My atheist friend has stumped me

[Lisa44]

If your friend is an atheist then why is he asking for a biblical explanation?

 

[SwissGuard25]

My atheist posed this question to me the other day: “If God is so loving, fair, and powerful, why does He allow innocent children and babies to suffer from disease?”

I would have been able to answer the question if he asked why evil exists (free will, sin, etc.) but I myself began to have doubts with this one. Babies and children are innocent, and did not do anything to deserve painful and terminal diseases.

How would I give him an answer that he, an atheist, could understand?

Thanks,

Jake

God doesn’t allow it. Man does.

God gave us gifts and we refused them.
God doesn’t “allow” this because he doesn’t care God simply implies that all men are part of a “brotherhood” and we should help are brothers. Through prayer we can ask for God’s help and he will help guide us.

Also,
Suffering isn’t a form of punishment. We all have to suffer but not because God is mad at us and want’s us to pay, but because we all have are crosses to bare that would make us stronger, smarter, and more faithful.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon
**
Though, for the record - “We don’t know” remains a perfectly acceptable answer to any child’s big “Why” questions. And also has the benefit of being true.**

That would be your answer. My answer would be “We believe.”

The worst thing you can do to a child is to plant the seed of discouragement in him by saying we don’t know. That’s tantamount to saying what you really believe: which is that we are given over to the worms and that’s it.

Why do you think the atheist Christopher Hitchens fought death with such determination? He would rather be alive and in pain than food for the worms. What a horrible way to die, convinced that you and all your loved ones are ultimately food for the worms and nothing more.

Hopeless.

 

[ASimon]

ASimon
That would be your answer. My answer would be “We believe.”

The worst thing you can do to a child is to plant the seed of discouragement in him by saying we don’t know. That’s tantamount to saying what you really believe: which is that we are given over to the worms and that’s it.

If I wanted to terrify and disgust my child with the grim details of corporeal decomposition, believe me, I would do so. But admitting a fundamental reality of the human condition - that there are answers in this Universe we don’t know for sure - is at worst, only an artful dodge. But it does have the benefit of being true. And I think it’s a telling (and sad) commentary on the religious that this admission so unnerves them. That certain knowledge (even of things we can’t possibly know) is what should be preached to children in lieu of uncertainty.

Why do you think the atheist Christopher Hitchens fought death with such determination? He would rather be alive and in pain than food for the worms. What a horrible way to die, convinced that you and all your loved ones are ultimately food for the worms and nothing more.

Hopeless.

You present a false choice here. Hitchens would rather have been alive and healthy than food for worms. He fought death because he wanted survive his cancer and be well again, not because the finality of death so discouraged him. Would he have been content to live in hospital bed indefinitely, with no hope of getting well, barely able to speak, let alone write? I didn’t know the man, but I tend to doubt it.

In any event, the belief that your consciousness must live forever in order for life itself to have any meaning is fallacious.

 

[kbf1970060]

… the belief that your consciousness must live forever in order for life itself to have any meaning is fallacious.

Although, the topic of this thread is apart from what you assert, here, would you start a thread about this, the meaning of life, as a consequent of a soul’s immortality, being fallacious? I would be interested to understand your support for this. I am stating this with a National Public Radio interview in mind, with a “scientist”, from what I recall, who stated: life in, and of, itself is meaningless. We – he seemed to argue – give life meaning. (Unfortunately, I am neither able to recall the show, host / hostess, and guest, nor the date, and time.) Judaism, and Catholicism, argue toward the end, that life is meaningful. Both the plant, and animal, kingdoms possess souls. Although, an atheist may deny this: living beings in possession of souls, derive meaning from being created, as souls. The dignity of a person, rooted in the possession of a soul, as the image, and likeness of God, satisfied, and satisfies, our need among “religious” in broad terms, for meaning in our life. Although, the assertion, that Christopher Hitchens sought against death, life, and health, what basis existed for his will, if any such basis for will exists among atheists, to not seek life, as he was living in a biological sense, but health? Homeostasis at least, in part, extant for many of us, functions according to physiological, and anatomical, processes. The question attempted in light of this, what then, as a course of will, would establish life to be sought, and preserved, to the exclusion of a soul’s existence? I do ask this question with some trepidation, as I think, that to discourage others against finding meaning in their life, as a consequent of their existence, as a soul, would be destructive, and indifferent, toward life, toward the dignity of others. To my mind, this would suggest a lack of respect, for those at this site, and beliefs, rooted in human dignity.

