The dilemma of free will and necessary evil

[VociMike]

Hitetlen:

Let’s not try to put this idea into practice, and go out and kill and rape. One can make rational decisions without actually experiencing the results of irrational decisions. Leastways, some people can.

Well the fact is we do commit sins against the 5th and 6th commandment, and the others as well. And we see much more flagrant sins around us every day. So we cannot avoid “putting this idea into practice”.

If one never experienced evil, how would one know it is irrational (assuming it is, which is think is very open to question). Atheists think that many things Christ taught are the height of irrationality.

 

[VociMike]

Hitetlen:

it is impossible to imagine just what good comes out of earthquakes, wildfires, floods and tsunamis in which people and animals perish indiscriminately, sometimes in hideous pains.

The good that comes out of such things is that they move us to give of ourselves, and they move us to care about the fate of others, to strive to give others that which they need but do not have. They move us to true love of others, lived out in action.

 

[Anonymous_1]

Hit,
Suppose i provide a solution to this false dillema you have proposed, what will come of it? Will you be any closer to believing in God? Is that not the ends for which you are striving? Do you suppose there is no solution? What is your motivation for posting this thread?

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Hitetlen,

I am not sure I fully understand your question. But here are some thoughts.

Love for God can only be accomplished by allowing a free willed being the option to choose not to love God. Hatred, sin and damnation are all the bi-product of God allowing free will to man in order to make love for God possible.

God tells us that love for God is obedience to God, 1 John 5:3. God tells us He leads no man astray. God tells us He has no need for evil, Sirach 15:11

NIV 1JO 5:3

This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.NIV JOH 14:15

"If you love me, you will obey what I command."

NAB DEU 30:15 The Choice before Israel.

"Here then, I have today set before you life and prosperity, death and doom. If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin on you today, loving him, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees, you will live

NAB SIR 15:11 Man’s Free Will.

Say not: “It was God’s doing that I fell away”; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: “It was he who set me astray”; for he has no need of wicked man. Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him. When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do his will. There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hitetlen:

Also it is impossible to imagine just what good comes out of earthquakes, wildfires, floods and tsunamis in which people and animals perish indiscriminately, sometimes in hideous pains.

Hello Hitetlen,

I do not think that natural catastrophies occurred in the Garden of Eden. In the Garden of Eden Satan assured Eve that God would not allow her to die even though God had sworn this would happen if she sinned. Eve took Satan up on his advice.

Today many people, even Christians, believe and advise people that God will not allow anyone to go to hell. Even though Jesus warns us of eternal punishment and damnation in scriptures often. The reason people disbelieve Jesus warnings on eternal damnation is because they feel that Jesus and the Father “love” everyone too much to allow such a thing as eternal punishment and damnation to occur.

I think Jesus and the Father’s earthly answer and warning to those who think God “loves” them too much to allow them to suffer eternal punishment and damnation, is natural disasters. Does God “love” man too much to allow natural disasters to occur? In the same way as our loving God allows natural disasters, our loving God allows man to go to hell if man does not repent. God loves man way too much not to warn man of eternal damnation.
NAB GEN 3:1

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, "Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?" The woman answered the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!.."

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hello Hitetlen,

I have read quite a bit of Catholic apologetics, and the phrase “necessary evil” is not common to me. What apologist in particular are you referring to? (give at least one example??)

There are some goods which are indifferent. Eg. do we eat beans or peas tonight. When you speak of “necessary”, I am expecting the force of a logical impossibility.

EG. There are some things an omnipitent God can’t do – because they are not powers. For example, God can not BE all good and DO all evil.

EG. Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

EG. Titus1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

There are, then, things which God can not do.

eg: When God speaks – that which he voices becomes reality – therefore He can’t lie, for the reason that any utterance in the name of Truth would simply be called into existance.
That is also why God does not have nighmares…

For a similar reason, nothing at all could possibly exist except God created something less than God. The Trinity is an example of God from God – we are not God.

Man is capable of relative perfection, but in a sense we are necessarily less than God. However, I do not know of any evil which must be chosen in preference to a good. I do know of many evils which are chosen because we do not know a better choice.

What do you really mean by a necessary evil?
In your thread starter example, what is actually NECESSARY about the evils?

Also, How do you come to the conclusion that God is incapable of making arbitrary decisions (random) among morally indifferent choices.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen,

You should not ignore the rude replies on here. They hold a great deal of truth though they make it harder to swollow b/c of their pride.

