St. augustine response to the problem of evil

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholictiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholictiger

Guest
please correct me if i’m wrong on this but I believe st Augustine was one of the first and probably biggest teachers on the philosophical theory that God isn’t a part of time that he exist out of time, meaning that he experiences all actualities at once.

How would someone who believed this theory respond to the problem of evil and suffering

mainly these objections

if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent he should be able to prevent evil

but evil exist

God doesn’t exist

two common objections to this are the greater good argument meaning evil is permitted to exist becuase a greater good comes out of it.

also becuase we have free will, evil will occurred becuase we are free creators.

an objection an atheist would make to the first one is that there is some evil acts that occur on this world that are so evil and cause so much suffering that there is no justification for that action meaning there can’t be a greater good and there can’t be God.

Also Free will can’t explain natural evils, hurricanes tornatoes and such cause suffering why would a God let this happen if he had the power to stop it.

Two objections that my teacher brought up that don’t look into an augustine objection is an objection from a process theist.

they say that God really isn’t omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and that he can’t possibly prevent evil becuase he doesn’t have the power too.

then you have a kenotic response

that pretty much says god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and the creator of the world but evil comes with the world he creates becuase he is like us and he is inside time so he has no way to prevent evil from happening becuase he can’t know what the future holds.

So how would Augustine respond to this claim. Thanks for any help.
 
God died. And even through that - He showed us He has the power to resurrect.

It’s a simple choice really - life or death.
 
St Augustine, as I understand him, doesn’t view evil as a thing but rather as the absence of, or the turning away from, the good, and one of the greatest gifts God has given us is our free will. St. Augustine in dealing with the question of evil and free will pointed out that “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil[and so no free will] to exist” In this way to I would say that evil is more an “ends” than a means to an end as it is our choice to commit an act which is evil which begins the process. or as the Doctor of Grace put it “As darkness is nothing but the absence of light, and is not produced by creation, so evil is merely the defect of goodness.”

this article may be of some help:
newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

God bless
 
Theophorus said:
St Augustine, as I understand him, doesn’t view evil as a thing but rather as the absence of, or the turning away from, the good, and one of the greatest gifts God has given us is our free will. St. Augustine in dealing with the question of evil and free will pointed out that “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil[and so no free will] to exist” In this way to I would say that evil is more an “ends” than a means to an end as it is our choice to commit an act which is evil which begins the process. or as the Doctor of Grace put it “As darkness is nothing but the absence of light, and is not produced by creation, so evil is merely the defect of goodness.”

this article may be of some help:
newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

God bless
Click to expand...
I agree.

The problem of what is termed ‘natural-evil’ is however quite another matter. If for example a volcano erupts - post the fall - lack of faith prevents a man from saying “be quiet” (as Jesus said to the elements). I think this sort of thinking comes under the heading of what is called ‘The Divine Economy’.
 
catholictiger said:
an objection an atheist would make to the first one is that there is some evil acts that occur on this world that are so evil and cause so much suffering that there is no justification for that action meaning there can’t be a greater good and there can’t be God.
Click to expand...
Do you believe it would have been better not to create the world at all? Would that be a greater good?
Also Free will can’t explain natural evils, hurricanes tornadoes and such cause suffering.
Click to expand...
Natural evils are the result of the interplay of **natural **laws. Harmful coincidences are inevitable. There is an element of chance within the framework of Design.
why would a God let this happen if he had the power to stop it.
Click to expand...
Because a spate of miracles would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly system.
 
The whole reason for evil to exist is that mankind can be tempted and resist temptation, as in to be put to the test.

What I don’t really understand is, why are some people exposed to so much evil whereas other people have almost no suffering. That’s not fair! How can God allow this?
 
happiness that does not allow the occasional despair is not true happiness.
 
roelblomsma said:
What I don’t really understand is, why are some people exposed to so much evil whereas other people have almost no suffering. That’s not fair! How can God allow this?
Click to expand...
How could the world be arranged otherwise? The devil is in the details! 🙂
 
catholictiger said:
please correct me if i’m wrong on this but I believe st Augustine was one of the first and probably biggest teachers on the philosophical theory that God isn’t a part of time that he exist out of time, meaning that he experiences all actualities at once.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is the teaching of St. Augustine and St. Thomas that God is pure act and exists in a changeless eternal state of limitless life.
40.png
catholictiger:
an objection an atheist would make to the first one is that there is some evil acts that occur on this world that are so evil and cause so much suffering that there is no justification for that action meaning there can’t be a greater good and there can’t be God.

