The argument of free will and suffering

[friardchips]

Typo: ‘If one sees with purity…(not ‘impurity’ uch…then those tempting (from without) will not be tempters but just objectively pitiful creatures.’

 

[ProdglArchitect]

And if one is immaculate - in the heart - then nothing is tempting.

I think that this phrase is the heart of our disagreement. Mary was never tempted to sin in the sense that she considered sinning. You and I agree on that point. However, I still assert that the world exercised temptations on her, much in the same way as Satan exercised temptations against Jesus. Jesus never would have sinned, period, however Satan still sought to tempt him with worldly gain. Similarly, I believe that Mary never considered sinning. However, I don’t think it’s possible that she never experienced the application of temptations from external sources. I think we’re just going to have to disagree here.

This is understood in light of the Dogmas.

The Dogmas say only that she was born without the stain of original sin, and that she persisted in this sinless state to her death. They say nothing about whether or not she underwent temptation, and we are free to discuss it on either side while still remaining perfectly within the scope of Catholic Dogma.

 

[friardchips]

I think that this phrase is the heart of our disagreement. Mary was never tempted to sin in the sense that she considered sinning. You and I agree on that point. However, I still assert that the world exercised temptations on her, much in the same way as Satan exercised temptations against Jesus. Jesus never would have sinned, period, however Satan still sought to tempt him with worldly gain. Similarly, I believe that Mary never considered sinning. However, I don’t think it’s possible that she never experienced the application of temptations from external sources. I think we’re just going to have to disagree here.

The Dogmas say only that she was born without the stain of original sin, and that she persisted in this sinless state to her death. They say nothing about whether or not she underwent temptation, and we are free to discuss it on either side while still remaining perfectly within the scope of Catholic Dogma.

I believe that Our Lady suffered from natural inclinations and the consequential hatred of a sinful world, but not temptations from ‘within’, which then automatically excludes ‘without’ - even the consideration of such 'temptations. Because, temptation is primarily disobedience intrinsically attached to satan. The Catholic Dogmas bring light to a lot more than only the directly explicit articles of faith.

This conversation is veering away from the thread topic.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I believe that Our Lady suffered from natural inclinations and the consequential hatred of a sinful world, but not temptations from ‘within’, which then automatically excludes ‘without’ - even the consideration of such 'temptations. Because, temptation is primarily disobedience intrinsically attached to satan. The Catholic Dogmas bring light to a lot more than only the directly explicit articles of faith.

This conversation is veering away from the thread topic.

I disagree that temptation is intrinsically linked with Satan, beyond the fact that it was his fault we fell in the first place, and therefore suffer under concupiscence. Not all temptations we suffer come from Satan, though he does revel in all of them.

I also disagree with the assertion that not suffering from internal temptations precludes the potential for experiencing external temptations. However, at this point we’re getting into the extreme minutia. As you’ve pointed out, we’ve definitely veered far off topic at this point, so maybe we should drop this line of discussion for now.

 

[Bradski]

If one were to subscribe to reductionism and conflations, then sure.

But for the one professing, “I don’t know” in the face of the chaotic unknown and “I don’t know” in the face of some form of system (divine or otherwise) don’t mean the same thing.

You penchant here is the same shared by Dawkins and Harris that was pretty fully revealed and eviscerated by Peterson.

But as you say. Horses and water. We ultimately believe what we want.

I’ll get back to you on Peterson. He talked with Harris on his podcast earlier this year and I haven’t listened to it yet.

 

[Wesrock]

That’s a flight of fancy. If I steal someone’s money simply because I want more without having to work for it, then there is no ‘good as it’s aim’. We simply call that, to use your term, evil.

Someone steals money because it gives them feelings of pleasure, security, etc… These are good things in themselves, and it’s examples of the goods the thief aims for. Yes, this can be stretched to horrendously violent crimes as well. What makes these “evil” is that these are lower goods in the hierarchy, and it’s not only these goods that are being aimed at, but also the intentional frustration of goods higher in the hierarchy, both for oneself and others. A smaller good is sought, and a greater good intentionally deprived. Every human act is aimed at some good.