 

[Spirithound]

My atheist posed this question to me the other day: “If God is so loving, fair, and powerful, why does He allow innocent children and babies to suffer from disease?”

I would have been able to answer the question if he asked why evil exists (free will, sin, etc.) but I myself began to have doubts with this one. Babies and children are innocent, and did not do anything to deserve painful and terminal diseases.

The circle of life, man! We humans think we’re at the top of the food chain, but there is a heck of a lot that will take us down.

More importantly, your friend’s question is in danger of veering into a world of “instant karma”. Ask him, in your next dialogue, at what age he thinks we could get our first illness, and God not be unfair and unloving?

 

[ASimon]

Although, the topic of this thread is apart from what you assert, here, would you start a thread about this, the meaning of life, as a consequent of a soul’s immortality, being fallacious? I would be interested to understand your support for this. I am stating this with a National Public Radio interview in mind, with a “scientist”, from what I recall, who stated: life in, and of, itself is meaningless. We – he seemed to argue – give life meaning. (Unfortunately, I am neither able to recall the show, host / hostess, and guest, nor the date, and time.) Judaism, and Catholicism, argue toward the end, that life is meaningful. Both the plant, and animal, kingdoms possess souls. Although, an atheist may deny this: living beings in possession of souls, derive meaning from being created, as souls. The dignity of a person, rooted in the possession of a soul, as the image, and likeness of God, satisfied, and satisfies, our need among “religious” in broad terms, for meaning in our life. Although, the assertion, that Christopher Hitchens sought against death, life, and health, what basis existed for his will, if any such basis for will exists among atheists, to not seek life, as he was living in a biological sense, but health? Homeostasis at least, in part, extant for many of us, functions according to physiological, and anatomical, processes. The question attempted in light of this, what then, as a course of will, would establish life to be sought, and preserved, to the exclusion of a soul’s existence? I do ask this question with some trepidation, as I think, that to discourage others against finding meaning in their life, as a consequent of their existence, as a soul, would be destructive, and indifferent, toward life, toward the dignity of others. To my mind, this would suggest a lack of respect, for those at this site, and beliefs, rooted in human dignity.

Don’t really feel like starting a separate thread, but happy to expand my argument a bit.

When the Faithful assert that without a belief in God (and therefore, a belief in an afterlife), life has no ultimate meaning or purpose, the subtext of this assertion is essentially this: Unless experience lasts forever, there’s just no point to any of it.

The reason I consider this fallacious is that it doesn’t map onto how we live our lives, day-to-day. What it would mean if we did live by that thinking is that there’s no point in reading a book with your free time, because all books eventually end. That there’s no point to watching a movie, because movies eventually end. And if you somehow find yourself in a position where you do end up watching a movie or reading a book, there’s no reason to choose one you think would be good over one you think wouldn’t be. Because after all, what’s the point?

Now, it’s clear (at least to me) that in no sense does this represent the way we think about the minutiae of our day-to-day lives, whether we believe in God or not. And I will say that, as an atheist - the belief that my consciousness has a shelf-life, and that someday it will blink out just as simply as it once blinked in, does not depress me or give me a feeling of hopelessness. Rather, it focuses me on the now. It makes life, at least in principle, unbelievably precious.

You question then, which essentially asks on what basis do we seek to experience life, to promote it, to maintain it, in the case that we’re not each individually ensouled and living an eternal life, is somewhat ill-posed, in my view. Rather, it’s a little like asking, “What evidence would you use to convince someone who doesn’t value evidence that they should value evidence?” The answer is, there is no evidence - if one person is to ever convince anyone of anything, it seems to me that respect for evidence must be presupposed going in. And if that benchmark can’t be met, the conversation is already over. And so it’s the same with the basis for life (or living). There really is none - it’s its own basis.

