The argument of free will and suffering

[Vonsalza]

Well, “evil” and benevolence are contradictory in MY book.

In your book, God cannot allow free moral agency.

If you cannot commit evil, then you are not a free moral agent.

I think your dictatorial “good God” is less good than my permissive “good God”.

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

remember.org/what_good_can_come_of_the_holo.html

Again,

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

In your book, God cannot allow free moral agency.

If you cannot commit evil, then you are not a free moral agent.

It all depends on your definition of “evil”. My concept is probably different from yours. But, what the heck, I will use yours. Let’s allow the ultimate moral “evil” of blaspheming God. No harmful actions toward other human beings, but unlimited ability to “curse” God. Is that sufficiently “free” in your book?

remember.org/what_good_can_come_of_the_holo.html

The article is so superficial that it is embarrassing.

 

[Vonsalza]

It all depends on your definition of “evil”. My concept is probably different from yours. But, what the heck, I will use yours. Let’s allow the ultimate moral “evil” of blaspheming God. No harmful actions toward other human beings, but unlimited ability to “curse” God. Is that sufficiently “free” in your book?

Nope. I need to be fully free to cherish, enjoy and tend this creation and I also need to be able to hate, reject and destroy this creation in equal measure.

Moreover, your arbitrary line here was always fascinated me. Hurts from infidelity or burglary are “ok”. Violent death from negligence is “ok” (as it is not intentional, like a dam failure).

And what is the behavioral line? Is someone wants to hug me, can I push them off me? If they try again, I guess I’m not allowed to punch them, per your view? Or is hugging in itself a violent act, thus forbidden? Is playful, consented violence ok? Like when kids play tag? Or American football?

The article is so superficial that it is embarrassing.

You say “poe-tay-toe”, I say “pah-tah-toe”. It’s one of hundreds.

Be sure to let the organization know.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Nope. I need to be fully free to cherish, enjoy and tend this creation and I also need to be able to hate, reject and destroy this creation in equal measure.

Fully? You are not even aware of the “fullness”. Disobedience to God is sufficiently “free”. There is no greater “sin” than blaspheming God. After all that is the sin that cannot be pardoned.

 

[Vonsalza]

Fully? You are not even aware of the “fullness”.

Irrelevant. I don’t have to be.

How many millions of critters are out there that aren’t even self-aware?

Disobedience to God is sufficiently “free”.

Only if that disobedience can be carried out the the same degree as obedience.

There is no greater “sin” than blaspheming God. After all that is the sin that cannot be pardoned.

That’s right. The quintessential sin of rejecting God as opposed to the quintessential virtue of loving God.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Irrelevant. I don’t have to be.

Well, YOU said: “I need to be fully free”… backpedaling again?

Only if that disobedience can be carried out the the same degree as obedience.

“Same degree”? What the heck does that mean? You guys (in general) are not satisfied if the freedom is limited to choosing chocolate flavored ice cream over vanilla flavored. You demand “morally significant choices”. I disagree, but I respect your stance. So I propose that everyone would be free to blaspheme God. There is no freedom which would be more significant. There is no need for other morally significant choices. One is sufficient. So you would have a world with “morally significant freedom”, and yet no person-to-person atrocities.

 

[Vonsalza]

Well, YOU said: “I need to be fully free”… backpedaling again?

Not at all. And I doubt a man that fails to accurately grasp “materialism” has much to teach me on a philosophy forum.

The ants don’t need to be aware that they know how to build the colony. They just need to be capable of doing it.

Self-awareness is actually a rather rare trait in the animal kingdom.

“Same degree”? What the heck does that mean?

You know exactly what it means. The symmetry and poetry of it is so obvious that denial and begging the question is literally all you’ve got.

If I’m capable of creating and affirming life, then free moral agency demands that I should be capable of destroying and denying it. For every moral act I do, I need to be capable of performing its moral opposite.

To my earlier post, I really would like an answer:

Moreover, your arbitrary line here was always fascinated me. Hurts from infidelity or burglary are “ok”. Violent death from negligence is “ok” (as it is not intentional, like a dam failure).

And what is the behavioral line? Is someone wants to hug me, can I push them off me? If they try again, I guess I’m not allowed to punch them, per your view? Or is hugging in itself a violent act, thus forbidden? Is playful, consented violence ok? Like when kids play tag? Or American football?

Your thoughts? I’d like to see where the “edges” are and if they are anything but arbitrary…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

For every moral act I do, I need to be capable of performing its moral opposite.

That is baloney. Newton’s third law is only applicable in physics.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

For every moral act I do, I need to be capable of performing its moral opposite.

That is baloney. Newton’s third law is only applicable in physics.

 

[Vonsalza]

That is baloney. Newton’s third law is only applicable in physics.

As this isn’t a reaction, im not sure what it is you’re talking about.

Point stands; the free moral agent must be free to do evil to the same degree they are free to do good.

 

[laylow]

The reality is, the Bible and the church do not sufficiently answer the question of suffering in the world.

