Problem of Evil [3]: Testing and the Afterlife

[Neithan]

[Cont’d. from Problem of Evil [2]: The Justice Defense ]

The Testing Defense
God allows evil — suffering — to test us, so that we can show the strength of our faith in adversity.

• If God is all-knowing, he should already know who will remain faithful when tested. If he doesn’t know, then he is not all-knowing; but if he does, then he is inflicting unnecessary suffering and is not perfectly loving.

Does the Testing Defense contradict God’s omniscience or perfect love?

Eschatological Defense
Suffering in this life is of no consequence because justice will be accomplished in the afterlife, where the innocent will be rewarded and the guilty punished.

• “Justice delayed is justice denied.” A promise of future happiness does not negate the suffering of the present, and moral goodness requires an immediate response to evil.

Even if there is a Heaven with ultimate reward for the righteous: How does a perfectly loving God allow them to suffer in the first place? Doesn’t inaction toward evil contradict perfect love?

 

[Vico]

… he is inflicting unnecessary suffering and is not perfectly loving. …

It assumes that the purpose is to test rather than the actual sharing in divinity through cooperation with grace.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

387 … Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another. …

460 The Word became flesh to make us " partakers of the divine nature ": …

Q. Doesn’t inaction toward evil contradict perfect love?
A. There is not inaction toward evil since God gives grace that all can remain free from doing moral evil. The Holy Trinity allows humans to participate (partakers of the divine nature) through free will and they may suffer voluntarily for the sake of charity.

 

[Inquiry]

Whenever we tackle issues like these it is especially important to watch for the assumptions we are making. Often there are extra ones that we aren’t aware are there.

For instance:

Eschatological Defense
Suffering in this life is of no consequence because justice will be accomplished in the afterlife, where the innocent will be rewarded and the guilty punished.

• “Justice delayed is justice denied.” A promise of future happiness does not negate the suffering of the present, and moral goodness requires an immediate response to evil.

Setting aside that the rebuttal substituted a slogan for an actual argument… is the “suffering” of the present unjust? A child would certainly think that an injustice is happening when they are denied a cookie. A parent knows that however much the child feels they are suffering, it is a necessary part of the path to becoming a temperate and self-controlled adult.

Likewise, the argument itself makes the tacit assumption that in the afterlife the innocent will be rewarded and the guilty punished. That is not the Christian promise. If it were, Mary and Jesus would be the only members of mankind to be in Heaven; after all, they are the only two innocents.

So watch carefully to see if the arguments are accidentally cutting off avenues of thought we should be taking.

 

[Neithan]

A. There is not inaction toward evil since God gives grace that all can remain free from doing moral evil.

What about so-called natural evil?

Likewise, the argument itself makes the tacit assumption that in the afterlife the innocent will be rewarded and the guilty punished.

You’re right, there are a lot of assumptions and equivocations. Would you say that God allows suffering to teach us something? That’s one of the writer’s next few defenses, under the “greater good.” It seems like all the defenses to PoE eventually fall under that umbrella, even Aquinas used it.

 

[Wesrock]

That’s one of the writer’s next few defenses, under the “greater good.” It seems like all the defenses to PoE eventually fall under that umbrella, even Aquinas used it.

I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but just my thought on this comment. “The Greater Good!” isn’t an answer as to whether it’s in contradiction to God’s nature. The Thomist theodicy first shows it is not in contradiction with God’s nature, then it gives arguments (e.g. the greater good) about how a world with deficiencies can be superior to one without, or why such deficiencies in the created order may be called for/appropriate.

 

[Neithan]

What would St. Thomas have made of the above two defenses, I wonder? They do seem like “popular theodicies” that we hear often from other Christians. The atheist author here considers Job to be an example of the Testing Defense; and the Good Samaritan as a counter-example to the Eschatological Defense, since he is good because he acted immediately without delay.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

A. There is not inaction toward evil since God gives grace that all can remain free from doing moral evil.

What about so-called natural evil?

Likewise, the argument itself makes the tacit assumption that in the afterlife the innocent will be rewarded and the guilty punished.

You’re right, there are a lot of assumptions and equivocations. Would you say that God allows suffering to teach us something? That’s one of the writer’s next few defenses, under the “greater good.” It seems like all the defenses to PoE eventually fall under that umbrella, even Aquinas used it.

