

It is thought that some angels exist in the Vision level, while others exist in the middle level. Satan and his group were thrown down from the middle level to the earthly level - unfortunately, with us! The question is, "Why is there a ‘middle level?’ Why are some of the angels in that middle level instead of in the top level? The Theologians of angelology thought that the vision of God is just way too much for them to handle, that they needed more time. (Angels are said to have a duration of their own.) Besides, they must come to God of their own accord. Like us, they have Free Will.

So, perhaps - just perhaps - we were put here to see, that is, to get a preview of (in a lesser way, of course), the Vision level. So that we are not lost to Him, as those thousands of fallen angels were, perhaps we are here to get used to, in a way, as much of the aspects of the Vision as possible. We are told that those who suffer, suffer for a reason. Perhaps they are ‘weaker’ than the rest and, by their suffering, will derive a strengthened desire for the Vision such that they will easily shake loose any residue they might have held that would otherwise surface upon the thought of seeing God’s face. While the rest, those who are privileged to see the God-provided beauties of the universe and the earth, will calmly expect His beauty and not be chagrined at all. Perhaps this is why there is suffering. Does this make any sense? Is this scenario possible?

God bless,
jd

Well, I think there is a sense in which earth is a preview of heaven, but only if you mean it the right way. CS Lewis, in The Great Divorce commented that heaven and hell, once attained become retrospective. It works backward to cover even one’s experience on earth. So people who say “let me have the one illicit pleasure and I’ll take the consequences,” don’t understand that hell will work backward and contaminate the pleasure of the sin. Likewise some people suffer wondering how heaven can ever be worth it; but these people don’t understand that heaven, once attained, will work backward to turn even that suffering into glory, as it did for Our Lord, who rose with the marks of his crucifixion.

Overly specific speculations can make me uneasy, just because I think it is so hard to know exactly what heaven is like. Certainly, I think suffering can have spiritual values; remember the spiritual principle “no one is crowned unless first he has struggled.” I’m not sure I would go as far as your suggestion, only because I suspect we will all be shocked at the greatness of heaven and I don’t think we can completely explain suffering as something that happens more to people who need it more, since obviously many great saints also suffer. But that being said, it does seem plausible that the purpose of human life is not happiness, but holiness and knowledge of God, and suffering could move one to seek that knowledge of God. It’s not a total explanation of evil, I think, but it might have some value.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, I think there is a sense in which earth is a preview of heaven, but only if you mean it the right way. CS Lewis, in The Great Divorce commented that heaven and hell, once attained become retrospective. It works backward to cover even one’s experience on earth. So people who say “let me have the one illicit pleasure and I’ll take the consequences,” don’t understand that hell will work backward and contaminate the pleasure of the sin. Likewise some people suffer wondering how heaven can ever be worth it; but these people don’t understand that heaven, once attained, will work backward to turn even that suffering into glory, as it did for Our Lord, who rose with the marks of his crucifixion.

Overly specific speculations can make me uneasy, just because I think it is so hard to know exactly what heaven is like. Certainly, I think suffering can have spiritual values; remember the spiritual principle “no one is crowned unless first he has struggled.” I’m not sure I would go as far as your suggestion, only because I suspect we will all be shocked at the greatness of heaven and I don’t think we can completely explain suffering as something that happens more to people who need it more, since obviously many great saints also suffer. But that being said, it does seem plausible that the purpose of human life is not happiness, but holiness and knowledge of God, and suffering could move one to seek that knowledge of God. It’s not a total explanation of evil, I think, but it might have some value.

Danserr:

Very good points. But there has to be a rationale for suffering. It should not be the mystery that it is, although I know that it is not a mystery for many who suffer. Our bodies are made such that our pain can be extraordinary - beyond anything we could have conceived prior to such pain. That seems purposeless to me. And, not in keeping with God’s Goodness and Love. Furthermore, it’s not as though He hasn’t felt pain; excruciating pain. There is something to this, in my opinion.

On the other hand, witness the pictures taken by the Hubble and some of the other deep space devices. We see in them almost unimaginable beauty and radiance; God-made for our senses. Having lived in Jacksonville, FL, I have been privy to some of the most beautiful day-views I have ever seen and others have spoken of the same beauty to me. There has to be a reason for them. They cannot be purposeless either. Something is going on that is more than I can fully contemplate.

