Problem of Evil (again): Logic [intro]

[MPat]

Antelopes eat grass. Lions eat antelopes. They are both perfectly suited for both. Antelopes have a physiology that is best suited to eating grasses and the lion for tearing and eating flesh.

Now there are two options. Either they evolved as such and we accept the result as simply the way the natural world works, or we claim that they were designed thus. I go with option 1. If someone goes with option 2 then they have to come to terms with that fact.

We can then skip all the moral implications of free will and personal responsibility and how we define evil and what constitutes goodness. Just explain option 2.

There are several simple solutions.

One family of solutions would suggest that evil is not as severe, as you think. For example, we can ask: while antelope being eaten by lion feels pain, does it actually “suffer”? How can we be sure?

Another family of solutions would suggest how that evil would be compensated. For example, one of solutions is that existence is already such a great good that it is sufficient to compensate all that suffering. So, overall the antelope still “profited”. Another solution would give some sort of afterlife to animals as well. For example, maybe the natural happiness of unbaptised babies in (hypothetical) Limbo includes petting all those animals.

As you can see, at least some possible solutions exist. And all we need is one solution. You would have to rule out every single of them, including the ones I didn’t think of. That, um, does not seem to be a very promising approach…

 

[Neithan]

Just explain option 2.

I think @Wesrock did that pretty well above, and to his credit it’s a condensed explanation of scholastic ideas.

 

[Freddy]

There are several simple solutions.

One family of solutions would suggest that evil is not as severe, as you think. For example, we can ask: while antelope being eaten by lion feels pain, does it actually “suffer”? How can we be sure?

Another family of solutions would suggest how that evil would be compensated. For example, one of solutions is that existence is already such a great good that it is sufficient to compensate all that suffering. So, overall the antelope still “profited”. Another solution would give some sort of afterlife to animals as well. For example, maybe the natural happiness of unbaptised babies in (hypothetical) Limbo includes petting all those animals.

As you can see, at least some possible solutions exist. And all we need is one solution. You would have to rule out every single of them, including the ones I didn’t think of. That, um, does not seem to be a very promising approach…

Just let me get this straight…

You solutions include the fact that animals being eaten alive don’t really suffer (no problem in beating my dog to death then). And that being eaten alive is more than compensated for by having existed in the first place (does that include us?). And they could end up in some kind of heavenly petting zoo for babies in limbo (not sure I can think of a sensible repsonse to that).

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

We Catholics understand our existence as …

God created us, loves us and is continually inviting us into relationship with Him.

 

[Freddy]

We Catholics understand our existence as …

God created us, loves us and is continually inviting us into relationship with Him.

Which doesn’t guarantee you a place in heaven. But I assume you believe He created all life. Red in tooth and claw. And is responsible for His design.

So claws are designed for holding down prey whilst the canine teeth are designed for tearing flesh.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

That’s a fair enough question.

And I never claim to know the answer, because none of us know the answer to why innocent people suffer.

What I’m going to say next is not an answer, not even a little bit, but it is an insight.

If we were to picture God as up there amusing Himself at our expense, it would be immeasurably cruel.

But we believe in Emmanuel (God with us), who took on human form and suffered alongside us everything that we suffered.

So, while I don’t understand the “why”, I feel comfortable that there is a why which is beyond my comprehension.

This might not work for everyone. It works for me.

 

[MPat]

You solutions include the fact that animals being eaten alive don’t really suffer (no problem in beating my dog to death then).

The main reason why animal cruelty is wrong has little to do with animals suffering. First of all, it is wrong because it violates our, human, nature, because cruelty as such is a vice. For example, see “Summa Theologiae”, First Part of the Second Part, Question 102, Article 6 (Summa Theologica): “For the same reason they were forbidden to eat animals that had been suffocated or strangled: because the blood of these animals would not be separated from the body: or because this form of death is very painful to the victim; and the Lord wished to withdraw them from cruelty even in regard to irrational animals, so as to be less inclined to be cruel to other men, through being used to be kind to beasts.”.

