Give me an example, please!

[CentralFLJames]

Here’s another example, with more time for reflection: Suppose an airline engine fails, and the plane begins its slow descent to the ground. They have about 10 minutes before impact. If they do not have enough parachutes for everyone, and someone chooses to give their one up for someone else, isn’t that love?

The skeptic, the cynic and the atheist are all related cousins. Each of these will of course argue that he made the personal sacrifice not out of love but out of the selfish desire for the exhilaration of the ride down; and for an instant of smug pleasure knowing he screwed the other fellow’s family out of collecting on the life insurance policy that his family will win in exchange for his miserable life.

It’s impossible to correct a cynic to consider he is wrong. At heart the cynic knows he is wrong; and in fact takes perverse pleasure, security and purpose in that one certainty he knows to be true.

James

 

[Sarpedon]

The skeptic, the cynic and the atheist are all related cousins. Each of these will of course argue that he made the personal sacrifice not out of love but out of the selfish desire for the exhilaration of the ride down; and for an instant of smug pleasure knowing he screwed the other fellow’s family out of collecting on the life insurance policy that his family will win in exchange for his miserable life.

They’re not monsters, they’re human just like you and me.

 

[CentralFLJames]

They’re not monsters, they’re human just like you and me.

I did not say they were. They make poor assumptions, are limited in their perceptions and make mistakes of judgement - just like you and me.

James

 

[Nita]

So I ask you to present an example, where God wishes to bring forth a “greater good”, which is impossible to do without inflicting / allowing some “evil” to happen.

The first thing that comes to my mind is one of the first things that happened in human history!

God wished to allow the devil to tempt Adam and Eve knowing that with the free will He gave them, they would choose to sin. Considering the consequences, this is probably the second greatest evil God allowed in human history (the crucifixion, killing of Jesus/God, being the first greatest).

From these two great “evils”, God gains two greater goods.

1. An opportunity to show us more clearly and deeply the degree of His love for us - through the manner in which He would choose to save us.
   (To verify this, one has to imagine only on a human level. Say a couple of friends who help out in everything - companionship, material goods, fun, moral support. But then, you’re in physical peril. To be saved, the other person must lose his life. One friend, chooses his life over yours; the other friend, out of love for you, actually desires to give up his life in order to save you. Which loves you most? The degree of God’s love becomes even greater when one contemplates that He did not have to do it that way, but did it so that we could know. cf John 15:13)
2. Recognizing the degree of God’s love for us increases the depth of our love for Him. Hence, God receives in return a greater response from us that will continue for all eternity (for Him and for us) - whereas the evils were only temporary.

Nita

 

[ateista]

Hmm…I think I misread your question. I thought you were asking about a situation in which God tolerates evil for the sake of greater good. In that case, the free-will example explains why God allows people to do evil, so that we can have the “greater good” of love.

Ok, let’s start it afresh. The example I am looking for is “to allow some evil to happen, which is logically necessary (as a prerequisite) for some greater good.”

The free will example is not sufficient, because love can exist in the absence of evil. Free will - as we agreed (I think) is necessary for both love and evil to exist (at least the moral evil). That is a given. However, from the existence of free will it does not follow (as a logical necessity) that evil will happen, what only follows is that evil may happen.

The point is this: to achieve some greater good (love) it is necessary to have free will. That is all.

Moreover, even if the moral evil would be a logical corollary of free will (and it is not) that would not be a good example, either. In this case the evil would be a consequence, not a logical prerequisite. You see the difference?

Now, a crude example: one can have a certain level of satisfaction (or good) if one is deprived of food for an extended period of time. This feeling of good logically presupposes the preceding hunger. So the “evil” of hunger is logically necessary for the good of later fulfillment.

The problem with this example that it cannot substantiate that the hunger-fulfillment sequence is “better” than the continuous satisfaction of being fed when the need arises. Personally, I would choose to be properly fed all the time. Besides, being hungry is not really “evil”, most definitely not in the moral sense. It is a lousy example, I admit. But I cannot find a real example. If I could, I would not have asked the question in the first place.

Are you asking for a situation in which God (not man) must do something that is actually intrinsically evil for the sake of a greater good?

No, I was not asking for that. Though in my opinion, to “allow” something to happen (omission) and to actually create something (comission) is not a valid dichotomy when applied to God. But let’s not get into this here.

