Problem of Evil (again): Logic [intro]

[Abrosz]

And it glosses over one major point. God isn’t a human being, nor a rational animal, nor even really a being in comparison to other beings, and it just assumes that to be good God has the same natural obligations humans have.

Sorry, this is just a rehashing of the old “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” approach. However, the expressions of “loving” and “caring” cannot mean something diametrically different when used in conjunction with God… because then they have no meaning.

Moreover, even if we have very different knowledge and power, we are supposed to have been created in God’s “image”… which would mean to be “moral” beings.

Beating up or allowing to beat up someone is equally unallowed (morally) whether it is performed of allowed by a human or God. The problem is that the believers argue that we have the necessary information to worship God, but but we are not allowed to criticize God. (See officer #5: Brainiac)

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

One of the fundamental difficulties of discussing the problem of evil with atheists is they reject the afterlife, so the suffering of this world is all they see.

So, as a Christian who believes in the afterlife, I’m operating on a whole bunch of assumptions that are different from my atheist debate partner.

Suffering on this earth doesn’t really disprove God.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

And it glosses over one major point. God isn’t a human being, nor a rational animal, nor even really a being in comparison to other beings, and it just assumes that to be good God has the same natural obligations humans have.

Sorry, this is just a rehashing of the old “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” approach. However, the expressions of “loving” and “caring” cannot mean something diametrically different when used in conjunction with God… because then they have no meaning.

Moreover, even if we have very different knowledge and power, we are supposed to have been created in God’s “image”… which would mean to be “moral” beings.

Beating up or allowing to beat up someone is equally unallowed (morally) whether it is performed of allowed by a human or God. The problem is that the believers argue that we have the necessary information to worship God, but but we are not allowed to criticize God. (See officer #5: Brainiac)

No. God is not just a more powerful human being, and the errors extend to gross misconceptions of goodness in general. There is a common core which is analyzable between both God and man and which is not above scrutiny, but it is a categorical error to extend human moral obligations to God. Human moral obligations are neither divine commands nor eternal laws, but rooted in what it is to be human.

 

[Neithan]

Make a new topic and we’ll look at each officer in excruciating detail. Come on it’ll be fun! Do it!

 

[Abrosz]

No. God is not just a more powerful human being, and the errors extend to gross misconceptions of goodness in general.

Beating a child to bloody pulp cannot be called loving when it is performed (allowed) by God. The words “loving” and “caring” cannot mean something diametrically different when they are applied to God.

Until you realize that, there is no reason to continue.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

No. God is not just a more powerful human being, and the errors extend to gross misconceptions of goodness in general.

Beating a child to bloody pulp cannot be called loving when it is performed (allowed) by God. The words “loving” and “caring” cannot mean something diametrically different when they are applied to God.

Until you realize that, there is no reason to continue.

Whenever you want to stop obstinately appealing to emotion and engage in a rational discussion about is good and what is evil, make a topic.

 

[rfournier103]

I was confronted once with something similar.

The argument was in a nutshell: “if God is omnipotent, why would he create people he knows will commit evil acts?”

I found it to be quite thought provoking.

Thankfully, I am rock solid in my belief in and commitment to God and his Holy Church, so I was un-phased by this attack on the Lord. It actually motivated me to look at Catholic apologetics vs. Atheists. Until then, I had only concerned myself with apologetics vs. Protestants - which is almost useless where I live in the greater Boston area where most people are either Catholic (or nominally Catholic) or Atheists/Nones. Hardcore anti-Catholic Protestants are hard to come by here. I guess that’s a good thing.

Anyway, apologetics vs. Atheists is tricky because there is no common ground to use as a starting point. At least when witnessing to Protestants, we have a shared Bible - differing translations notwithstanding.

I think in the future we Catholics will need to be better versed in philosophy to combat Atheism and save their souls, whereas at least a non-Catholic Christian believes in Christ, so there’s always hope. We all know what a flat-out rejection of the Messiah will get you.

Heavy metal rocker and born-again Christian Dave Mustaine once made a GREAT point that I can’t believe more people don’t take to heart. He said, "I would rather believe in God and then find out that there isn’t, than NOT believe in God and then find out that there is.

 

[MPat]

What if we swap out the word “evil” for “suffering” (which is what the author does for most of the theodicies) — does that change anything essential about the argument?

Not really. There is still no obvious reason why “now” is supposed to be the deadline for eliminating suffering.