This does not preclude that certain people will at times, both for good and bad reasons, want to cease living, and even act on that impulse. It’s simply important that we recognize good reasons and bad reasons when we see and hear them. It’s possible to want the wrong things in life, and to seek those wrong things, to the great detriment of yourself and to others. It’s also possible that an honest disagreement over whether someone’s reasoning is good or bad may also arise. But nor does this render the whole topic open to equal influence from anyone’s subjective opinion. Two opinions might be of comparable positive value, but that doesn’t mean a third opinion can’t be clearly wrong.

 

[kbf1970060]

… I will say that, as an atheist - the belief that my consciousness has a shelf-life, and that someday it will blink out just as simply as it once blinked in, does not depress me or give me a feeling of hopelessness. Rather, it focuses me on the now. It makes life, at least in principle, unbelievably precious.

You question then, which essentially asks on what basis do we seek to experience life, to promote it, to maintain it, in the case that we’re not each individually ensouled and living an eternal life, is somewhat ill-posed, in my view. Rather, it’s a little like asking, “What evidence would you use to convince someone who doesn’t value evidence that they should value evidence?” The answer is, there is no evidence - if one person is to ever convince anyone of anything, it seems to me that respect for evidence must be presupposed going in. And if that benchmark can’t be met, the conversation is already over. And so it’s the same with the basis for life (or living). There really is none - it’s its own basis.

… Two opinions might be of comparable positive value, but that doesn’t mean a third opinion can’t be clearly wrong.

I agree: “consciousness” in uncertain terms, with a shelf-life, does force value on life. Although, as somewhat of an aside, it may place life into the category of a possession, which may lead to any number of interesting conclusion, with various implications.

My question – it may be as you say, ill posed – I do think, that in more specific terms, I am not quite asking one what basis do we seek to experience life, that may be rather plain, when our senses are considered, but what biologically, anatomically, would compell an animal to will its own existence?

I am thinking of stories, told not only by combat veterans, but nurses, and others: a man dies on a cot. On the cot next to him, a man lives. One man willed to live. The other willed to die. I am ignorant of other species, within the animal kingdom, whom will their own life to end. Those men on the cots, for the sake of example, assume have no differences to give reason, that one would be more willing, than the other, either to live, or to die.

You mentioned, reasoning, possibly with the assumption, that this conversation could turn as it has now, toward decisions. Reasoning in high-school terms, basic terms, involves belief, and either deduction, or induction, or both deduction, and induction. I may be less able, than yourself, to complete an endeavor to explain the existence of will, in terms of biological processes. To go back to your use of the word, “conscience”, which I will relate to the word “consciousness”, as similar in meaning, I wonder, and my thoughts turn, again, to your statement, life is its own basis for us to experience. If the broad meaning of this is true, the generalisation would be believable, that much of life, becomes supportive toward the end of living; although, we may arrive to the question initially asked in the first thread, what is the meaning of disease, living against the life of a child? Disease(es) have no ability to reason.

We have an ability to reason toward denial: number one is not an apple, but number two is an apple.

 

[Aizi]

I always thought that atheists should value life more, if they don’t believe in an afterlife–and yet they have a higher suicide rate. It might have to do with atheism’s being correlated with depression.

My atheist posed this question to me the other day: “If God is so loving, fair, and powerful, why does He allow innocent children and babies to suffer from disease?”

I would have been able to answer the question if he asked why evil exists (free will, sin, etc.) but I myself began to have doubts with this one. Babies and children are innocent, and did not do anything to deserve painful and terminal diseases.

How would I give him an answer that he, an atheist, could understand?