Remember, there are three goods, or puposes, which evil brings about: punishment, freewill, and soul building. Punishment would not be necessary without freewill and freewill would not be necessary without soulbuilding. You can glance over my old posts all you want, the information is there. Soul building was the main purpose of this world. Why? Because moral creatures better reflect the glory of God. Morality is a response to evil thus the evil is necessary.

God cannot control the amount of evil which enters the world through choice without controling what choicemakers are allowed in the world. If God controls what choicemakers are permited he essentially controls the choices that gain entrance. By controlling the choices in he controls freewill.

Punishment is the rectification of wrongs done. Punishment is carried out through social utility, rehabilitation and retribution. Social utility protects society from further evils committed by these people. Rehabilitation shows the evil-doer that good is the true way. Retribution is all about justice. When a wrong-doer commits a wrong deed he takes something not for his taking. This offsets the balance of justice in the universe. His “karma” is now in the positive by illegal means. The universe must then take something away from him or give him something negative to rebalance his “karma” and in so doing the state of justice in the universe.

God gave us these theodicies to explain evil. There are many more less significant ones. Your book sounds good. I wanted to pick it up thanks for the recomend. The ultimate answer is mystery. The book of Job tells us how we should respond to this very question. Use your Bible to give it a read. God is far beyond us and it is infantile to expect complete comprehension. Only someone who does not intend to believe would do such a thing. And just on my own note, do you have a Catholic or a Protestant Bible or do you use the internet? God has the Ace up is sleave, for me wanting to use this expression. You cannot see it but it is there. I’m not implying God is cheating. I hope you get the point.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

VociMike:

The good that comes out of such things is that they move us to give of ourselves, and they move us to care about the fate of others, to strive to give others that which they need but do not have. They move us to true love of others, lived out in action.

Yes, that is a usual explanation. The trouble is three-fold. One is that the help and caring thus elicited is quite short-lived; the other one is that the pain and suffering caused by these disasters far ourstrip the good of increased helpfulness. And the last one, that the increased helpfulness of society could be achieved via less intrusive ways.

It is not enough that “some” good comes out a disaster. In order to say that it is a “necessary” evil, its good side effect must be so large and obvious that its negative effects pale in comparision, and also that the same effect could not be reached with lowering the pain somehow.

 

[Hitetlen]

Anonymous_1:

Suppose i provide a solution to this false dillema you have proposed, what will come of it?

Suppose you show me why the dilemma is false, then I can answer your questions.

 

[Hitetlen]

Steven Merten:

Love for God can only be accomplished by allowing a free willed being the option to choose not to love God. Hatred, sin and damnation are all the bi-product of God allowing free will to man in order to make love for God possible.

No they are not. Free will is not “responsible” for anything. They may be held “responsible” for the possibility of hatred, nothing else. From having the freedom to choose between love and hate, it does not follow that one “must” choose one and not the other. That is elementary.

 

[thistle]

Hitetlen:

Yes, that is a usual explanation. The trouble is three-fold. One is that the help and caring thus elicited is quite short-lived; the other one is that the pain and suffering caused by these disasters far ourstrip the good of increased helpfulness. And the last one, that the increased helpfulness of society could be achieved via less intrusive ways.

It is not enough that “some” good comes out a disaster. In order to say that it is a “necessary” evil, its good side effect must be so large and obvious that its negative effects pale in comparision, and also that the same effect could not be reached with lowering the pain somehow.

The greatest evil in history produced the greatest good.
The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest evil ever done but it produced the greatest good in that his death and resurrection has given us the chance for eternal life.

 

[Hitetlen]

Huiou Theou:

I have read quite a bit of Catholic apologetics, and the phrase “necessary evil” is not common to me. What apologist in particular are you referring to? (give at least one example??)

Alvin Plantinga comes to mind.
Huiou Theou:

There are some goods which are indifferent. Eg. do we eat beans or peas tonight. When you speak of “necessary”, I am expecting the force of a logical impossibility.

No, not that. It is used as a utilitarian observation: that the evil has some good side effects, and the amount of pain and misery caused by the evil is less than the good also caused by it.

Consider a common “evil”: a toothache which alerts the person what an impending greater “evil” is about to happen if the visit to the dentist is delayed any longer. It is the existence of this pain which triggers a good reaction. (Of course a better solution would be if our teeth did not decay in the first place, but that is a different issue.)
Huiou Theou:

EG. There are some things an omnipitent God can’t do – because they are not powers. For example, God can not BE all good and DO all evil.