Also Free will can’t explain natural evils, hurricanes tornatoes and such cause suffering why would a God let this happen if he had the power to stop it.
Click to expand...
To the first objection: it may seem that such is the case, but the teaching is simply that no matter how much evil there may seem to be, God can draw forth that much greater good by permitting it. This is not so much a logical objection as an emotional one. And that is understandable, because evil is terribly difficult to deal with. Aside from the emotional side, what does the first objection amount to?

To the second objection: “free will” has not been used, to my knowledge, to explain natural evils such as hurricanes, famine, etc. The reason for pain – in any of its manifestations – is sin, particularly original sin. God would not inflict pain unless it were for punishment or for medicinal purposes – that is, with the purpose of doing good to another – because it would be unjust to inflict pain for any other reason.

St. Thomas speaks about this at length here:

newadvent.org/summa/2087.htm

newadvent.org/summa/2085.htm#article5
40.png
catholictiger:
they say that God really isn’t omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and that he can’t possibly prevent evil becuase he doesn’t have the power too.
Click to expand...
How can such a being be God? In any case, this picture violates the traditional understanding of God.
40.png
catholictiger:
then you have a kenotic response

that pretty much says god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and the creator of the world but evil comes with the world he creates becuase he is like us and he is inside time so he has no way to prevent evil from happening becuase he can’t know what the future holds.
Click to expand...
The same goes for this definition as well.

In order to fully understand why such notions of God are irreconcilable with Catholic teaching one much first understand what evil actually is on the Augustinian/Thomistic metaphysics. It is not a positive being or something. It is rather a state of “lacking,” and can only be present in an already existing something – which in and of itself is good. Evil is sort of like a cavity: without a tooth, it couldn’t exist. Further, God, if he wanted to, could have created a universe without any evil in it, but he instead, for purposes of his own, which do not violate justice, created a universe in which he permits evil to be done. He does this in order to draw forth a greater good.
 
The_Exodus said:
Yes, it is the teaching of St. Augustine and St. Thomas that God is pure act and exists in a changeless eternal state of limitless life.

To the first objection: it may seem that such is the case, but the teaching is simply that no matter how much evil there may seem to be, God can draw forth that much greater good by permitting it. This is not so much a logical objection as an emotional one. And that is understandable, because evil is terribly difficult to deal with. Aside from the emotional side, what does the first objection amount to?

To the second objection: “free will” has not been used, to my knowledge, to explain natural evils such as hurricanes, famine, etc. The reason for pain – in any of its manifestations – is sin, particularly original sin. God would not inflict pain unless it were for punishment or for medicinal purposes – that is, with the purpose of doing good to another – because it would be unjust to inflict pain for any other reason.

St. Thomas speaks about this at length here:

newadvent.org/summa/2087.htm

newadvent.org/summa/2085.htm#article5

How can such a being be God? In any case, this picture violates the traditional understanding of God.

The same goes for this definition as well.

In order to fully understand why such notions of God are irreconcilable with Catholic teaching one much first understand what evil actually is on the Augustinian/Thomistic metaphysics. It is not a positive being or something. It is rather a state of “lacking,” and can only be present in an already existing something – which in and of itself is good. Evil is sort of like a cavity: without a tooth, it couldn’t exist. Further, God, if he wanted to, could have created a universe without any evil in it, but he instead, for purposes of his own, which do not violate justice, created a universe in which he permits evil to be done. He does this in order to draw forth a greater good.
Click to expand...
thanks for this response clears it up alot, I think my teacher strong believes in this second definition of God the Kenotic theory of God. I really don’t like them cause I fell like instead of trying to explain God in the best terms possible we downgrade him to better fit objections brought up by atheist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top