Thanks,

Jake

I think your error is in assuming that people in any way, “deserve” suffering, which is sort of implied in the fact that you stress babies. Suffering doesn’t come upon you because of “karma” or because you deserve it. If you look at the lives of the Saints and Jesus himself, none of them “deserved” to suffer–often just the contrary, and yet they suffered more than anyone. Suffering is not a moral failing in Christianity, it is morally neutral, an aspect of Earthly life that we attempt to deal with in our own ways–and its how that we react to and deal with this suffering (both our own and others) that can be good or evil. In the end, a disease is no different than being eaten by a wolf or being killed in a car accident.

I think the only time that people run into real issues with things like “the Problem of Evil” or “the Problem of Suffering” is when they try to force pagan ideas about suffering (ie, that they are a punishment) or evil (ie, that evil is supernatural in its origins) on a Christian framework. A lot of non-Christians do this intentionally, and some poorly educated Christians end up falling for it. From the beginning of humanity, we have known that children (along with the elderly and disabled) are some of the most vulnerable to disease, disasters, and accidents. They deserve all the more of our attention, protection and care. Unfortunately, we often don’t do as much as we could…

 

[culann]

I always thought that atheists should value life more, if they don’t believe in an afterlife
–and yet they have a higher suicide rate. It might have to do with atheism’s being correlated with depression.

Do you have any sources on this? This urban legend comes in quite handy because it goes along with ones religious convictions.
However, reality seems to be more complex than this. Studies I read said that strong believers and convinced atheists show the lowest depression rates.
It is lukewarm Christians and not-so-convinced atheists who show the highest rates of depression. Of course, the subject needs some more studies with a bigger sample group and a sound study design.

I think your error is in assuming that people in any way, “deserve” suffering, which is sort of implied in the fact that you stress babies.
Suffering doesn’t come upon you because of “karma” or because you deserve it. If you look at the lives of the Saints and Jesus himself,
none of them “deserved” to suffer–often just the contrary, and yet they suffered more than anyone. Suffering is not a moral failing
in Christianity, it is morally neutral, an aspect of Earthly life that we attempt to deal with in our own ways–and its how that we
react to and deal with this suffering (both our own and others) that can be good or evil. In the end, a disease is no different than
being eaten by a wolf or being killed in a car accident.

Hm, after reading Genesis with the punishment of Adam and Eve I got the picture that suffering is indeed a form of designated divine punishment.
However, I fully agree with you that suffering is an aspect of earthly life and our reaction to this suffering makes the differnce. As far as
I know the Buddha was the first person who recognized this. In the Bible I didn’t find anything similar so far.

I think the only time that people run into real issues with things like “the Problem of Evil” or “the Problem of Suffering” is when they try to
force pagan ideas about suffering (ie, that they are a punishment) or evil (ie, that evil is supernatural in its origins) on a Christian framework.
A lot of non-Christians do this intentionally, and some poorly educated Christians end up falling for it.

Hm, why isn’t this stated in the Bible then?

From the beginning of humanity, we have known that children (along with the elderly and disabled) are some of the most vulnerable to disease,
disasters, and accidents. They deserve all the more of our attention, protection and care. Unfortunately, we often don’t do as much as we could…

Absolutely. In fact, it was compassion and social behaviour what made us humans in the first place.

 

[jam070406]

Do you have any sources on this? This urban legend comes in quite handy because it goes along with ones religious convictions.
However, reality seems to be more complex than this. Studies I read said that strong believers and convinced atheists show the lowest depression rates.
It is lukewarm Christians and not-so-convinced atheists who show the highest rates of depression. Of course, the subject needs some more studies with a bigger sample group and a sound study design.

Hm, after reading Genesis with the punishment of Adam and Eve I got the picture that suffering is indeed a form of designated divine punishment.
However, I fully agree with you that suffering is an aspect of earthly life and our reaction to this suffering makes the differnce. As far as
I know the Buddha was the first person who recognized this. In the Bible I didn’t find anything similar so far.

Hm, why isn’t this stated in the Bible then?

Absolutely. In fact, it was compassion and social behaviour what made us humans in the first place.

Read Job.