This is an extremely brief write up, since I’m not writing a full book.

The Bible gives many reasons for suffering, but is not harmonious and therefore inconsistent.

The Old Testament according to many of the prophets seems to indicate that Israel is suffering because they sinned and God is punishing them for it. In the book of Job, Job’s suffering is because God is testing him. Another view is that humans are given free will and when they do bad things, they can cause bad things to happen to other humans. This definitely seems to be the cases in some instances, but also in some instances God intervenes to stop these types of things in the Bible. So if God can intervene and has done so in the past, why doesn’t he do so more often? Why isn’t he doing so today?
Yet another suggestion is that suffering is redemptive. Sure, in more minor and short lasting suffering, a greater good can come from it. People that suffer immensely and ultimately die really do not get a greater good from that.

So the final answer usually given for suffering is that, Well, in the afterlife everything will be made right. Then I say, OK, so how is it all evened out in the afterlife? And they say the righteous go to heaven and the wicked to hell. And I say, so when do the people that didn’t suffer much make up for that so it is fair with the people that had to. And they say to me, Well, it doesn’t work that way. Why not? Well, the church doesn’t teach that. Well did it ever occur to you that the Church could be wrong? No, the church’s teachings are infallible.

That is the most laughable response. Almost all Bible scholar (except extreme fundamentalists) agree that the Bible is not infallible. So if the Bible is not, certainly no church deriving from it can be either. The reality is anyone believing in an afterlife and believing in justice should think hard and clear on how things may be made right in the end. If you have any bit of a rational mind, these thoughts would enter into it. The teachings do not provide a clear answer as to the purpose and the rational result of suffering.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Point stands; the free moral agent must be free to do evil to the same degree they are free to do good.

Since you admitted that the “level” of good and evil cannot be measured, and still you declare that “freedom” is to be able to do them to the same degree (equal degree), you simply speak nonsense. How can two un-measurable entities be considered “equal”?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The reality is, the Bible and the church do not sufficiently answer the question of suffering in the world.

You presented a good analysis. There is no solution to the problem of evil. The two most frequent attempts are:

1. The greater good defense.
2. The free will defense.

Neither one works. And they have been refuted innumerable times.

 

[laylow]

You presented a good analysis. There is no solution to the problem of evil. The two most frequent attempts are:

1. The greater good defense.
2. The free will defense.

Neither one works. And they have been refuted innumerable times.

I still do not contend that then therefore there is no afterlife. In some ways, suffering can support the view of an afterlife, since justice can then be served. However, current teaching does not satisfy perfect justice or for me. As a matter of fact, perfect justice is a bit scary if you believe in an afterlife (I think that you do not).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I still do not contend that then therefore there is no afterlife. In some ways, suffering can support the view of an afterlife, since justice can then be served. However, current teaching does not satisfy perfect justice or for me. As a matter of fact, perfect justice is a bit scary if you believe in an afterlife (I think that you do not).

You are right, I don’t. And I deny the veracity of “justice”, too. It is a human concoction, saying that something negative that happened in the past, can be “undone” by doing something else. Either by doing the same to the perpetrator (which is simply revenge) or by giving some compensation to the one who suffered. Both are laughable.

The only “proper” behavior is the prevention. If only we could do it, we certainly would. And we would say: “to hell with the free will of the criminal”.

 

[laylow]

You are right, I don’t. And I deny the veracity of “justice”, too. It is a human concoction, saying that something negative that happened in the past, can be “undone” by doing something else. Either by doing the same to the perpetrator (which is simply revenge) or by giving some compensation to the one who suffered. Both are laughable.

The only “proper” behavior is the prevention. If only we could do it, we certainly would. And we would say: “to hell with the free will of the criminal”.

So if someone shot and killed your family and the thought of getting revenge came into your mind, would that not be wanting “justice?”

Also, much suffering is not caused by human free will per se. Therefore, much is not preventable.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So if someone shot and killed your family and the thought of getting revenge came into your mind, would that not be wanting “justice?”

Also, much suffering is not caused by human free will per se. Therefore, much is not preventable.

You correctly used the quotation mark around the word “justice”. I would want revenge, but I would not call it justice. I prefer to call a “spade” a "spade, and not hide behind some politically correct misnomer. No “collateral damage” or “friendly fire” for me.

As for the “natural evils” - that is a different topic. In this thread we talk about the suffering caused by people who have certain amount of freedom to inflict that suffering on others.

 

[o_mlly]

The reality is, the Bible and the church do not sufficiently answer the question of suffering in the world.

This is an extremely brief write up, since I’m not writing a full book.

The Bible gives many reasons for suffering, but is not harmonious and therefore inconsistent.