You talk about logical impossibilities.
Huiou Theou:

What do you really mean by a necessary evil? In your thread starter example, what is actually NECESSARY about the evils?

The example of “rape” was designed to be an outrageous one, for a purpose.

I cannot see anything good about it, but some apologists assert that God would not allow such things to happen if they did not have “some” positive side effects, even if our lack of omniscience prevents us from understanding it. (You know, the good old “argumentum ad ignorantiam”).

The father, who disciplines his child is a valid one, however. Since small children do not understand reason, and they cannot be protected against all possible harms, they need to be taught, sometimes with physical punishment that some behavior is dangerous or unacceptable. Therefore we can say that small smack or two prevents some greater harm later. Since it cannot be done using other means it is called “necessary”.

Now we have to consider that a too small “smack” is ineffective, a hard beating is not necessary, so there is a theoretical middle ground, which is both necessary and sufficient. We might not be able to determine it precisely, but God should, and even allowing the necessary amount of discipline to exist, he should prevent the excessive one - at least IF he wants to be called benevolent.

 

[Hitetlen]

thistle:

The greatest evil in history produced the greatest good.
The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest evil ever done but it produced the greatest good in that his death and resurrection has given us the chance for eternal life.

Yes, you did say so before, and I will not argue your point. Even if I accept your example, from that it simply does not follow that “every evil” must have a “greater good” caused by that evil.

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

You should not ignore the rude replies on here. They hold a great deal of truth though they make it harder to swollow b/c of their pride.

I only ignore the irrelevant ones.

adamlsp:

Remember, there are three goods, or puposes, which evil brings about: punishment, freewill, and soul building.

So now the “free will” is caused by evil, not the other way around?

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

I only ignore the irrelevant ones.

So now the “free will” is caused by evil, not the other way around?

Hitetlen,

The replies you deem irrelevent and choose not to respond to may be relevent if you would give them more than a glance. You do not respond to my posted explanation. You believe it is irrelevent. For my own future insight, if you see some great flaw in my last post, show it to me that I might understand. I would appreciate your retort.

Free will comes from the possibility of evil. And the fact that God relinquished all control of dicisions made by humans except to present them with a choice. It would not be freewill if these two basic cnditions were not meant. Maybe it would be something very similar to freewill but not frewill. Perfectly freewill is what God wanted. It must be very valuable.

Adam

 

[VociMike]

Hitetlen:

Yes, that is a usual explanation. The trouble is three-fold. One is that the help and caring thus elicited is quite short-lived; the other one is that the pain and suffering caused by these disasters far ourstrip the good of increased helpfulness. And the last one, that the increased helpfulness of society could be achieved via less intrusive ways.

You are making sweeping statements here without any evidence. Who says that the help and caring is quite short lived? Further, who says that some of those engaged in these efforts are not permanently changed for the better, sanctified, brought closer to the will of God?

And who says that the pain and suffering far outstrip the good? Wo says that pain and suffering itself cannot sanctify one, bring one closer to the will of God?

Finally, how can “increased helpfulness of society” be achieved if nobody needs help? Why would we ever go out of our way for others if they never needed it? No, given our fallen natures, if others did not need our help then we would become selfish, self-absorbed creatures (that is to say, even more than we are now).

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

For my own future insight, if you see some great flaw in my last post, show it to me that I might understand. I would appreciate your retort.

As you wish. Our worldviews are so widely divergent, that it probably will do no good.

adamlsp:

Free will comes from the possibility of evil.

It is the other way round, again. The possibility of evil comes from free will.

adamlsp:

And the fact that God relinquished all control of dicisions made by humans except to present them with a choice.

That is not true either, since according to believers God sometimes performs “miracles”, and that is a definite interference with the autonomy of our world.

Now going back to your previous post.

adamlsp:

Remember, there are three goods, or puposes, which evil brings about: punishment, freewill, and soul building. Punishment would not be necessary without freewill and freewill would not be necessary without soulbuilding.

First, I consider “soul-building” a bogus argument. But I will take it seriously for the purposes of this reply. Let’s say that evil is necessary for soul-building.