 

[Spirithound]

Hm, after reading Genesis with the punishment of Adam and Eve I got the picture that suffering is indeed a form of designated divine punishment.

Not punishment, but natural consequence.

Hm, why isn’t this stated in the Bible then?

Read the Book of Job.

 

[jmoneyideas]

My atheist posed this question to me the other day: “If God is so loving, fair, and powerful, why does He allow innocent children and babies to suffer from disease?”

I would have been able to answer the question if he asked why evil exists (free will, sin, etc.) but I myself began to have doubts with this one. Babies and children are innocent, and did not do anything to deserve painful and terminal diseases.

How would I give him an answer that he, an atheist, could understand?

Thanks,

Jake

Watch this…very clear and your friend my actually find it interesting youtu.be/CvqWTx8ykzg

Father Barron is a great!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Watch this…very clear and your friend my actually find it interesting youtu.be/CvqWTx8ykzg

Father Barron is a great!

Eh. He articulates the point well, but there are some interesting points that the choir he is preaching to might not question.

1. He doesn’t appreciate the full extent of the omnipotence/omniscience/omni-benevolence argument. It does not only apply to suffering as in the case of Job. The full argument, I think, goes like this. When God set out to make the world, he would immediately know how any world he created would play out. He would also have the power to create any world, even one without evil. With this fore-knowledge and power, God still chose to create a world in which there was evil. That makes God at least complicit in the creation of evil: he new beforehand, could have prevented it, but did it anyway. Why would God make that decision? See point 2
2. He uses the analogy of God painting a masterpiece and says that the interplay of good and evil makes it more beautiful. This to me is fairly scary. It could potentially lead to the following conclusions:
   A. Evil is actually good. Why? Because if the presence of evil makes God’s work better overall, then God would have no reason to oppose it. Evil does not contradict God’s will, it actually fulfills it.
   B. God needs evil. Without evil, the world he created would not have been as beautiful.
3. Our free will is an important component in this equation. Many Christians say: we create evil because we have free will. However, for that to be satisfying, we must also believe that free will inevitably leads to evil. If free will does not inevitably lead to evil, then we are still left with the question “why didn’t God create a world with free will and without evil?” If evil is an inevitable consequence of free will, then when God gave it to us, he essentially created a time bomb of evil. That, I am quite sure, is incompatible with omni-benevolence.
4. Invoking Job will not satisfy an atheist, and it should barely satisfy religious people. The story of Job is a story of faith. The lesson God teaches is: “You can’t understand this, deal with it.” The book of Job essentially tells us to stop asking questions and take the compatibility of omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence on faith.

 

[jam070406]

Eh. He articulates the point well, but there are some interesting points that the choir he is preaching to might not question.

1. He doesn’t appreciate the full extent of the omnipotence/omniscience/omni-benevolence argument. It does not only apply to suffering as in the case of Job. The full argument, I think, goes like this. When God set out to make the world, he would immediately know how any world he created would play out. He would also have the power to create any world, even one without evil. With this fore-knowledge and power, God still chose to create a world in which there was evil. That makes God at least complicit in the creation of evil: he new beforehand, could have prevented it, but did it anyway. Why would God make that decision? See point 2
2. He uses the analogy of God painting a masterpiece and says that the interplay of good and evil makes it more beautiful. This to me is fairly scary. It could potentially lead to the following conclusions:
   A. Evil is actually good. Why? Because if the presence of evil makes God’s work better overall, then God would have no reason to oppose it. Evil does not contradict God’s will, it actually fulfills it.
   B. God needs evil. Without evil, the world he created would not have been as beautiful.
3. Our free will is an important component in this equation. Many Christians say: we create evil because we have free will. However, for that to be satisfying, we must also believe that free will inevitably leads to evil. If free will does not inevitably lead to evil, then we are still left with the question “why didn’t God create a world with free will and without evil?” If evil is an inevitable consequence of free will, then when God gave it to us, he essentially created a time bomb of evil. That, I am quite sure, is incompatible with omni-benevolence.
4. Invoking Job will not satisfy an atheist, and it should barely satisfy religious people. The story of Job is a story of faith. The lesson God teaches is: “You can’t understand this, deal with it.” The book of Job essentially tells us to stop asking questions and take the compatibility of omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence on faith.