Each time I see such extraordinary days, I am instantly aware of the probability of even greater beauty. I seem to enter into a moment that has a longer duration than that moment ought to have. It’s as though I am getting a privileged look into a higher level. I’m sure that this has happened to you and to others.

Our human descriptions for why there is pain just don’t seem to cut it for many people who are actually suffering, or have been through a suffering. We are often made aware of our exquisite inability to console many, if any, who suffer, or have been through a suffering. He has revealed as much as can be revealed to mortals. I just don’t think we are “looking” at this one.

God bless,
jd

 

[Daedelus76]

Danserr:
On the other hand, witness the pictures taken by the Hubble and some of the other deep space devices. We see in them almost unimaginable beauty and radiance; God-made for our senses.

What makes you think that those things were made for you? Are you aware that children also use teleological thinking to explain why rivers exist (for boats of course), and yet somehow religious thinking is above this childish naivite when you say that somehow stars were made to be seen as beautiful by upright walking apes, instead of having formed as giant gas clouds condensing into fusion reactions? Humans and their anthropocentric thinking are the ones that rob life of its real beauty. Only a supreme narcissist could think the universe was made just for them.

 

[JDaniel]

What makes you think that those things were made for you? Are you aware that children also use teleological thinking to explain why rivers exist (for boats of course), and yet somehow religious thinking is above this childish naivite when you say that somehow stars were made to be seen as beautiful by upright walking apes, instead of having formed as giant gas clouds condensing into fusion reactions? Humans and their anthropocentric thinking are the ones that rob life of its real beauty. Only a supreme narcissist could think the universe was made just for them.

Daedelus:

Why are you angry with me? What did I say that was so terrible that it deserved that diatribe? Daedelus, I’m not you enemy; I’m just a fellow poster.

To sort of answer your question, there is a litany of reasons why I think the universe was made for “us.” (My use of the word “me” was not to make a selfish statement, but to humankind the statement.) You said that “humans . . . rob life of its real beauty.” If humans are the only creatures (at least that we know of) that can appreciate beauty, who else could it have been made for? The only alternatives are to simply say that the universe “just exists.” Nothing more and nothing less. Or, that it is here for God and God alone.

It’s amazing that such an appreciative creature as man arose out of inanimate matter, for no reason(s), by unadulterated and extraordinary chance. That just won’t do; it makes no sense whatsoever.

God bless,
jd

 

[Daedelus76]

Well, I think there is a sense in which earth is a preview of heaven, but only if you mean it the right way. CS Lewis, in The Great Divorce commented that heaven and hell, once attained become retrospective. It works backward to cover even one’s experience on earth. .

Congratulations, you’ve just said suffering is an illusion. Why should we bother with doing good on earth if God fixes everything in heaven? Perhaps we should cause more pain and suffering so God can make those noble victims into real saints? This ideology leads to the sort of thing where the parent beats the child “for its own good”, “this is going to hurt me more than it does you, dear…”.

CS Lewis was the very definition of a “sophomore”. Somebody that ratianolized away emotional difficulties and (rather poorly) attempted to bully his readers and intellectual opponents. An overesteemed Christian writer.

 

[Daedelus76]

If humans are the only creatures (at least that we know of) that can appreciate beauty, who else could it have been made for? The only alternatives are to simply say that the universe “just exists.” Nothing more and nothing less. Or, that it is here for God and God alone
jd

There’s been some speculation by primatologists that chimpanzees have a sense of aesthetics. Chimpanzees have been known to watch sunsets or to dance around in the rain, seeming to enjoy both. So, I don’t think the idea that the universe was “made” merely for Homo sapiens to enjoy is at all true. If this “God” made the universe, he did not make it merely for human beings, that seems to be where the scientific evidence is pointing- humanity is one among many sentient beings on earth and probably elsewhere in the universe. Now, the fact a chimpanzee doesn’t sit around and wonder about who made the universe doesn’t matter that much to me in disproving all this- not all human religious consider those questions relevent either. But the sense of the sublime is probably found in chimpanzees and perhaps in other animals and beings elsewhere in the universe.

It’s amazing that such an appreciative creature as man arose out of inanimate matter, for no reason(s), by unadulterated and extraordinary chance. That just won’t do; it makes no sense whatsoever.