If I give someone money because they are in need through no fault of their own then we call that good.

You’re prioritizing higher goods.

So what do you describe the situation when nothing is done. When no money is given or taken? There is no good, so according to you, it must be evil.

No, not quite. A conscious choice not to give money is aimed at some good in the passerby’s mind, though it may be a lesser thing, and if done for the wrong reason perhaps even perverse in some way. But the not giving in itself doesn’t deprive the beggar of some good he already possesses either (his health, current needs met, etc…)

Does that not strike you as odd?

No.

But to continue your line of thought…

If you prayed for a child to be cured of cancer and your prayer was answered by God, then you would call that good. In the absence of a cure, in the absence of that good, according to you, we have evil.

Does that sound right to you?

No, not exactly. Good isn’t just something done, or always strictly moral: it’s a property of a substance, as better instantiating what one is is a higher goodness than not. A triangle drawn with a straight edge better instantiates triangularity than one drawn free hand by a child. It is itself “more good” (though not in a moral sense), but that doesn’t make the free-hand triangle evil. Likewise, a healthier human being in one sense has more goodness than a sicker one, though this is not a moral quality. It’s morally related when we consider whether a humans actions and rational choices is more in line what “humanness” than not, and evil comes about with willing to obtain a lesser good by intentionally frustrating a greater good.

So, after going around my fist to get to my thumb, the lack of health in a sick child is a privation he’s experiencing, and so is a natural evil that he’s experiencing. But this evil is the privation, the difference between the goodness he has and the goodness of a healthy human. But that doesn’t mean an evil act has occurred.

 

[Bradski]

Someone steals money because it gives them feelings of pleasure, security, etc… These are good things in themselves, and it’s examples of the goods the thief aims for. Yes, this can be stretched to horrendously violent crimes as well. What makes these “evil” is that these are lower goods in the hierarchy, and it’s not only these goods that are being aimed at, but also the intentional frustration of goods higher in the hierarchy, both for oneself and others. A smaller good is sought, and a greater good intentionally deprived. Every human act is aimed at some good.

If evil is the absence of good and every act is good in some way, then there is no evil.

I think you are just winging this.

 

[omgriley]

If a person is attacking a victim, would you stop the attack or would you claim the attacker’s or criminal’s free will?
A good person will reply: I will stop the attacker as much as I can, I don’t think the attacker’s free will is more important than the victim’s suffering.
Yet how is that scenario different, when a so called all loving God is involved, the excuse of the attacker’s free will isn’t a moral or consistent answer to the problem of suffering.

This is a classical argument against the existence of God. It is called the Problem of Evil, often thought to be the strongest argument against God’s existence. However it is not unanswerable.

The scenario you’ve presented doesn’t really jive with God because we need to incorporate God’s omniscience. When we see a person attacking another, we have only immediate sensory data available to us. We have no knowledge of what will happen in the next few seconds. We simply see an innocent person being attacked, and it’s up to us to do something about it. However, all of eternity is present to God in all its immediacy. All events and even possible events are known to God at once. Therefore, what we see as an innocent person being attacked, actually turns out to be a would-be rapist being fought off. Thus God could allow that and it would be good.

However, even if it was a victim being attacked, because God is all-powerful and all-knowing, He can allow this victim to be attacked and then bring an even greater good out of it. At the same time, he can also see to it that the victim is repaid 100 fold for the suffering they incurred in this life. Humans can’t do that sort of stuff, so our job is to prevent any kind of evil wherever we see it.

Sometimes God will allow bad things to happen to good people because he wants us to do something about it. He wants us to be involved with each others lives. God might allow a woman to have her purse stolen at knife-point because he wants you to stop the assailant. He wants you to think of the safety of others before your own safety. He wants you to be courageous. But in order to be courageous, you must first possibly be a coward. Again, He can do this because He has the ability of rewarding those who suffer with infinite happiness.

So it ultimately boils down to the question of Why would God allow bad things to happen to good people? The answer is: He has a good reason for it, even if you or I never find out what that reason is this side of the veil.