Catholic theology recognizes different types of love (primarily eros, philios, and agape), with emotions playing different roles in different types. Newadvent.org has an article more in depth on this.

I don’t quarrel with this categorization.

While this might be the case in some situations, would you agree that it some cases it can be the result of a choice for selflessness?

Yes, I certainly do.

Here’s another example, with more time for reflection: Suppose an airline engine fails, and the plane begins its slow descent to the ground. They have about 10 minutes before impact. If they do not have enough parachutes for everyone, and someone chooses to give their one up for someone else, isn’t that love?

It could be. It all depends on the circumstances. If a parent gives up his parachute for his child, I would agree that it is love.

 

[ateista]

The first thing that comes to my mind is one of the first things that happened in human history!

God wished to allow the devil to tempt Adam and Eve knowing that with the free will He gave them, they would choose to sin. Considering the consequences, this is probably the second greatest evil God allowed in human history (the crucifixion, killing of Jesus/God, being the first greatest).

From these two great “evils”, God gains two greater goods.

1. An opportunity to show us more clearly and deeply the degree of His love for us - through the manner in which He would choose to save us.
   (To verify this, one has to imagine only on a human level. Say a couple of friends who help out in everything - companionship, material goods, fun, moral support. But then, you’re in physical peril. To be saved, the other person must lose his life. One friend, chooses his life over yours; the other friend, out of love for you, actually desires to give up his life in order to save you. Which loves you most? The degree of God’s love becomes even greater when one contemplates that He did not have to do it that way, but did it so that we could know. cf John 15:13)
2. Recognizing the degree of God’s love for us increases the depth of our love for Him. Hence, God receives in return a greater response from us that will continue for all eternity (for Him and for us) - whereas the evils were only temporary.

Nita

My analysis is different. God could have instantiated the world, where everyone always ejnoys the “beatific vision” (whatever that is) and everyone always would have been aware of God’s love - and would reciprocate it. No need for this roundabout and cumbersome way, which is much less “efficient”.

Therefore not only those “evils” were not necessary, they constitute a vastly inferior arrangement. Under the current scenario, fewer will enjoy the “beatific vision”, and many end up in hell (the vast majority of the humans - as many Christians believe).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

On several threads the problem of evil comes up. The theist defense to this problem is that even God, with his omnipotence cannot bring forth all the “good” things without allowing some evil to happen. …

Since you seem to think that since one possessing omnipotence is necessarily morally obligated to use that omnipotence to relieve all suffering, that the one possessing omnipotence who doesn’t relieve all suffering is evil, and no suffering, whether for a “greater good” or not, can be morally justified.

What you are asking for is impossible, because you have made it definitionally impossible to satisfy you.

So I ask you to present an example, where God wishes to bring forth a “greater good”, which is impossible to do without inflicting / allowing some “evil” to happen. …

The only restriction is that the sufferer and the beneficiary are the same. This is essential.

It would be morally impermissible to use a human being as a “tool”, or as a “means” to bring forth some good that benefits only others.

This is incorrect because God is capable of justifying ANY allowance of suffering by a greater reward than the allowed suffering.

It is NOT impermissible for God to use persons as tools. It is nearly impossible for God NOT to use persons as tools!

We are created to BE used as tools! Tools to show others the human consequences of sin.

Basic Catholic teaching asserts that human dignity prevents from using a human being as a “resource”.

You fail (yet again) to draw a distinction between the Creators will and His creatures wills.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

My analysis is different. God could have instantiated the world, where everyone always ejnoys the “beatific vision” (whatever that is) and everyone always would have been aware of God’s love - and would reciprocate it. No need for this roundabout and cumbersome way, which is much less “efficient”.

Therefore not only those “evils” were not necessary, they constitute a vastly inferior arrangement. Under the current scenario, fewer will enjoy the “beatific vision”, and many end up in hell (the vast majority of the humans - as many Christians believe).

Your analysis is faulty, because it simply ignores reality.

All you are really interested in is trying (unsuccessfully) to prove that God is not real. Why is He not real? Because if He were real He would have created the world “perfect”, and since He didn’t do that, He is either evil, which you (probably) have no evidence for believing, or nonexistent.

You find no need to account for reality, because you have no need (you think) for God.

Since suffering DOES occur, and the world is not “perfect”, yet God DOES exist as God, as known by us via the Church (Magisterium), suffering DOES have a purpose as made known by the Church.