Why is matter automaticaly seen as inanimate? Park the Greek metaphysics and what you said is less. We experience what we experience and its not really surprising at all. We’re consciousness trapped up in the big cosmic game of life, which often is more nightmarish than dreamlike. Born into “a womb-prison through blind lust”, as one ancient Buddhist liturgy put it. Its only surprising when that the mix of experiences that is “me” starts to become unbundled and we experience transcendence.

 

[JontheMaronite]

Law’s evil God challenge has been reduced to a typical sophist’s shifting of positions and can easily be reduced to the basic argument from evil.

I hope some of you have been following the recent dialouge between Law and Edward Feser. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/broken-law.html#more

Please read through their blogs and read their replies and the comments. Feser, monk, and a few others have solid reasoning and clear explanations/demonstration of Law’s bad logic, while delving into the more nuanced topics of evil, privation, perfection, moral framework, and the illogicies of the concept of an “evil God”.

 

[danserr]

What makes you think that those things were made for you? Are you aware that children also use teleological thinking to explain why rivers exist (for boats of course), and yet somehow religious thinking is above this childish naivite when you say that somehow stars were made to be seen as beautiful by upright walking apes, instead of having formed as giant gas clouds condensing into fusion reactions? Humans and their anthropocentric thinking are the ones that rob life of its real beauty. Only a supreme narcissist could think the universe was made just for them.

Actually, the teleological argument is eminently defensible, the strongest version being the one based on the fine-tuning of the constants and qualities of the universe for life, discussed by the philosopher of science Robin Collins. I don’t think discussing it would really help you, so I won’t unless you are actually curious and want me to, but to suggest that design argument are narcissistic is simply absurd. There is no need to be so insulting toward people who think differently from you.

Congratulations, you’ve just said suffering is an illusion. Why should we bother with doing good on earth if God fixes everything in heaven? Perhaps we should cause more pain and suffering so God can make those noble victims into real saints? This ideology leads to the sort of thing where the parent beats the child “for its own good”, “this is going to hurt me more than it does you, dear…”.

CS Lewis was the very definition of a “sophomore”. Somebody that ratianolized away emotional difficulties and (rather poorly) attempted to bully his readers and intellectual opponents. An overesteemed Christian writer.

I don’t understand what you are being so angry and insulting, no one here has wronged you. Frankly, I wish you would make more of an effort to understand and consider what people are saying, rather than simply trying to insult. Why insult Lewis either? There is no way you can consider him a bully, who ignored emotional difficulties. Have you even heard of his book, A Grief Observed ? He wrote a book designed to solve the intellectual (not emotional) problem of evil, called, The Problem of Pain, but here you see him taking the emotional difficulties of suffering very seriously as they hit him personally on the death of his wife. It led to the movie, Shadowlands, which is available on youtube.

And there is no rational inference from anything I said to the angry interpretation you gave it. It does not follow that God wills evil. He does not! And it does not follow that we should do evil. We should not! God commands everyone to do good, to love their neighbor, feed the hungry, forgive our enemies. I am sorry people disobey Him, I wish they did not. I am sorry many of those people are Christians, I wish we did not. But the fact is that people do disobey God and much evil results from it. My belief in a heaven that can right the wrongs of this world is based on good evidence, but it is also a revolt. It is revolt against the absurd belief that the evils, suffering, and injustices of this world should have the last word and be the final answer.

This does not mean that suffering is an illusion. On the contrary, this is the only view that recognizes the reality and seriousness of suffering and refuses to accept the absurd notion that this terrible suffering and evil should have the last word, and should exist forever without being made right. This does not diminish the suffering on earth; when Jesus rose, he rose with the marks of the crucifixion; it was no illusion, it was the reality of evil itself, but those marks became the signs of a defeated evil. This should give us the hope also for a world that can right our own sufferings.

This does not mean that we should not try to work for justice in this world, on the contrary, the knowledge of a future world of heaven and the resurrection is what let’s us know that the efforts we make here will not be in vain.

Finally, you indicated above in your comments on Lewis, that your real difficulty is emotional rather than intellectual. I’m sorry I can’t help more. I actually find it easier to answer the intellectual problem of evil than the emotional one. Besides Lewis, I have also heard some people suggest Wolterstorrf’s Lament for a Son. I can’t speak for it, but it could always be worth looking into.