Hope that helps.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So it ultimately boils down to the question of Why would God allow bad things to happen to good people? The answer is: He has a good reason for it, even if you or I never find out what that reason is this side of the veil.

This is the penultimate “blind faith” reasoning. Unacceptable to those who do not have that blind faith. You can read about it in the “The Tale of the Twelve Officers” - it the story of the fifth officer. “Look, there’s really no point in my trying to explain the details to you,” said the fifth officer, who we had nicknamed ‘Brainiac’ because he had an encyclopedic knowledge of literally everything and an IQ way off the charts. “There’s an excellent reason for why I did not intervene, but it’s just way too complicated for you to understand, so I’m not even going to bother trying. I mean, you admit you are nowhere near as knowledgeable as I am, so what right do you have to judge? Just so there’s no misunderstanding, though, let me point out that no one could care about Ms. K. more than I did, and that I am, in fact, a very good person. That settles that.”

By the way, the rabbi Harry Kushner wrote an excellent book: “When bad things happen to good people”. The only intellectually honest book I have ever read about this question.

 

[o_mlly]

If a person is attacking a victim, would you stop the attack or would you claim the attacker’s or criminal’s free will?
A good person will reply: I will stop the attacker as much as I can, I don’t think the attacker’s free will is more important than the victim’s suffering.
Yet how is that scenario different, when a so called all loving God is involved, the excuse of the attacker’s free will isn’t a moral or consistent answer to the problem of suffering.

One who impedes the evil action of an unjust attacker does not impede the attacker’s free will but only the attacker’s exercise of that will. The unjust attacker’s evil will remains.

Through our conscience, our Creator constantly calls us to will and do good. We can choose to ignore His call and that is sin.

 

[rinnie]

If evil is the absence of good and every act is good in some way, then there is no evil.

I think you are just winging this.

I have to agree with you on this. But with one argument. Although I agree evil is absence of good, Only God can make a good out of an evil.

Another words only God can take something so evil and bad and wrong and make a good out of it.

For example a death of a innocent baby. What good is in that? Simple everlasting happiness in the arms of God and his Mother and no suffering ever again. Eternal bliss.

If that isn’t taking the worst evil and making a good out of it, I don’t know what is.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have to agree with you on this.

I thought he was perfectly cogent. It’s one of the classic approaches to the problem.

 

[Bradski]

For example a death of a innocent baby. What good is in that? Simple everlasting happiness in the arms of God and his Mother and no suffering ever again. Eternal bliss.

If that isn’t taking the worst evil and making a good out of it, I don’t know what is.

So your child is murdered and God makes that good by granting her eternal happiness. So even the worst possible evil you can imagine has some good associated with it. And if evil is the complete absence of good, then there is no evil. Wesrock even put forward that that the perpetrator kills (or steals in his example) because the pleasure from killing is the goods for which he aims.

And then we have a bizarre hierarchy of smaller and larger goods. What the…? Why not call it as it is? Something is good, something is evil and most things are somewhere in between. Almost always determined by consideration of whether harm has been done (or intended) or not.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So your child is murdered and God makes that good by granting her eternal happiness. So even the worst possible evil you can imagine has some good associated with it. And if evil is the complete absence of good, then there is no evil. Wesrock even put forward that that the perpetrator kills (or steals in his example) because the pleasure from killing is the goods for which he aims.

And then we have a bizarre hierarchy of smaller and larger goods. What the…? Why not call it as it is? Something is good, something is evil and most things are somewhere in between. Almost always determined by consideration of whether harm has been done (or intended) or not.

What the ???

 

[omgriley]

This is the penultimate “blind faith” reasoning. Unacceptable to those who do not have that blind faith.

“Blind faith” is not relevant in the equation. Faith is simply trusting in the promises or statements of another because we have good reason to do so.

Faith only becomes relevant after an acknowledgement of God’s existence. That acknowledgement is already assumed for the sake of the argument. An all powerful, all-knowing, all-good God can allow evil to happen for one of either three reasons.

1. He caused it because He is evil.
2. He didn’t cause it, but was powerless to stop it from happening.
3. He tolerated it because He has the ability to bring about good from it, and He will eventually right the wrong.