The Old Testament according to many of the prophets seems to indicate that Israel is suffering because they sinned and God is punishing them for it. In the book of Job, Job’s suffering is because God is testing him. Another view is that humans are given free will and when they do bad things, they can cause bad things to happen to other humans. This definitely seems to be the cases in some instances, but also in some instances God intervenes to stop these types of things in the Bible. So if God can intervene and has done so in the past, why doesn’t he do so more often? Why isn’t he doing so today?
Yet another suggestion is that suffering is redemptive. Sure, in more minor and short lasting suffering, a greater good can come from it. People that suffer immensely and ultimately die really do not get a greater good from that.

So the final answer usually given for suffering is that, Well, in the afterlife everything will be made right. Then I say, OK, so how is it all evened out in the afterlife? And they say the righteous go to heaven and the wicked to hell. And I say, so when do the people that didn’t suffer much make up for that so it is fair with the people that had to. And they say to me, Well, it doesn’t work that way. Why not? Well, the church doesn’t teach that. Well did it ever occur to you that the Church could be wrong? No, the church’s teachings are infallible.

That is the most laughable response. Almost all Bible scholar (except extreme fundamentalists) agree that the Bible is not infallible. So if the Bible is not, certainly no church deriving from it can be either. The reality is anyone believing in an afterlife and believing in justice should think hard and clear on how things may be made right in the end. If you have any bit of a rational mind, these thoughts would enter into it. The teachings do not provide a clear answer as to the purpose and the rational result of suffering.

Do you have a citation to support your claim that “Almost all Bible scholar (except extreme fundamentalists) agree that the Bible is not infallible”?
CCC#107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scripture.

That multiple reasons for suffering are not harmonious is your opinion. I disagree.

There is no final answer that attempts to explain human suffering. What you cite (“So the final answer usually given for suffering is that, Well, in the afterlife everything will be made right.”) is hardly the final but more often the first given to juveniles who question their pain

The cause of all suffering is sin. One’s own suffering is not always attributable to one’s own sin. Suffering can be love’s response to the evil one does to another. Suffering has no good purpose at all if the sufferer is not changed by the experience and only bemoans his pain. Job was changed.

I’m not writing a book either.

 

[fhansen]

The reality is, the Bible and the church do not sufficiently answer the question of suffering in the world.

This is an extremely brief write up, since I’m not writing a full book.

The Bible gives many reasons for suffering, but is not harmonious and therefore inconsistent.

The Old Testament according to many of the prophets seems to indicate that Israel is suffering because they sinned and God is punishing them for it. In the book of Job, Job’s suffering is because God is testing him. Another view is that humans are given free will and when they do bad things, they can cause bad things to happen to other humans. This definitely seems to be the cases in some instances, but also in some instances God intervenes to stop these types of things in the Bible. So if God can intervene and has done so in the past, why doesn’t he do so more often? Why isn’t he doing so today?
Yet another suggestion is that suffering is redemptive. Sure, in more minor and short lasting suffering, a greater good can come from it. People that suffer immensely and ultimately die really do not get a greater good from that.

So the final answer usually given for suffering is that, Well, in the afterlife everything will be made right. Then I say, OK, so how is it all evened out in the afterlife? And they say the righteous go to heaven and the wicked to hell. And I say, so when do the people that didn’t suffer much make up for that so it is fair with the people that had to. And they say to me, Well, it doesn’t work that way. Why not? Well, the church doesn’t teach that. Well did it ever occur to you that the Church could be wrong? No, the church’s teachings are infallible.

That is the most laughable response. Almost all Bible scholar (except extreme fundamentalists) agree that the Bible is not infallible. So if the Bible is not, certainly no church deriving from it can be either. The reality is anyone believing in an afterlife and believing in justice should think hard and clear on how things may be made right in the end. If you have any bit of a rational mind, these thoughts would enter into it. The teachings do not provide a clear answer as to the purpose and the rational result of suffering.

In the catechism the Church acknowledges that there is no easy, pat answer to the question of evil. Only in light of the fact that God, Himself, came down and lived among us, identifying with us in all ways, and allowed Himself to suffer victimization in an extremely excruciatingly humiliating and painful manner to demonstrate the extent He’d go to in order to prove a love that beckons but doesn’t force us to simply do the right thing, forgiving His tormentors all the while, can we begin to better accept the evil in this world that we’ll all experience to one degree or another.

And the resurrection points to the fact that anything in this life is temporary, and that all manner of things shall be well in the next; all tears will be wiped away. As to exactly how God heals wounds in heaven or specifically deals with individual cases, the Church doesn’t pretend to know-only that such will be the case-the happiness to be known in heaven is ineffable, unimaginable.

 

[laylow]

You correctly used the quotation mark around the word “justice”. I would want revenge, but I would not call it justice. I prefer to call a “spade” a "spade, and not hide behind some politically correct misnomer. No “collateral damage” or “friendly fire” for me.

As for the “natural evils” - that is a different topic. In this thread we talk about the suffering caused by people who have certain amount of freedom to inflict that suffering on others.

Yeah, I guess it proves there are many problems with just free will suffering, not even to mention all of the issues of the misleading other “reasons” for it.