Problem of Evil (again): Logic [intro]

[Wesrock]

True. But he was without peer (possibly still is) as a meticulous and neutral observer of how things work in the natural world. If someone is as filled with wonder at the natural world as he was and is unable to see in its working evidence of an all-knowing and all-loving God it is most certainly worth noting.

I don’t agree.

You could help me understand the clear line of reasoning if you explain Darwin’s problem: in what way can the actions of a parasitic wasp on a caterpillar flow from an act of ‘goodness’ or of ‘love’ for the creature who will be eaten from the inside out and unable to fulfil the ‘natural role’ you believe has been assigned to it?

While not to be read independently of the posts that preceded it, I spoke very specifically as to how God’s act of creation is seen as good and loving in post# 76.

I attempted to outline this in more detail in that string of posts awhile back, but goodness as such is obedience to nature, or we could call it the actualization of the being’s ends. And I fully believe that this is (with some reflection) both plausible and intuitive from the point of reason.

Moving on, the wasp is a kind of being. Insofar as it instantiates its kind and engages and fulfills the ends its kind is ordered to achieve (including the hunting of prey), it’s being is good as an attributive property. In fact insofar as the wasp would be unable to fulfill its ends in this respect it would in fact be a bad wasp suffering from some deficiency in its nature.

When the wasp preys on the caterpillar it is in fact a good wasp that has actualized/fulfilled it’s own tendencies. The wasp is good in itself and instantiates this by carrying out its nature. This is true even as a physical evil befalls the caterpillar. This doesn’t make the wasp evil, it has simply acted in accordance with its nature. Even as a physical evil befalls the caterpillar, insofar as it retains what ends and operations are natural to its nature, it remains good. Insofar as any being’s nature is actualized, it is good.

The reply to the part quoted above continues in the next post…

 

[Wesrock]

God wills that these things have beings and that they operate according to their nature, even as reality is set up with secondary causes and competing systems that interfere with each other, all of them ordered on some level towards fulfilling their ends. I already laid out in my previous string of posts why God has no obligation to ensure there are no deficiencies/privations within creatures, and such why such things is not in contradiction to his own actuality and fulfillment of his own end. Furthermore insofar as God wills a thing has being and is in any way operating according to its nature, he is (since fulfillment of ends/obedience to nature is what goodness is) willing the good of that creature, and he does so for all things in the natural order. Furthermore, from an intelligible (and not emotional) perspective “to love” is to will the good of another. And on top of that all God himself is neither fulfilled nor decreased by creating, therefore he obtains nothing from his creative act. Therefore God wills the good while not receiving any type of benefit or fulfillment from doing so. This action is truly self-less in the most accurate definition of the word (even human altruistic acts in some way result in the fulfillment and actualization of that person’s highest ends, meaning that even a self-sacrifice human action is in some way reciprocal (and I don’t claim that is a bad thing at all, it just stands in contrast to God’s action)).

I ask this not to argue but out of genuine interest in how you could come to the conclusion that the creation of such creatures is an act of love, or that it is in some way ‘good’ that they have these experiences as a result of original sin, for which they are not responsible.

The first part I already attempted to address in the prior paragraph. As for original sin, that’s neither here nor there at this time. This is simply an approach from natural philosophy, a secular theism that isn’t making appeal to any type of scripture or revelation or authoritative teaching as a proposition for its arguments.

 

[Wesrock]

And the@Wesrock explanation that (in my summary) all that God does is good [contradicts] observed reality in that we see bad things happening to non-human animals all the time. Therefore if God did it, observed reality is that God did something that is not good. This logic is of course rejected on a priori grounds by Catholics who are forced to say either that God is not responsible for the observed reality, that our observations are wrong, or that for reasons we cannot comprehend, our understanding is wrong. As a non-believer I refer to rely on observed reality being real.

(1) God is responsible.
(2) Our observations are not wrong that things that are bad for living things happen to living things…
(2a) But this is not in contradiction to divine goodness when goodness as such is understood (for intuitive and plausible reasons) as obedience to nature and understanding the nature of God’s creative act.
(3) I never said that some people’s understanding is wrong for reasons that can’t be comprehended.

 

[antoniog]

Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

 

[FiveLinden]

When the wasp preys on the caterpillar it is in fact a good wasp that has actualized/fulfilled it’s own tendencies. The wasp is good in itself and instantiates this by carrying out its nature. This is true even as a physical evil befalls the caterpillar. This doesn’t make the wasp evil, it has simply acted in accordance with its nature. Even as a physical evil befalls the caterpillar, insofar as it retains what ends and operations are natural to its nature, it remains good. Insofar as any being’s nature is actualized, it is good.