Catholic Encyclopedia states it this way:

With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds — physical, moral, and metaphysical. Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists.
…
By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation. Such action, when it proceeds solely from ignorance, is not to be classed as moral evil, which is properly restricted to the motions of will towards ends of which the conscience disapproves.
…
Metaphysical evil is the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world. Through this mutual limitation natural objects are for the most part prevented from attaining to their full or ideal perfection,
…
the apparent disorder of nature is really no disorder, since it is part of a definite scheme, and precisely fulfills the intention of the Creator; it may therefore be counted as a relative perfection rather than an imperfection.
…
by permitting moral evil to exist He has provided a sphere for the manifestation of one aspect of His essential justice

Sharpe, A. (1909). Evil. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

 

[Inquiry]

I would say that suffering is a natural product of our will and God’s will being in conflict. Since they are in conflict any path towards reconciliation of the two will involve suffering. That does not mean the suffering teaches us to be in alignment, per se, as the path away from reconciliation must also involve suffering. It does mean that suffering is an requisite part of learning to be in alignment with God.

If you want an analogy, a broken bone badly healed can only be fixed by breaking it and setting it again. The breaking does not teach the body how to properly move the limb again, but it is necessary for the body to even learn.

 

[o_mlly]

God allows evil — suffering — to test us, so that we can show the strength of our faith in adversity.

I think the premise is incorrect. We are in the trial; not to be tested but to be “wounded healers” (Nouwen).

If we cannot be sinners then neither can we be saints. So, God gifts free will to mankind. Still, God wills all men to come to salvation. God permits evil in order that He may bring a greater good out of the evil, i.e., the sanctification of the sinner through repentance and conversion, the sanctification of the offended through the gift of forgiveness.

Does God will to save us in and through community? Yes, the sinner who offends and repents and the offended who forgives both work toward the sanctification of self and other through reconciliation.

Suffering in this life is of no consequence because justice will be accomplished in the afterlife, where the innocent will be rewarded and the guilty punished.

No, I think suffering has immediate positive consequences in this life. First, it focuses the afflicted from the distractions of the world to first things. Second, it provokes in others acts of charity. Both the afflicted and the healer bring each other closer to God.

 

[Freddy]

[Cont’d. from Problem of Evil [2]: The Justice Defense ]

The Testing Defense
God allows evil — suffering — to test us, so that we can show the strength of our faith in adversity.

• If God is all-knowing, he should already know who will remain faithful when tested. If he doesn’t know, then he is not all-knowing; but if he does, then he is inflicting unnecessary suffering and is not perfectly loving.

Does the Testing Defense contradict God’s omniscience or perfect love?

Eschatological Defense
Suffering in this life is of no consequence because justice will be accomplished in the afterlife, where the innocent will be rewarded and the guilty punished.

• “Justice delayed is justice denied.” A promise of future happiness does not negate the suffering of the present, and moral goodness requires an immediate response to evil.

Even if there is a Heaven with ultimate reward for the righteous: How does a perfectly loving God allow them to suffer in the first place? Doesn’t inaction toward evil contradict perfect love?

Do we really need three separate threads for this? Most of the questions (and answers) cross over between the various subtopics.

 

[Neithan]

Thanks for the feedback. I wanted to discuss each of the theodicies to see if they work on their own. As you can see I combined these two in one topic. If a moderator wants to combine all of the threads together I’d be fine with that; but I’ll add another topic with the author’s four “Greater Good” theodicies still.

If I had written each of them out in multiple posts at the top of one thread that would also seem excessive and the idea of seeing if any of them work without reference to the others would be too confusing.

 

[Freddy]

Thanks for the feedback. I wanted to discuss each of the theodicies to see if they work on their own. As you can see I combined these two in one topic. If a moderator wants to combine all of the threads together I’d be fine with that; but I’ll add another topic with the author’s four “Greater Good” theodicies still.

If I had written each of them out in multiple posts at the top of one thread that would also seem excessive and the idea of seeing if any of them work without reference to the others would be too confusing.

Fair enough. But neither defence in this op references the suffering by everything in nature apart from Man. I can’t see how you can ask the question when it only applies to us. Notwithstanding that mankind was part of that all encompassing nature at some point before reaching our current position.

How can you exclude nature from the question?

 

[Neithan]

How can you exclude nature from the question?