Suffering and evil.

Suffering and evil.

Once your obvious misunderstandings are made explicit, it’s very easy to see that you’ve asked for an instance where: “1+1=3”, and that any further “discussion” with you is fruitless.

 

[Nita]

My analysis is different. God could have instantiated the world, where everyone always ejnoys the “beatific vision” (whatever that is) and everyone always would have been aware of God’s love - and would reciprocate it. No need for this roundabout and cumbersome way, which is much less “efficient”.

Yes, but those would be some other kind of beings - not human beings. I thought the question was about what really exists, about beings as God did create them, as we actually are - with a free will, intellect, etc. Are you implying that “programmed” beings (where some sort of reciprocation occurs without free choice, automatically so to speak) would constitute a higher level of existence? If so, I definitely disagree. What you describe would not be at all “efficient” in creating beings capable of loving as God loves.

Therefore not only those “evils” were not necessary,

They WERE necessary for there to be the relationship with God that He created us for - a loving relationship. You seem to be under the impression that love can exist and be expressed without free choice being a factor ("…where everyone would be aware of God’s love - and would reciprocate it".) The whole concept of love incorporates choice - freely choosing the other person. If the relationship doesn’t involve choice, it’s not love.

they constitute a vastly inferior arrangement

.Again, if you deal with the reality of our human nature, how we “know” things, Christ’s being crucified definitely communicates to us the degree of God’s love far more comprehensively than just an intellectual infusion of knowledge that He loves us.

Under the current scenario, fewer will enjoy the “beatific vision”, and many end up in hell (the vast majority of the humans - as many Christians believe).

You are assuming that there would have been such a thing as experiencing the beatific vision IF we had been created without free will. (I don’t think animals get to experience any sort of beatific vision-at least nothing that equates to the human experience.)

But, even if we accept your assumption that they could enjoy the beatific vision, the degree of enjoyment experienced by us (as God did create us) will be greater, since it is determined by the good we choose to do. There would be very little merit where we had no choice.

As to the last sentence, I’m not one who believes the vast majority will be in hell.

Nita

 

[Sarpedon]

Ok, let’s start it afresh. The example I am looking for is “to allow some evil to happen, which is logically necessary (as a prerequisite) for some greater good.”

Is it your contention that theists must provide an example? Catholics believe that God does not do anything evil at all, so all true evil is a result of the choices of man and their consequences.

It is important to note that what people sometimes consider evil is not in fact so when applied to God. For example, consider Job. God decided to take most of his earthly possessions away. This is not an evil action on God’s part, because He has the right to take those things away. Of course, to take those things away without reason, simply to cause suffering, would be unjust and evil. However, God took Job’s possessions away in order to strengthen Job’s faith. This is like a parent forcing his children to do chores to teach them discipline.

Just as different children respond to things differently and thus require different parenting techniques, God tries to influence us for good in the way that we are most likely to respond to. Presumably for Job, having his possessions taken away was something he would be inclined to respond too.

Note that not all suffering is caused by God, much is caused by the sinful actions of man, and that the above only applies to the sufferings God decides to give us.

I’m not sure I’m on the same page as you, so tell me if I am not.

 

[ateista]

Yes, but those would be some other kind of beings - not human beings.

Why not? According to Catholic doctrine “humans = soul”. They would have their free will just fine. Moreover, everyone would end up in heaven, and that is what God - allegedly - desires.

 

[Nita]

Why not? According to Catholic doctrine “humans = soul”. They would have their free will just fine. Moreover, everyone would end up in heaven, and that is what God - allegedly - desires.

But ateista, you’re talking about beings without free will - where the choice is not theirs, but programmed/controlled by God.

According to Catholic doctrine: Humans = body and soul
Soul = principle of physical life and principle of spiritual life

Spiritual life = intellect and free will

The soul part (of the human) in your hypothesis would not have the full principle of spiritual life that we have. They’d have intellect only, not free will – which would be a different soul from ours, and thus a different being.

Nita

 

[ateista]

Is it your contention that theists must provide an example?

No, of course not. No one is “obligated” to provide anything. I simply invite people to express their views. Anyone can decline to participate.

Catholics believe that God does not do anything evil at all, so all true evil is a result of the choices of man and their consequences.