Forgive me if I attempt to zero in on what I think the point of difference is between us rather than matching your detailed exposition of your views.

I am not saying that the wasp, or its actions, are ‘evil’ or that what happens to the caterpillar is ‘good’ or ‘not good’ measured against anything to do with God. I do not believe in God. I am saying that the caterpillar experiences pain and prolonged suffering.

Are you saying that the pain and suffering of the parasitised caterpillar is ‘good’ and could therefore be willed by an all-loving God?

I understand that philosophically you think it is ‘in its nature’ for the caterpillar to be parasitised and in the nature of the parasite to do so. I of course do not believe in ‘natural law’.

But if this is ‘natural law’ and ‘in the nature of these things’ how could it be willed, and still less created, by an all-loving God.

(Incidentally my mention of original sin was to differentiate Catholic teaching on suffering and pain by humans and suffering and pain by animals).

 

[Freddy]

(1) God is responsible.
(2) Our observations are not wrong that things that are bad for living things happen to living things…
(2a) But this is not in contradiction to divine goodness when goodness as such is understood (for intuitive and plausible reasons) as obedience to nature and understanding the nature of God’s creative act.
(3) I never said that some people’s understanding is wrong for reasons that can’t be comprehended.

Goodness is obedience to nature? I think you’d be better off with ‘I don’t know’.

Let’s first agree that being torn apart and eaten alive is ‘a bad thing’. There are lots of ways to shuffle off this mortal coil, but that one should rank well down on a list of preferred options that anyone might make. And we aren’t simply talking about animals. We are actually talking about your direct ancestors. Because it’s as sure as God made little green apples that you have countless numbers of them that met an end that was not the preferred option. And that’s because a lot of animals are carnivores. They eat meat. And unless it’s already dead, they will kill it. It a somewhat basic manner. Lots of blood and screaming will ensue.

So we’re all good so far?

Now it will be your contention that all creatures great and small are God’s work. As it says in the hymn, He made them all. But part of the design is that there is a food chain. And those further up feed on those further down. Lucky us, we’re generally at the top. And again I will emphasise that it is part of the design. It is God’s will that it is so.

So to say that it’s good that a wasp lays it’s eggs inside another living creature or a lion will tear apart an antelope is to say nothing more than ‘if this is the way that God designed it, it must therefore be good’. So why this flitting about the periphery when that’s all that needs to be said?

Which leads on to the second point. Which is ‘How can something so terrible be described as good?’. Well, apart from the semantic nonsense that claims that something is good because it fulfills it’s function (one that God designed, so we don’t forget), the answer is, because we are mere mortals and cannot fathom the mind of God, even though it appears to any sane person to be a catastrophically bad idea, we don’t know.

So again, in summary, however you put it, the answers remain exactly the same as the ones I posted a little upstream: It’s good because God designed it thus. And we have no idea why.

Some people seem to baulk at accepting that. But they have a problem as there aren’t any other answers available.

Edit: And it appears that @FiveLinden beat me to it by literally a couple of minutes with pretty much exactly the same point.

 

[FiveLinden]

Edit: And it appears that @FiveLinden beat me to it by literally a couple of minutes with pretty much exactly the same point.

Sorry to slip in there Freddy! We do seem to have similar views.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

I just read the first post and if it’s as you portrayed, there is contradiction between an all loving God and the necessity to destroy Evil that exists. An all loving, all knowing God surely would know Evil destroys itself. So, He wouldn’t be concerned or preoccupied.

Atheists are odd folk, I always find them to be very fundamentalist in their thinking as well as overly moralistic and willing to turn to self-righteous indulgence. So, again just removing religion doesn’t mean the personality traits that are the most abhorrent are removed from it.

Again, I’m a naive sort of Catholic who would hope Evil could be turned around, atheists seem to think destruction is loving. But, again I do recognize Evil exists but it is rare.

 

[o_mlly]

Let’s first agree that being torn apart and eaten alive is ‘a bad thing’.

No can do. John 6:48-58.

 

[Magnanimity]

There is no part of me that says: ‘this is not how it should be’. But you’d have to be pretty hard hearted not to feel some emotion in watching an animal being eaten alive. We don’t just empathise with members of our own species.

That is mostly what I mean by a reaction of “not how it should be.” I’m referring to the common, human existential/phenomenological reaction that we all have to these occurrences. Beauty and goodness compel us. Ugliness and evil repulse us. These are not controversial statements. They are descriptive of normal human reactions. They are data. Your reaction to the animal suffering is not unique, iow, it’s universal (common).