Then I guess you have a pretty straightforward response. These two defenses fail, in your view, because they don’t consider the suffering of other creatures. God cannot “test” natural creatures that are not capable of faith, because faith is supernatural. And Heaven is also supernatural.

Let’s say that the natural world, as in, every creature that is made entirely of physical substance, is determined. In that case, how could any suffering be “unnecessary”? It’s all necessary as part of the way it is designed. You could respond that God could actualize a world without any pain or suffering at all; while you might consider that world better — does that necessarily mean that ours is bad?

As for justice, since natural creatures that are all operating deterministically can not do other than they act according to their nature, they are not moral agents, and justice is not at issue.

 

[Freddy]

Let’s say that the natural world, as in, every creature that is made entirely of physical substance, is determined. In that case, how could any suffering be “unnecessary”? It’s all necessary as part of the way it is designed. You could respond that God could actualize a world without any pain or suffering at all; while you might consider that world better — does that necessarily mean that ours is bad?

I’m not sure why you’re saying ‘let’s assume the world is determined’. Either God has designed it thus or He hasn’t. The latter option opens up the biggest can of worms imaginable. So I’d assume you go with the former.

Now let’s say that world was vegetarian. We have ‘designed’ lab created protein that replaces meat. There would be no need to kill an animal for us to eat. Factory farming ceases. Aboittoirs close. Hunting is a thing of the past. No animal needs to be raised simply as food. No lambs slaughtered. No chickens beheaded. No pigs getting their throats cut.

Would that be a better world? I’d suggest yes. And that anyone who then went out to deliberately tear a living animal to death for food would have his actions considered as morally reprehensible. So to actually design a system whereby it’s a requirement to do so would be equally reprehensible. That it’s other animals doing it to each other doesn’t make it right.

For an omniscient deity, the fact that God has decided that the only way a vast percentage of creatures that have ever lived over millions of years to be able to continue their existence is to kill another of God’s creatures, often in ways that cause terrible suffering, is no different.

 

[Neithan]

If existence is not a good in itself; that is, if it is better never to exist at all than to exist and suffer, then it’s clear that none of the defenses so far work for animals.

What if animals experience more pleasure and comfort in their lives than pain and suffering, overall? Is the violence still incompatible with a perfectly loving God? Is there some limit to the amount of pain and suffering that is acceptable? Or no pain and suffering at all? (What is the difference exactly between pain and suffering? I’m trying to avoid a continuum fallacy).

 

[Freddy]

If existence is not a good in itself; that is, if it is better never to exist at all than to exist and suffer, then it’s clear that none of the defenses so far work for animals.

What if animals experience more pleasure and comfort in their lives than pain and suffering, overall? Is the violence still incompatible with a perfectly loving God? Is there some limit to the amount of pain and suffering that is acceptable? Or no pain and suffering at all? (What is the difference exactly between pain and suffering? I’m trying to avoid a continuum fallacy).

Are you suggesting that there might be some divinely inspired scales whereby we can balance pleasue v pain? That if the antelope has x number of days cavorting through grassy meadows and enjoying whatever it is that antelopes enjoy then it’s then ok to say: ‘Right, that now equates to be ripped apart alive. Your time is up. Can we have the lion here please’.

This ‘It’s better to be alive than not, therefore suffering needs to be included into the equation’ is not the most facile argument that’s ever been proposed to me. But it’s pretty close.

 

[Neithan]

Supercilious hand waving. Caricature it as “divinely inspired scales” but considering modal logic and feasible worlds I’m surprised you’ve never encountered these questions.

 

[Neithan]

It does seem inconsistent with perfect love; God doesn’t need anything from us.

If evil and suffering are of no consequence, neither are moral and good acts.

It would be that the moral and good acts (or evil acts) in this life determine who goes where in the afterlife.

 

[Freddy]

Supercilious hand waving. Caricature it as “divinely inspired scales” but considering modal logic and feasible worlds I’m surprised you’ve never encountered these questions.

I 've encountered these questions many times. And that particular response is by far the weakest argument I’ve ever been given (and not just by you - it’s been offered before).

It’s not a million miles away from arguing that it’s ok to mistreat someone as long as you make it up to them later.

 

[Neithan]

OK if you want to quote an answer you’ve given elsewhere, please do; but don’t simply dismiss the questions unless you’re not interested in continuing the discussion.