Yes, I know that, but please understand that I do not accept this assertion without some arguments.

It is important to note that what people sometimes consider evil is not in fact so when applied to God. For example, consider Job. God decided to take most of his earthly possessions away.

I re-read the book of Job and my impression is quite different.

This is not an evil action on God’s part, because He has the right to take those things away.

Only based upon the “might makes right” principle. Just because God has the power to do so, does not make it morally acceptable.

Of course, to take those things away without reason, simply to cause suffering, would be unjust and evil.

And that is precisely what happened.

Job 2:3 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.”

“Incited me?” So God can be influenced? “Without any reason?” God’s own words!

However, God took Job’s possessions away in order to strengthen Job’s faith. This is like a parent forcing his children to do chores to teach them discipline.

No way. Not according to the Bible. It was a capricious act.

But the problems do not stop here. There were other beings affected by this “bet”. The animals, who are blameless in any sense of the word, and Job’s children, who were simply used as “tools” to bring misfortune and misery to Job. According to Catholic teachings, all human have innate “dignity” and to use humans as “teaching tools” deprives them of this dignity.

Note that not all suffering is caused by God, much is caused by the sinful actions of man, and that the above only applies to the sufferings God decides to give us.

Let me be more precise: “not all suffering is caused directly by God. Some of it is allowed or tolerated by God.”

I’m not sure I’m on the same page as you, so tell me if I am not.

Probably not. I will try to explain.

The “naive” version of criticising God’s benevolence would be that “a benevolent God would not allow pain and suffering”. That naive version is correctly criticised by asserting that not all pain and suffering is morally unacceptable.

The correct version is that a benevolent God does not allow “needless” or “gratuitous” suffering. That is a whole different ballgame. Any and all suffering allowed by God (if God is really benevolent) must have a greater good as a logical corollary of this pain and suffering, and this pain and suffering cannot be lessened without putting the greater good into jeopardy.

This is a mathematical requirement. It says that all the pain and suffering is logically required. Even if the pain and suffering would be lessened just a miniscule amount, the said greater good would not materialize.

This is not hair-splitting. We talk about God here, whose knowledge and power allow him to mete out the precise amount of pain and suffering to create some greater good.

Let’s not talk about the problem of Job, because it is not a good example, for the reasons I delineated above.

Let’s talk about a forest fire (which is not a moral evil) - but it entails a lot of pain. I will allow that maybe some greater good can be achieved by allowing it to happen. I have no idea, what, but I am being permissive here. For those pains to be morally justifyable, it is absolutely mandatory that each and every painful death is logically necessary to achieve the unspecified greater good. Even if just one insect would escape this painful death, the greater good would not materialize.

I cannot imagine such scenario. You may insist that God, in his infinite wisdom knows that if just one insect would be spared, the greater good would not happen. But I am sure you understand that my skepticism is very rational here.

 

[ateista]

But ateista, you’re talking about beings without free will - where the choice is not theirs, but programmed/controlled by God.

According to Catholic doctrine: Humans = body and soul
Soul = principle of physical life and principle of spiritual life

Spiritual life = intellect and free will

The soul part (of the human) in your hypothesis would not have the full principle of spiritual life that we have. They’d have intellect only, not free will – a different soul from ours, and thus a different being.

Nita

No, I don’t agree. According to the Catholic teaching the angels are purely “spiritual” beings, and yet they retain their free will. Likewise the human souls created directly in heaven would have their free will intact.

However, all this is really hair-splitting. Why would God create fallible “humans” when he could have created just the souls and spare all this “hustle”?

 

[Nita]

The correct version is that a benevolent God does not allow “needless” or “gratuitous” suffering. That is a whole different ballgame. Any and all suffering allowed by God (if God is really benevolent) must have a greater good as a logical corollary of this pain and suffering, and this pain and suffering cannot be lessened without putting the greater good into jeopardy.

Yes. (with the possible exception of how you define “gratuitous”)
The next threshhold is defining “greater good”.
That’s where the problem often lies for humans. They fail to view the “greater good” from a perspective that *encompasses a state of eternal existence * - they see only temporal/earthly consequences. God knows the greater good for each because He can see all of eternity; we cannot.

This is a mathematical requirement. It says that all the pain and suffering is logically required. Even if the pain and suffering would be lessened just a miniscule amount, the said greater good would not materialize.