Beating a child to bloody pulp cannot be called loving when it is performed (allowed) by God. The words “loving” and “caring” cannot mean something diametrically different when they are applied to God.

Until you realize that, there is no reason to continue.

But humans also have no duty to stop evil or suffering (including “beating a child to bloody pulp”) at all costs.

For example, let’s say that something like that is happening right now in somewhere in United States, in some big city. It is not very implausible, given that USA is a big country and that many of its cities are not very orderly right now. So, do you really want to say that the President has a duty to destroy all the major cities of his own country with nuclear weapons in order to stop that evil? That everyone else has a duty to demand that the President would do so?

After all, a nuclear strike would stop and prevent many evils: bullying, looting, police brutality etc.

So, are you going to make such, um, uncommon demands, or are you going to admit that no such unlimited duty to prevent evil at any costs exists for humans, and, therefore, that there is nothing inconsistent in saying that God has no such duty either?

I have offered a couple of additional scenarios in another thread (God permitting evil - #9 by MPat).

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The Holy Trinity could not logically eliminate moral evil and also allow for sharing in the divine nature,

Is that not the exact state of affairs in heaven?

No sin will be committed in heaven because the Beatific Vision is obtained. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1045 and 1060.) The person in the heavenly state has been crowned with victory having been confirmed in charity.

 

[kapp19]

@Wesrock is crushing it, as usual.

I’ve perused this blog - it is like candy… almost every line is full of sweet, sweet error, to such an extent it’s like an intellectual vacation; anywhere you look, there’s a familiar error.

God has no obligations - He is the terminus of obligation, morality’s standard and rule. The natural law is the participation of creation in the Eternal Law, bound up with the Word through Whom all those things were created. The Wisdom of the Cross manifests the interior logic of Divine Love - and therefore, what “goodness” actually is in itself as attainable by rational, animal creatures - it involves glorification through suffering, a process of purification (even for the perfect), a movement towards the Father - this is life in the Holy Spirit, Love Himself…

Happy Trinity Sunday - a perfect time to think on such things.

-K

 

[FiveLinden]

in my view it’s best to focus on evil/badness in general, then, once that’s established, specific examples of suffering can be looked at in context.

So how would you, in context, explain the fact that literally uncounted numbers of non-humans have suffered painful lives and agonising deaths over hundreds of millions of years each with no hope whatsoever of any sort of countervailing eternal life and eternal bliss? I see the ‘problem of pain’ as discussed by most CAFers as ignoring the obvious insurmountable problem for Christians: the pain experienced by animals.

 

[o_mlly]

I see the ‘problem of pain’ as discussed by most CAFers as ignoring the obvious insurmountable problem for Christians: the pain experienced by animals.

Animals and humans know pain but only humans know suffering.

Definitions that relate God, evil, pain and suffering:

• God is Good.
• Evil is not-God
• Evil is not Good
• Pain is a bodily sensation that perceives some disorder
• Sensory beings perceive pain
• Suffering is a cognitive disposition of some disorder
• Only rational beings suffer
• God is the cause of order in creation
• Evil is the cause of all disorder in creation
• Evil is the cause of pain and suffering

The difficulty in the concept of evil as not-God is akin to discussing black as a non-color. What more can be said?

The atheist’s argument, I think, resonates if we substitute the effects of evil, i.e., suffering, an effect all experience. Properly understood, the argument turns to its opposite conclusion, i.e., God exists.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The person in the heavenly state has been crowned with victory having been confirmed in charity.

In English please.

You do not understand the phrase “crowned with victory” or is it “confirmed in charity”?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1274 … The faithful Christian who has “kept the seal” until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life “marked with the sign of faith,” 87 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.

 

[Abrosz]

For example, let’s say that something like that is happening right now in somewhere in United States, in some big city. It is not very implausible, given that USA is a big country and that many of its cities are not very orderly right now. So, do you really want to say that the President has a duty to destroy all the major cities of his own country with nuclear weapons in order to stop that evil?

Very bad example. The responsibility for stopping evil is commensurate to the knowledge and the power of the agent. Obviously if the agent does not know about the “evil”, or powerless to stop it, there is no responsibility to do so. But, of course you assert that God is “all-knowing” and “all-powerful”, so these excuses are invalid.

After all, a nuclear strike would stop and prevent many evils: bullying, looting, police brutality etc.