You’re leaving out the part that God came into the world He created. He became incarnate. God became man so man could be partakers in the Divine.

 

[fred_conty]

@ASimon, you mentioned; “I’ve been told my entire life that God is capable of healing the mortally ill.”

That is true, and He will heal all of us, for everyone on earth needs healing of some kind. And if we are not perfect, then there is something wrong which must be amended. Is anyone ever really happy with who they are and what they have and where they are and what the future holds for them? I have never met anyone which fits that description. We are all defective. If we look at suffering from one angle, it necessarily brings up consideration of all the other angles of suffering as well. We are all miserable more or less to some degree, greater of lesser. God did not say that He would fix everything now. I don’t recall that He ever said that in the Bible or anywhere else for that matter. With one exception. That He would fix everthing when we die in hls love and bring us to his house in paradise. Then there would not be so much as a tear. He promised those that listened to his voice that He would make it up to them many many many times over for being faithful now. And when He does this suffering which we all are going thru, will seem as nothing, and will never never never be unhappy again. His death on the wooden cross puts meaning into his promises. Whatever happens to those poor babies He will more that make up, for He is all just and all loving.

Just a thought of comfort for those who believe, and anyone can believe.

 

[Aizi]

Do you have any sources on this? This urban legend comes in quite handy because it goes along with ones religious convictions.
However, reality seems to be more complex than this. Studies I read said that strong believers and convinced atheists show the lowest depression rates.
It is lukewarm Christians and not-so-convinced atheists who show the highest rates of depression. Of course, the subject needs some more studies with a bigger sample group and a sound study design.

Oh I see, my study indeed shows that it is a lack of religion which correlates to suicide, but some “strong atheists” tend to act like they are a religion in and of themselves. Here are the studies I know of, for the record:

Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide.

mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/76/12/1225.full.pdf

Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder.

ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

Hm, after reading Genesis with the punishment of Adam and Eve I got the picture that suffering is indeed a form of designated divine punishment.
However, I fully agree with you that suffering is an aspect of earthly life and our reaction to this suffering makes the differnce. As far as I know the Buddha was the first person who recognized this. In the Bible I didn’t find anything similar so far.

Your name says you are Catholic, have you read the Bible? It’s all over the place. Job in particular is the most famous for detailing the struggles of a fundamentally good person with suffering–and the whole idea that even when you suffer terribly, you are still obligated to be a good person and to love God. On top of that, there is the suffering of Jesus Christ, our Blessed Mother, St. John the Baptist, the Apostles as well! And it isn’t like Catholic thinking stops with Scripture, look at the Saints, many of whom wrote on the benefits of their own suffering, both that inflicted by others and that which came about as a part of being in nature–like illness or cancer, and using that, coupled with the sufferings of Jesus Christ, for the purification of their own souls and for helping others.

Buddhism still as far as I know views suffering as an entirely negative thing, and not something which can be used for your own good or for the good of others. Then again, I am not an expert.

Hm, why isn’t this stated in the Bible then?

Both of these are stated in the Bible–the idea that evil itself is fundamentally human is in Genesis, where all of creation is willed inherently good, and then it is the disobedience of humanity which introduces evil–the suffering is a consequence of the removal of God’s grace which is fundamentally not compatible with human sin (or the deliberate rejection of God). If you look at pagan or polythestic creation myths, evil is always introduced by the gods as a supernatural force on its own.

And as two other posters mention, the whole theme of Job is that suffering is not confined to those “bad people” who have bad “karma” or any other similar ideas which are popular in pagan sects. Good people who love God suffer as well, and it does not remove your obligations for being a good person. Moral goodness is not always going to be rewarded in this world. It won’t make you rich or allow you to live a longer life, on the contrary. If anything it is often the best people which suffer the most, in this world.