 

[Daedelus76]

Actually, the teleological argument is eminently defensible, the strongest version being the one based on the fine-tuning of the constants and qualities of the universe for life, discussed by the philosopher of science Robin Collins.

Look up John Wheeler’s responses to the teleological argument. The sense of design in the universe need not be explained by an external, transcendent designer, it could be explained in more pantheistic terms. Alfred North Whitehead is another philosopher to look up here. Neither one have classical theism as their conclusions.

The bottom line is there are numerous alternative explanations to Christian theism… I see no compelling reason to buy into religious dogma especially when it is full of holes and depends on appeals to authority.

I don’t understand what you are being so angry and insulting, no one here has wronged you.

You act like this is an area I should be emotionally indifferent, but I refuse to be so clinical. Your beliefs are too far-reaching to be simply dismissed as a benign private past-time. We aren’t talking about the difference between Coke and Pepsi Cola… people like you have rationalized attacks on scientific inquiry, enslavement of human beings, the upholding of the Status Quo in economics and social life, and the dehumanization of gays… all based on your unquestionable religious beliefs and loyalty to external authorities (like the Pope). If I come across as hostile, maybe its because I see harm that religion has done to innocent people. Its not hard to see a God that would justify all that as evil, frankly.

This does not mean that suffering is an illusion. On the contrary, this is the only view that recognizes the reality and seriousness of suffering and refuses to accept the absurd notion that this terrible suffering and evil should have the last word, and should exist forever without being made right.

I see the consolation being the truth of impermanence, that if the pleasurable times won’t really last, neither will the suffering. A god that is somehow going to fix everything simply doesn’t exist, what Christian theism present is sloganeering and pie-in-the-sky in place of deep reflection on what causes us to hurt. I don’t believe any God can undo the pain of existence. The theist is just choosing to ignore or devalue certain aspects of their experiences or the experiences of others- experiences like marriage or sexuality for one (which you already compared to playing in the mud, all because of a few snippets of Bible verses attributed to Jesus). This is hardly a compassionate mind, its more the result of rationalizing away the evils in the world, to let your God and life-affirming religion off the hook.

This does not diminish the suffering on earth; when Jesus rose, he rose with the marks of the crucifixion; it was no illusion, it was the reality of evil itself, but those marks became the signs of a defeated evil.

Jesus doesn’t answer my prayers, and doesn’t seem to answer the prayers of other people. For a victor over death and evil, he sure doesn’t seem to do alot to actually end evil in the world.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Look up John Wheeler’s responses to the teleological argument. The sense of design in the universe need not be explained by an external, transcendent designer, it could be explained in more pantheistic terms. Alfred North Whitehead is another philosopher to look up here. Neither one have classical theism as their conclusions.
.

Showing us that their are other beliefs about the nature of reality doesn’t demonstrate us that they are rational beliefs. I would have thought that somebody who speaks of deep reflection would have grasped that simple fact.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Its not hard to see a God that would justify all that as evil, frankly.

What is true objective evil?

Jesus doesn’t answer my prayers.

Maybe its because you are dishonest and Jesus can see that you don’t really want him to answer your prayers because it will take you somewhere you don’t want to go.

 

[Daedelus76]

Showing us that their are other beliefs about the nature of reality doesn’t demonstrate us that they are rational beliefs. I would have thought that somebody who speaks of deep reflection would have grasped that simple fact.

Why is Alfred North Whiteheads philosophy inherently less rational than the Catechism of the Catholic Church?. I’ll give you an example of something that is very rational that Catholics reject- double predestination. Calvinists usually believe in it, Catholics reject it as heresy. Yet double predestination is logically consistent with the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent Creator. Catholics reject double predestination because it would undermine the authority of the hierarchy of their church to dispense grace (whereas Calvinists deny that God’s grace works in that manner).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why is Alfred North Whiteheads philosophy inherently less rational than the Catechism of the Catholic Church?.

I bet you are going to tell me

I’ll give you an example of something that is very rational that Catholics reject- double predestination.

I can’t wait to hear it.

Calvinists usually believe in it, Catholics reject it as heresy.

The Catholic church rejects Calvinism.

Yet double predestination is logically consistent with the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent Creator.