So, are you going to make such, um, uncommon demands, or are you going to admit that no such unlimited duty to prevent evil at any costs exists for humans, and, therefore, that there is nothing inconsistent in saying that God has no such duty either?

The action must be commensurate to the deed. A nuclear strike is excessive. But all God has to do is, is to “will” that the evil would stop.

I have offered a couple of additional scenarios in another thread (God permitting evil ).

Ah, the usual “free will” defense. Again, the extent of freedom must be considered. After all the “excuse” for the free will is, that God wants us to love (aka. worship) him freely, and that cannot happen is we are “forced” to love him. Which is also nonsensical. NOT loving God does not logically entail to be cruel to other humans.

Animals and humans know pain but only humans know suffering.

Really? If you burn a dog even just once, it will learn to escape if it can. That is an exhibit of fear and as such fear of suffering.

Definitions that relate God, evil, pain and suffering:

Your definitions are unacceptable.

“God is good” is an unfounded proposition. To quote Forrest Gump: “Good is as good does”.
“Evil is not-God”. also not true. Evil is to intentionally causing gratuitous or unnecessary harm to a sentient (feeling) being.

 

[Anesti33]

“Evil is not-God”. also not true. Evil is to intentionally causing gratuitous or unnecessary harm to a sentient (feeling) being.

Ah, I see you are attempting to define “moral evil”. You have not included “natural evil” in your definition: natural evil describes such things as suffering from illness, accidental injury, damaging storms, fires, and other Acts of God.

 

[Abrosz]

Ah, I see you are attempting to define “moral evil”. You have not included “natural evil” in your definition: natural evil describes such things as suffering from illness, accidental injury, damaging storms, fires, and other Acts of God.

Of course not. Natural “evil” is an oxymoron. These are “bad”, but not “evil”. No one would call the cat’s “playing” with a mouse an “evil act”. By the way, don’t you find it amusing that the expression of “acts of God” always refers to some calamity or disaster?

 

[Anesti33]

One thing we need to keep in mind as Christians is that we must have a “view for eternity” and keep all things in perspective according to God’s scale of time.

The OP’s logic does not account for the fact that God has eliminated evil and God is constantly eliminating evil in the world. From the point of Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection, He has been redeeming the world; redemption is a process, therefore to impatiently insist that evil be removed “now, now now!” is to lose sight of eternity, when Christ will come again, placing all enemies under His feet, and Heaven and Earth will be recreated, and every tear will be wiped away.

We await the blessed hope of those days, and we don’t presume to tell God that he’s failed because it is not already accomplished in our timescale.

 

[Wesrock]

Anesti33:

Ah, I see you are attempting to define “moral evil”. You have not included “natural evil” in your definition: natural evil describes such things as suffering from illness, accidental injury, damaging storms, fires, and other Acts of God.

Of course not. Natural “evil” is an oxymoron. These are “bad”, but not “evil”. No one would call the cat’s “playing” with a mouse an “evil act”. By the way, don’t you find it amusing that the expression of “acts of God” always refers to some calamity or disaster?

It depends on your use. Some people use “evil” exclusively as a moral term, or to describe some arbitrarily level of excessive “badness”, or only for something that has malevolent intent. That’s not universal, though. Badness and evil are interchangeable terms, and moral evil just a subset of evil/badness in general.

 

[Anesti33]

Since this is the Catholic Answers Forums, Philosophy section, I would hope that we could precisely define our terms according to what Catholic philosophers have used, and ‘moral evil’ and ‘natural evil’ and ‘evil’ are precisely defined by moral theologians that we should not be messing about with trying to impose our own meanings.

 

[Abrosz]

It depends on your use. Some people use “evil” exclusively as a moral term, or to describe some arbitrarily level of excessive “badness”, or only for something that has malevolent intent. That’s not universal, though. Badness and evil are interchangeable terms, and moral evil just a subset of evil/badness in general.

I am “picky”, and prefer to use precise terms. The expression “natural evil” is still an oxymoron. Is the lack of rain in the Sahara “evil”? Is the excessive rain “evil” for the cactus plants? Is the lack of rain “evil” for the impatient flowers?

No, “evil” and “badness” are NOT interchangeable. “Badness” is a biological term, “evil” is a “moral” term.

Of course I don’t hope that these incorrect phrases will disappear just because rational people point out that they are incorrect.