This is not hair-splitting. We talk about God here, whose knowledge and power allow him to mete out the precise amount of pain and suffering to create some greater good.

Mathematical, logically required, (I’m not sure mercy, love, forgiveness, joy, etc. can be contained under the categories of mathematical and logical!) I’d also change the word “required” to “given”. It isn’t necessarily required; it may be given to us as an opportunity to grow spiritually and to merit greater eternal reward.

But I do go along with your premise that God’s “knowledge and power allow Him to mete out the precise amount of pain and suffering to create some greater good.” And, contrary to you, I believe that is exactly what He does. Our difference arises when it comes to acknowledging who is that is capable of defining and recognizing what the “greater good” is. I believe it is God (as do most who believe in God).
I think you consider the “greater good” must conform to the boundaries of your concept of reality - and to the line of your reasoning within those boundaries. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I know you are atheist, ateista. But your argument concerns God and His involvement in our human history according to Christian belief (I realize it’s only theoretical in your eyes). For an atheist, the highest logic is human logic; for someone who believes in God, there is a far greater logic, God’s “logic”.

Nita

 

[Nita]

No, I don’t agree. According to the Catholic teaching the angels are purely “spiritual” beings, and yet they retain their free will. Likewise the human souls created directly in heaven would have their free will intact.

???
Of course angels are purely spiritual beings - and they have intellect and free will. Same powers that humans have in their spiritual soul (only they have it in a different way - generally thought to be greater). And they had to use/exercise their free will to “choose” also. Some chose for God; some chose against (demons).

However, all this is really hair-splitting. Why would God create fallible “humans” when he could have created just the souls and spare all this “hustle”

He did create just “souls” - they’re called angels.
But, God evidently wanted humans also.
I think it’s absolutely fascinating to meditate on how God dreamed up “materiality”, “visibility”, etc. ---- a means to visibly manifest our souls. Awesome.

Nita

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Why not? According to Catholic doctrine “humans = soul”. They would have their free will just fine. Moreover, everyone would end up in heaven, and that is what God - allegedly - desires.

“Beings with free will” = (beings able to choose evil) = humans

"Beings with free will " != (beings not able to choose evil) != humans

Only humans can choose heaven-for-humans.

How would non-humans choose heaven-for-humans?

Now, how hard was that?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
Catholics believe that God does not do anything evil at all, so all true evil is a result of the choices of man and their consequences.

Yes, I know that, but please understand that I do not accept this assertion without some arguments.

It’s not an ASSERTION! It’s an AXIOM!

Axioms do not require “arguments”!!

What you are saying is, “I accept that you think your assertion is an axiom but I DEMAND that you treat it as an assertion so that I can force you to ‘disprove’ it!”

Why should we do what is not allowable to do to make your point for you?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
It is important to note that what people sometimes consider evil is not in fact so when applied to God. For example, consider Job. God decided to take most of his earthly possessions away.

I re-read the book of Job and my impression is quite different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
This is not an evil action on God’s part, because He has the right to take those things away.

Only based upon the “might makes right” principle. Just because God has the power to do so, does not make it morally acceptable.

God was right to take away what was not Job’s to have (which was everything but his very existence as a person) because it was God’s “possession”, and while it was in Job’s hands it was doing Job less good than it would do NOT in Job’s hands.

Having what was NOT his did Job less good than having it taken away from him. It did Job more good to have what was not his taken from him.

That is the point of the story. Since EVERYTHING is God’s, we can’t very well complain that we have some gifts taken from us. Our “suffering” in such a case is only our undue attachment to what is not ours.

The infant cries when he is given candy only to have it taken away, even though it is good for him to have it for only a short time .

The adult knows that “candy” is good for him for only a “short time”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
Of course, to take those things away without reason, simply to cause suffering, would be unjust and evil.

And that is precisely what happened.

Job 2:3 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."

“Incited me?” So God can be influenced? “Without any reason?” God’s own words!

Satan contended that people are only righteous when “times are good”

God knows better!

God knew that nothing whatsoever, no suffering however harsh, could make a “perfectly righteous man” turn from God.

So, God decided to let satan have his “fun”, and from satan’s “fun” came an even stronger faith in Job and his family.

God was not “influenced”. He allowed sin and brought out greater good than the evil inflicted. And He did so for a very good reason. To show that more good comes from evil than the evil allowed.