The first two are inconsistent with the God’s omniscience and omnipotence. However, the 3rd option remains a legitimate answer.

The question of what that reason is would be a separate question, and sometimes it does not get an answer. Yet that doesn’t disprove God’s existence.

 

[rinnie]

So your child is murdered and God makes that good by granting her eternal happiness. So even the worst possible evil you can imagine has some good associated with it. And if evil is the complete absence of good, then there is no evil. Wesrock even put forward that that the perpetrator kills (or steals in his example) because the pleasure from killing is the goods for which he aims.

And then we have a bizarre hierarchy of smaller and larger goods. What the…? Why not call it as it is? Something is good, something is evil and most things are somewhere in between. Almost always determined by consideration of whether harm has been done (or intended) or not.

How do you figure? Where does God picking up the pieces of evil make the evil complete absence of good? There was no good in the evil of killing a child. That act is complete evil.

How others react to an evil in no way changes the issue.

Its like if I wear a red dress and it looks bad on me, and then someone gives me a black dress and I look terrific, then the red dress never happened. Makes no sense does it?

Like Judge Judy says if it does not make sense its not true.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

“Blind faith” is not relevant in the equation. Faith is simply trusting in the promises or statements of another because we have good reason to do so.

No. Faith is accepting something for which there is no evidence, or insufficient evidence.

An all powerful, all-knowing, all-good God can allow evil to happen for one of either three reasons.

1. He caused it because He is evil.
2. He didn’t cause it, but was powerless to stop it from happening.
3. He tolerated it because He has the ability to bring about good from it, and He will eventually right the wrong.

Incorrect. An all-good God cannot allow “evil” for any reason.

The first two are inconsistent with the God’s omniscience and omnipotence.

They are only inconsistent with the “Omni-benevolence”, not the other two.

However, the 3rd option remains a legitimate answer.

And that is which can only be accepted on blind faith. There is absolutely no evidence that allowing all the evil things in the world can be “remedied”.

 

[Vonsalza]

So your child is murdered and God makes that good by granting her eternal happiness.

All these for-instances from our beloved atheists are starting to get a bit nauseating… “So if your child is murdered…”, “So if a bus-load of nuns fall into a wood-chipper…”

Nauseating. Grade-school boys that are just starting to grow a few hairs above their lips produce similar rhetoric.

So even the worst possible evil you can imagine has some good associated with it. And if evil is the complete absence of good, then there is no evil.

Close to as it was given by Augustine of Hippo. Aquinas is more nuanced. It is a privation of good. Totality not implied. In fact, evil serves the greater good per the latter and exists as a perversion of the good - also a perfectly valid use of “privation”.

And then we have a bizarre hierarchy of smaller and larger goods. What the…?

Hell’s teeth…

This is not a new, exotic concept. I think it was cutting-edge philosophy when triremes were still in test-stage. Obviously different thinkers of different eras developed the idea. But it’s not new nor obscure. Not even close. “Democracy” is probably a more novel idea.

Why not call it as it is? Something is good, something is evil and most things are somewhere in between.

Wait, I thought you were a relativist. Isn’t everything “somewhere in between” for you? No absolutes, right? Such would segue far too readily into some kind of necessitated theism…

 

[Vonsalza]

No. Faith is accepting something for which there is no evidence, or insufficient evidence.

And who determines if the sheep has been sufficiently proven as a sheep?

Back onto THAT particular merry-go-round…

Incorrect. An all-good God cannot allow “evil” for any reason.

Offered axiomatically, rejected on the same basis.

There is absolutely no evidence that allowing all the evil things in the world can be “remedied”.

snort

“Evidence” and the metaphysical… The inherent blindness of the materialist made manifest.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Offered axiomatically, rejected on the same basis.

Well, “evil” and benevolence are contradictory in MY book. If you think that they are compatible then you consider Satan to be benevolent, loving and caring? You sure have a strange vocabulary.

“Evidence” and the metaphysical… The inherent blindness of the materialist made manifest.

No, not “metaphysical”. Give some argument how can the Holocaust be “turned” into something good, and I will shut up.