I’d say that even “Teddy Bear cruelty” would be somewhat wrong, although it is pretty clear that Teddy Bears do not suffer.

For more details about such solution one can look at, for example, one Twitter thread (

https://twitter.com/x/status/1264487206711951360

) or some writings by William Lane Craig (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/animal-pain-re-visited).

And that being eaten alive is more than compensated for by having existed in the first place (does that include us?).

So, what value would you assign to existence, life, and to suffering? How would you make a “profit/loss statement” for that antelope? And how would you justify it?

And they could end up in some kind of heavenly petting zoo for babies in limbo (not sure I can think of a sensible repsonse to that).

Something tells me you think this solution might be a bit far fetched, unlikely to work.

And you know, that is fine by me.

After all, we only need one (1) solution to work. A hundred, thousand, million of solutions that fail does not matter: if there is just one that does work (even if we haven’t actually thought of that single one), your argument fails.

And it is very likely that many such possible solutions exist. After all, I did not look for them in a very systematic and exhaustive fashion, which would make sure I would catch every single of them. And they are pretty dissimilar.

 

[Dan_Defender]

And I never claim to know the answer, because none of us know the answer to why innocent people suffer.

I would say that evil is necessary for human free will to exist. Jesus said that is is necessary for temptations to come, so obviously free will is implied. However, we endure and offer our suffering to God, in imitation of Jesus. The argument of suffering of animals doesn’t apply IMO as animals do not have immortal souls.

 

[Freddy]

And it is very likely that many such possible solutions exist. After all, I did not look for them in a very systematic and exhaustive fashion, which would make sure I would catch every single of them. And they are pretty dissimilar.

Then maybe you could come up with some better ones if you put some time to it. ‘Animals don’t suffer’, ‘at least they had some quality time before being eaten alive’ and ‘they’ll end up in pet heaven’ don’t impress me much.

 

[Freddy]

That’s a fair enough question.

So, while I don’t understand the “why”, I feel comfortable that there is a why which is beyond my comprehension.

This might not work for everyone. It works for me.

And that’s a fair enough answer. At least you recognise that there is a problem to be answered. Most others would deny the problem exists in the first instance.

 

[DickTracy]

My thought is that evil needs a place to land and doesn’t exist without man. When we get lazy in our thoughts and deeds we are giving evil a place to land. Staying with God is my protection, but I find myself continually screwing especially in being accountable for my thoughts (ie concupiscence).

 

[DickTracy]

Even pagan Marcus Aurelius wrote to, “Live as Nature Requires.” I suppose that is what he meant without knowing the true transendental meaning?

 

[DickTracy]

I know God will place me where I deserve to be.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Do you believe the Catholic Church’s teaching about the angels? and fallen angels? Catholics would not agree with this statement.

Evil is a choice to not choose the full good. God doesn’t create evil. That would make Him evil…We choose via free will to do things that are not in accordance with God’s will out of imperfect knowledge or base selfishness or both. Evil exists as a consequence/possibility of free will but never of itself. Evil is like imperfection, I say this because God only creates good and evil just twists that image that God intended.

 

[MPat]

‘Animals don’t suffer’, ‘at least they had some quality time before being eaten alive’ and ‘they’ll end up in pet heaven’ don’t impress me much.

Yes, that is right, they do not impress you.

But why should anyone care? Yes, “anyone”, even you.

Is there a reason to think that you are especially good at recognising a good solution intuitively?

For you have not been able to find an actual argument showing that those solutions are self-contradicting or impossible. Therefore, intuition is all you can base this rejection on.

After all, logically there is no obvious reason why you have to find the solution sufficient. It is only necessary that God finds it sufficient.

And, as I have pointed out, it does not matter if any specific solution has a low probability of working. There are many of possible solutions, and if only one of them works, that is sufficient.