I submit to you that evil is most certainly a problem for you, as it is for everyone. This world is just bad enough to make us often shake our heads at it and think to ourselves, “there’s got to be a better way.” And this insight, that there is something fundamentally amiss about the world, is incorporated into all major world religions. Atheism, by contrast, presumably has little, if anything, to say on the matter.

What do you do with this insight/awareness, as an atheist? As Paul Tillich (famous Protestant theologian) once argued, to even be aware of the possibility of a better world is to already be beyond this current world, in some sense. There is no way to escape this transcendental move. You’ve already done it.

And the problem for theists is that they tend to accept that the world is exactly as God has planned it… But for Chrisitans it becomes a conundrum. Is God responsible? Is He not? Either way there’s a problem to be solved.

Can you articulate the “problem” a little more? Or point me to a reply you’ve given within this thread where you’ve done so. I’m suggesting to you that it’s a problem for everyone. Our universal existential reactions to the world quite obviously being less-than-ideal is a problem. What accounts for it? Why would we all react this way?

 

[Magnanimity]

Ummm - it’s a problem for the gazelle who suffers. The gazelle committed no sin and has no prospect of eternal life. How could an all-loving and all-powerful God create this situation?

I don’t know where you’re getting this idea. It’s true that Catholics here on CAF are very self-referential–they tend to only think of the afterlife in terms of their own individualized selves and God. However, not a few very famous church fathers envisioned a total restoration of all things, in the end. Even a writing at the end of the Bible (Revelation) suggests that the end of things will be a “new heaven and a new earth,” restored and perfected, presumably to include flora and fauna.

 

[FiveLinden]

FiveLinden:

Ummm - it’s a problem for the gazelle who suffers. The gazelle committed no sin and has no prospect of eternal life. How could an all-loving and all-powerful God create this situation?

I don’t know where you’re getting this idea.

I get this idea from the very clear Catholic teaching that only humans have immortal souls and that other living things do not have eternal life.

 

[FiveLinden]

Freddy:

Let’s first agree that being torn apart and eaten alive is ‘a bad thing’.

No can do. John 6:48-58

Hmmm - not sure of the relevance, but the ‘Bread of Life’ is available only to human living things and not to the ones referred to by Freddy.

 

[goout]

My problem with the topic is the selectiveness of the worldview.
There is a problem holding a loving God accountable for evil, but not holding God accountable for good?
How can that be?

 

[o_mlly]

Hmmm - not sure of the relevance, but the ‘Bread of Life’ is available only to human living things and not to the ones referred to by Freddy.

If God wills to be eaten alive then being eaten alive cannot be a “bad thing” for any creature.

 

[Magnanimity]

I get this idea from the very clear Catholic teaching that only humans have immortal souls and that other living things do not have eternal life.

I think you may have gotten a bit ahead of yourself on this one, or someone here led you to believe something rather odd. Some times it is simplest to let the Catechism do the talking:

1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. the universe itself will be renewed:

The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.629

1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, "new heavens and a new earth."630 It will be the definitive realization of God’s plan to bring under a single head "all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."631

1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.632 "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."633

1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay… We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.637

 

[Neithan]

There is a problem holding a loving God accountable for evil, but not holding God accountable for good?
How can that be?

How do you mean that? If the premise is that God is good, then goodness in creation is not a challenge to his existence, even prima facie.

 

[FiveLinden]

If God wills to be eaten alive then being eaten alive cannot be a “bad thing” for any creature.

Do you really believe this? That a caterpillar parasitised by a wasp so that it is eaten from the inside out is not experiencing, for the caterpillar, a ‘bad thing’?

And by your logic was it not a ‘bad thing’ for Jesus to suffer and die? If it was not, why was it a sacrifice?

 

[FiveLinden]

Some times it is simplest to let the Catechism do the talking

Simplest, maybe. But it does not answer the point. Individual animals suffer. They have no eternal life. Therefore the new heaven and the new earth is completely irrelevant to them. They won’t be there. This is as I understand it the Catholic view.

 

[o_mlly]

Do you really believe this? That a caterpillar parasitised by a wasp so that it is eaten from the inside out is not experiencing, for the caterpillar, a ‘bad thing’?

Is sharing in the life of a wasp less of an existence than merely being a caterpillar?

God created the world in order to share his life with persons who are not God. We cannot share in His divinity until we die to ourselves in this life.

And by your logic was it not a ‘bad thing’ for Jesus to suffer and die? If it was not, why was it a sacrifice?

Would it be a bad thing if you sacrificed yours to save the life of a friend?

By eating the Body and drinking the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist we become united to the person of Christ through his humanity. The Fathers of the Church called this participation in the divine life “divinization”.