You did not specify if this is a “linear” type of relationship (meaning that twice the evil brings about twice good of “soul-building”, or there is a limit to the “benefits” of piling up evil. Since you did not say either way, I will respond to both possibilities.

If the “benefits” of evil grow without an upper limit, then obviously the more evil there is, the higher the benefits. Therefore the most “valuable” members of society are the tortures, murderers, rapists, terrorists and their ilk. I consider this totally irrational, but maybe you do not.

If the “benefits” of evil “top off” at a certain level, then either God interferes at that point, or not. If he interferes, then he violates free will, if he does not, then he allows unnecessary evil and thus he is not benevolent. Which one will it be?

Furthermore, your “analysis” totally neglects that these atrocities need VICTIMS, who are deprived to have THEIR “souls” being improved upon. They – being killed – are “done” with their soul-building. Here there are again two possibilities; either all the victims are at their personal “peak” of their souls, or they are not. If they would “need” more soul-building, then for them the process is NOT beneficial, since they cannot have their “souls” improved any more. You may argue that all the random victims of human atrocities and natural disasters were somehow at the peak of their soul-building, and therefore their death was at the most “opportune” moment. Needless to say that is also as irrational as it can be.

adamlsp:

Punishment is the rectification of wrongs done.

I find this also completely irrational. You cannot “rectify” all the different kinds of “evils”, though it is possible (approximately, though not perfectly) for a special subset of “evils”, that is property crimes. You cannot rectify the status of a rape victim; the scars cannot be erased, ever. You cannot “rectify” the effects of a murder.

adamlsp:

God gave us these theodicies to explain evil.

In this thread I am NOT interested in theodicies. I presented a specific dilemma and I am only interested in replies pertaining to that question.

To sum it up, I find your position totally irrational. I have to point back to the other thread where you considered my “dream-world” without intentional evil inferior to our existing world with all the wars, murders, rapes, terrorists and so one, JUST BECAUSE in my dream-world people are already at the “peak” of their soul-building process and need no improvement.

 

[Hitetlen]

VociMike:

You are making sweeping statements here without any evidence. Who says that the help and caring is quite short lived?

Statistics and history.

VociMike:

Further, who says that some of those engaged in these efforts are not permanently changed for the better, sanctified, brought closer to the will of God?

Is there a permanent upsurge in mass attendance after a disaster?

VociMike:

And who says that the pain and suffering far outstrip the good? Wo says that pain and suffering itself cannot sanctify one, bring one closer to the will of God?

If those who perish in a fire, earthqauke or tsunami could respond, their reply probably would be censored out by the sorfware. Besides, your reply looks suspiciously close to those “do-gooders” who are always very willing to “endure” someone else’s misfortune.

VociMike:

Finally, how can “increased helpfulness of society” be achieved if nobody needs help? Why would we ever go out of our way for others if they never needed it? No, given our fallen natures, if others did not need our help then we would become selfish, self-absorbed creatures (that is to say, even more than we are now).

Irrelevant. People would not be born with equal capabilities, so some would still need help.

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

To sum it up, I find your position totally irrational.

Could not pass this one up. The above statement coming from a poster who said the following:

We might not be able to determine it precisely, but God should, and even allowing the necessary amount of discipline to exist, he should prevent the excessive one - at least IF he wants to be called benevolent.

So, Hitetlen, who tells God what he “should” do because Hitetlen makes himself to be wiser than the One Whose existence he denies, is here the “rational” one. I am sure a Divine expression of gratitude will soon be coming your way, what with you having “fixed” the Divine plan with your own erroneous notions of benevolence.

The word “delusional” comes to mind whenever this poster “enlightens” the forum with another of his butchered variants of Bertrand Russell’s problem of evil arguments.

Might I suggest to those who, until now, have taken seriously his effort to “see the truth,” as he has styled it, to take note that he is merely winding you up with useless diatribes.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hmmm,
You have many valid points, BUT:

Originally Posted by VociMike

Quote:
Further, who says that some of those engaged in these efforts are not permanently changed for the better, sanctified, brought closer to the will of God?
EndQuote:

Is there a permanent upsurge in mass attendance after a disaster?
\Quote]

Hmm … “some” could be as small as 10 or 20. Even if everyone changed, after 100years or so statistically after any given event – the earthly mass attendees would be 0.

I’m a little bit lazy. The Catholic Church is growing in total number of people, statistically. So, how have you analyzed these statistics to show that even “some” are not permanently changed?