That is a great Assertion with a capital A.

Catholics reject double predestination because it would undermine the authority of the hierarchy of their church to dispense grace (whereas Calvinists deny that God’s grace works in that manner).

Its certainly true that if Calvinist were correct about their own theology in reference to things that the Catholic church rejects as heresy, this would certainly undermine the teaching authority of the Catholic church.

So…are you going to tell me something I don’t know, like something that actually rationally demonstrates Calvinist heresies as being consistent with Gods nature, or should we call it a day?

 

[fred_conty]

Hi, I appreciate that you appreciate the complexity of the issue.

I do believe in ontological evil because without it nothing makes sense to me. Although it is a big debate among Catholics and many here will tell you there is no such thing as ontological evil. Still, Jesus says that Satan is the ruler of this world.

So then you ask the question why would God create evil? There is a problem with this assumption that God created evil because evil cannot come from good. The bible says that a good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit. So if God is all loving and good then he cannot be the cause of evil. So therefore we have to posit an evil cause for the effects of evil.

So then we either have a separate source of evil, Satan, which God allows to function. Or we have a God who is not totally all-powerful, who cannot completely control the function and source of evil in this universe. (this is mostly a gnostic idea).

I too find the Jewish concept of evil to be incomplete. Evil is not merely a privation of good. A privation of good is just banality. Simply not good. If something is just not good, that doesn’t make it evil. Evil is something entirely different. The Holocaust was evil. There was definitely an evil power that was guiding and giving its energy to that massive event. And there were people that gave their will over to that power to complete those acts for it. Those people are in hell. I don’t think that can be doubted. It was a great victory for the devil.

I tend to agree with you that there must be a source for evil, otherwise, we have to say that God permits evil, and I don’t think God ever permits evil because he is all good right?

If God permits evil then he isn’t all good, but he allows evil and that makes him not ‘all good’.

It is possible that God allows Satan to rule over this world because it serves a greater good. For instance, if a rancher kills a wolf because it serves the greater good of his flock to protect them from the wolf, even if he has to murder the wolf.

But that is an incremental evil and we are talking about the Totality of evil… meaning, the whole situation of birth and death and suffering as the BASIS for our existence.

And that Evil, is difficult to understand. This is what people debate about. It is not just simply that there is evil IN this world, but that this world IS evil.

This comes down to the individuals perspective about this world. And it is taught to us by Jesus that Satan is the RULER of this world, which means that evil predominates in this world, not good. And I think most people can understand that if they look around.

Also the bible says that we cannot serve TWO masters. So that means that there is a evil master, and a good master. And we can’t serve both of them. Its one or the other, so chose carefully.

I too find the Jewish concept of evil to be incomplete. Evil is not merely a privation of good. A privation of good is just

banality. Simply not good. If something is just not good, that doesn’t make it evil. Evil is something entirely different.​

I would see it differently.

Take Original sin. Original sin is the privation or lack of original grace in the soul. It isn’t simply not good, because it is simply not there. That is what privation is, not there. “Not good” implies the existence of something being there. In reality, “not good” means we see something good that should be there, or something is missing.

What is darkness? Simply not good? Or simply no light or privation of light, or something is missing that should be there? Darkness is simply not good because there is no light, a privation.
Darkness = missing light.

What is the sin of anger? Simply not good? Or simply no patience. Something is missing that should be there in place of the sin of anger? If patience is there, sin of anger won’t be there.
Sin of anger = missing virtue of patience

If something is just not good, then what is good? The opposite of not good. To paraphrase your words, “hate” is just not good, that doesn’t make it evil.
Then what does it make it? The answer to that is, the absence of good or love.
Hate = missing love.

Just a thought.

 

[Daedelus76]

Explaining all evil as privation makes no sense… after all what is a brain tumor a lack of?

 

[Daedelus76]

That is a great Assertion with a capital A.

If God knows the choices of creatures before they exist and he creates them, in what sense has he not predestined them to heaven or hell? As a Catholic, answer this if you can.

The Catholic Church rejected Calvinism for political reasons, not because Calvinism is inherently less rational than their own theologies.

 

[fred_conty]

Explaining all evil as privation makes no sense… after all what is a brain tumor a lack of?

Of what should be there, a healthy one. It is still privation of what should be. And that is
what makes it evil.