In fact, as long, as it hasn’t been proved that every single solution fails (and such a proof seems to be pretty unlikely to be constructed, given how different they are), arguments based on “Problem of Evil” will fail to give a certain conclusion. At most you can try to get a probabilistic conclusion, but, um, I am not sure anyone has actually tried that.

 

[Magnanimity]

Wow Wes, that was a wonderful summation of the Thomistic understanding of being/goodness. I can only hope quite a few read through it all. Great to see some good old-fashioned Thomism up in here!

These considerations only discuss reasons why a world with badness in it may be superior, under specific considerations of what goodness is and why God created, than a world without such diversity.

It fascinates me to no end that this world is just bad enough to be unacceptable, which makes many of us wish for Heaven (or release from samsara, as the case may be) but just good enough for most of us to hang around till the end and try to better ourselves and those important to us in the process.

Rather, we must view love as doing and willing the good of another, and insofar as God acts and freely and selflessly gives being to other things he is willing the good. His eternal action is itself willing his own being and that of creatures. In this way God’s act of love transcends any ability of ours.

God’s love can transcend, but it cannot be wholly “other” than what we understand to be love. The analogy of being and act must obtain when predicating things about God. Loving those important to us is what humans do, it’s part of their essence (formal cause). There could never be and will never be a “time” when God ceases to will the good of humanity. God doesn’t merely cause us to be (the act of existing), God causes us to be as we are. What is it to be a human? It would take too long to lay it all out, but let’s state the obvious ones, like the Aristotelian insight that every human art, inquiry, act and pursuit is aimed at some good. Add to that the intrinsic (inalienable) dignity that humans bear (imago dei). God made us for himself (Augustine) and the beatific vision is the natural final end of man (Aquinas).

 

[Magnanimity]

But one last aspect of humanity must be enumerated here–it’s that all humans exist, grow and develop, relationally. Humans only ever exist communally. This is brutally obvious in early human development where the mother-child relation is fundamentally reciprocal and the two persons become intertwined with one another such that their very identities get wrapped up in each other (where does the consciousness of the young child end and that of the mother begin? no one could say.) Their personhood and their very consciousnesses are co-identified and entangled.

It is very likely that for all persons (to include the Divine Person) relationality is properly attributable. Truly, “no man is an island.” Persons only ever exist in relation to others.

He wills things to be as they are, to have their natures, and to operate according to their natures. And insofar as those natures are fulfilled they are good.

Quite so. But, this brings up the trajectory toward which it is all heading, let’s say it’s Heaven where all evil/badness is redeemed and/or shown to have eventuated in a “greater good.” So far it’s a wonderful theory and many folks could get behind it. But, then the Latins had to go and get attached to the most bizarre of all theories–a “final end” of man where he is forever frustrated of his natural destiny and the end for which he was created–a future state of existence in which the rational animal bearing God’s image perpetually suffers in inescapable torment. And God permits this to be so for no discernible “final cause” beyond itself. Suffering for the sake of what, precisely?

It seems evident to me that the restoration of all things is the only fitting end to this beautiful Thomistic picture you’ve articulated. Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas believed that special revelation tied their hands into asserting eternal-Hell. Many Greek-speaking Fathers felt no such compulsion from the NT in its original language. I think the only way forward for a complete addressing of evil is to unite Eastern and Western thought for a fulfilling picture. The picture given to us by St Thomas gets us so very far, but falls terribly flat right at the very end with humanity being ripped apart into eternal Heaven and eternal Hell, where the simplistic us vs. them dualism continues to hold sway and plague humanity. No, I don’t think so, Wes. For all its glory, the Thomistic picture is incomplete.