It’s only people who take the idea of “karma” or supernatural evil and then impose it on Christianity where you run into issues like the idea of a suffering child.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You’re leaving out the part that God came into the world He created. He became incarnate. God became man so man could be partakers in the Divine.

That is 2B. God needed evil in order to carry out that plan.

 

[Aizi]

1. Our free will is an important component in this equation. Many Christians say: we create evil because we have free will. However, for that to be satisfying, we must also believe that free will inevitably leads to evil. If free will does not inevitably lead to evil, then we are still left with the question “why didn’t God create a world with free will and without evil?” If evil is an inevitable consequence of free will, then when God gave it to us, he essentially created a time bomb of evil. That, I am quite sure, is incompatible with omni-benevolence.

Firstly, “omni-benevolence” is not a term that is used in Catholic thought, as far as I know. Correct me if I am wrong.

Anyway, the ability to choose evil, and then choosing good instead, is exactly what good is. Good isn’t “good” unless you have the option to do evil as well. God can will evil, but he only wills goodness. Likewise, for any humanity to choose goodness, they need the option to do evil. Someone who is unable to do evil isn’t really “good”. If creating that is a “time bomb of evil”? No, because through the grace of God, goodness still triumphs in the end–and there are still those who are strong enough to have never committed any actual sin. If anything it is a time bomb of goodness and love. Where sin increases, grace abounds all the more.

1. Invoking Job will not satisfy an atheist, and it should barely satisfy religious people. The story of Job is a story of faith. The lesson God teaches is: “You can’t understand this, deal with it.” The book of Job essentially tells us to stop asking questions and take the compatibility of omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence on faith.

Well no. It does have Faith as a component, but imho, the much much stronger idea of Job is that good people suffer, and that you shouldn’t be good out of hope for a reward, but rather that goodness itself has inherent value. And that those who suffer do not always deserve it, and to say so is rather cruel. Likewise, to say that there should be a form of retributive justice and that virtue itself should result in Earthly rewards is short-sighted.

Job at the end has lost most of his Faith. He accuses God of causing wickedness. But he holds onto his Virtue. Job is a very powerful and influential work in monotheism as a whole, it’s thought provoking and emotional, and not at all a tidy statement. But it is a must read imho.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Firstly, “omni-benevolence” is not a term that is used in Catholic thought, as far as I know. Correct me if I am wrong.

Perhaps, basically it means that our understanding of “all (infinitely) good” does not match God’s actions

Anyway, the ability to choose evil, and then choosing good instead, is exactly what good is. Good isn’t “good” unless you have the option to do evil as well. God can will evil, but he only wills goodness. Likewise, for any humanity to choose goodness, they need the option to do evil. Someone who is unable to do evil isn’t really “good”. If creating that is a “time bomb of evil”? No, because through the grace of God, goodness still triumphs in the end–and there are still those who are strong enough to have never committed any actual sin. If anything it is a time bomb of goodness and love. Where sin increases, grace abounds all the more.

Having the option is separate from actually doing it. God could create a world where no one ever invented lacrosse but I don’t think people in that world would say that their free will was impeded. Say, for example, Adam and Eve were the only people to exist. There are then 2 possible worlds God could have created: one in which they sinned, or one in which they did not. Would Adam and Eve be anymore free in one world vs the other? I contend they would have an equal amount of free will regardless of the outcome. Why then would God create the one in which they sinned?

Well no. It does have Faith as a component, but imho, the much much stronger idea of Job is that good people suffer, and that you shouldn’t be good out of hope for a reward, but rather that goodness itself has inherent value. And that those who suffer do not always deserve it, and to say so is rather cruel. Likewise, to say that there should be a form of retributive justice and that virtue itself should result in Earthly rewards is short-sighted.Job at the end has lost most of his Faith. He accuses God of causing wickedness. But he holds onto his Virtue. Job is a very powerful and influential work in monotheism as a whole, it’s thought provoking and emotional, and not at all a tidy statement. But it is a must read imho.

Sure, there is more to Job than just this, but I was talking about the relevance of Job to the problem of evil.