 

[Wesrock]

Thank you for the kind comments. I do think you overstate the favor universal restoration has been shown by the Greeks. As far as I know, it has always been a minority position. Various Greek saints throughout history have condemned it, and at times have called Gregory of Nyssa mistaken, or asserted that those who read universal restoration into him are incorrectly projecting an Origen-like reading upon his writings, or even asserted that the writings of St. Gregory on universal salvation are forgeries or interpolations. And I say this only to relay various opinions on universal restoration I’ve seen in Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox/Eastern saints and theologians, based on the original Greek, hold to an eternal view of Hell, whether that be because it’s painful for those who’ve rejected God to be in his presence or (similar to Catholics) because of a separation from God. [Edit: I want to add I’m not so much debating whether it is correct or incorrect here. But the Latins are not the only ones to “go and get attached to the most bizarre of all theories”, which is what you’re calling the majority Greek opinion, too.]

I think my arguments above (starting in post# 72) are sufficient to show that God is under no obligation for men to obtain their final end in him. Doing so or not in no way increases or decreases his perfection or goodness. The punishments of Hell are for those who’ve rejected the eternal good, who lack charity in their hearts, and eternally continue to will evil, and the punishment of such things is a sufficient good in itself. Whether or not you agree with that justification, though there really seems to be no way around it for those who believe in an eternal Hell… again, I feel I’ve already demonstrated that God’s perfect goodness is not lessened.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

‘Animals don’t suffer’, ‘at least they had some quality time before being eaten alive’ and ‘they’ll end up in pet heaven’ don’t impress me much.

Yes, that is right, they do not impress you.

But why should anyone care? Yes, “anyone”, even you.

Is there a reason to think that you are especially good at recognising a good solution intuitively?

For you have not been able to find an actual argument showing that those solutions are self-contradicting or impossible. Therefore, intuition is all you can base this rejection on.

After all, logically there is no obvious reason why you have to find the solution sufficient. It is only necessary that God finds it sufficient.

And, as I have pointed out, it does not matter if any specific solution has a low probability of working. There are many of possible solutions, and if only one of them works, that is sufficient.

In fact, as long, as it hasn’t been proved that every single solution fails (and such a proof seems to be pretty unlikely to be constructed, given how different they are), arguments based on “Problem of Evil” will fail to give a certain conclusion. At most you can try to get a probabilistic conclusion, but, um, I am not sure anyone has actually tried that.

OK. We’ll go with one of the solutions for the problem of evil as being: Animals that are eaten alive go to pet heaven.

If anyone ask, I’ll mention you as the author. Problem solved.

 

[FiveLinden]

The only reason we can say God would create, given that creation does not add to him of his goodness or beatitudes, is simply that he wills to manifest his goodness in creation and to share it with creatures.

So thank you @Wesrock for an interesting response to my question:

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.

First of all I don’t think you have clearly made a response to the question which was about the pain experienced by virtually all non-human living things capable of pain. How could an all-loving and all-powerful God create or allow such a thing?

Your response suggests in a number of ways that if God did it it must be good since, if I get the logic, God can do no other. I have of course no response to this, since there can be no response to such an argument any more than one could respond to an argument that ‘God did not will it, we just don’t know why he let’s it happen’ or ‘God only makes it look like animals feel pain, in fact they are experiencing pleasure’. We can all construct these ‘no defence’ arguments but they are not, in my view, rational. They introduce ideas that contradict observed reality.

There is also the problem of scripture. The author(s) of Genesis clearly saw the existence of animal pain to be a problem in relation to the goodness of God because they included a picture of a pre-fall state in which every living thing was vegan:

(Gen 1:29) “And God said: ‘Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed–to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.’ And it was so”.

It was only after the fall that things began to eat each other.

But the best expression of the problem comes from none other than Charles Darwin:

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [parasitic wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”

I respect an appreciate the effort you have gone to in responding to my post but feel that, in summary, you are simply saying ‘it’s a mystery’. Given the enormity of the pain and suffering we are talking about I don’t feel that is argument enough, if you are to maintain that God is both all good, and all-powerful.