The divine soap opera

[Spock]

It may very well be that pain and suffering are in some sense good for us now, here below. Call it “medicinal.” Imagine a dog being taken to the vet. He doesn’t totally understand what’s going on, but, if he did, he would see that the shot he’s about to get is going to cure him from his illness. This makes faith important.

I don’t deny that some instances of pain in certain circumstances are logically necessary to bring forth some good. Of course there is a technological aspect to this; some methods to cure a problem could have been necessary some time ago, but they are not necessary today. Just think of the phrase “bite the bullet” and where does it come from. Today the anasthesiology does not require the patient to bite the bullet when an amputation is performed, unlike a few hundred years ago. There are much more efficient methods than that. If a surgeon today would use the “bite the bullet” method, it would be unacceptably cruel and evil.

The real problem is much wider. From the fact that some instances of pain can be justified it does not follow that all instances can be justified. Furthermore, consider the amount of pain being administered to bring forth that hypothetical good. There is a certain amount, which will “tip the scale”, so to speak. A precise amount can be necessary, a little bit less would be too little, a tad more would be too much. So it is not sufficient to say that in some cases the pain is necessary. The pain administered must be precise. Even a little extra pain is gratuitous.

Let’s take a not-so-nice example. Unfortunately it happens that children are abused and beaten. First, you cannot “hypothesize” that any good will come out of a senseless abuse. But, assuming that such good could be found, to make that abuse (or allowing that abuse) justifyable you must show that the abuse was “precise”, that even a little less abuse would not have been sufficient to bring forth that nebulous good.

If God allows even one iota of gratuitous pain, he cannot be called “good” any more. Your position is simply untenable.

"Evil’ is understood in the traditional Christian literature as a lack or privation of being. It doesn’t exist “on its own.” It is, rather, a corruption, like a cavity. This understanding is necessary in order to guard from Dualism.

Sorry, that is not acceptable. Your first sentence is meaningless. Of course “evil” is not a thing, it is a volitional action of some moral agent intending to cause gratuitous harm.

Satan is not “ultimately evil,” else he wouldn’t exist, since pure evil is pure non being.

Since I don’t accept you definition of “evil”, this is also gobbledegook. Besides, I did not speak of “pure” evil, I spoke about the “worst embodiment of evil behavior”.

 

[JDaniel]

But we still can speculate, can’t we? Looking at it logically, God’s mind cannot be irrational, cannot be illogical. God must be a purposeful being, who wishes to achieve something. Anyone, who strives to achieve something and has a rational mind would attempt to find the optimal way to get there. Isn’t that obvious?

Yet you still don’t get it. This life, while very important to many of us, is trivial to him. It is merely the pathway to his realm (or the other realm). (Sorry, I don’t know how else to say that. IOW, I’m not imputing “places.”)

The removal of choice for the devil would affect us (by Catholic belief) and that effect would be fully beneficial for all of us.

No it wouldn’t. I rather like my freedom, my ability to make choices. Sorry, but, that’s me. IOW, your speculative desire may not be shared universally. That’s all.

Of course because of the omniscience. An omniscient being needs no testing to know.

Again, that’s from your strictly human POV. One could speculate that this is just God’s little “game.” But, I consider it to be much less trivial. We are as much souls as we are bodies, which is a Catholic consideration from 4,500 years of Revelation(s). I also think it’s prudent to believe that God would not necessarily want us to simply sit here, like some drugged-out couch potatoes, merely waiting for those pearly gates to open. Again, sorry if this disturbs your sensibilities.

Sometimes even you throw me into desperation.

Really! So, you get to taste of that too?

Neither of us has the foggiest idea what hell (or heaven) “really is”. But we know perfectly well, that this existence, here and now is not hell, and it is not heaven either. You should know that the phrase I used: “banish to hell and keep him there” means: “keep the devil away from this place where we dwell, keep him from interfering with humans”. You said before: “God keeps the devil away from heaven” - which also implies a “place”. Why do you take exception when I use the same terminology?

I was just checking to see if you were listening!

For God and us both, of course. I am arguing from the Catholic perspective.

Again, sorry to say, sorry, again, but, you haven’t been around Catholicism nearly long enough to have learned the Catholic perspective. I have, and even then, there’s so much to it that I’m not 100% sure that my Catholic perspective is correct all the time.

The premise is that God loves us, wishes the best for us.

That’s your perspective. It doesn’t have to follow from the fact that God loves us, that he wishes the best for us - on earth. That’s clearly not experientially obvious.

I don’t think that any Catholic would dispute this.

I just did!

Figuratively speaking we are in the “same boat”. Whatever is good for us, is good for God.

That is absolutely incorrect. God does not need us, in any sense. We, however, need God. I know this will be offensive to you, but, we don’t find it to be some spurious desire of God’s. Instead, we understand it to be the nature of an exigency that consists of God’s perfections.

And now I despair again. Every time I see the phrase “evil is the privation of good”, I have this overwhelming desire to grab the person and rub his nose into his own … ahem, nonsense. Evil is malevolence, wickedness, a conscious effort to maim, to hurt, to drag something down. .

Again, sorry, but that is simply wrong. That is your definition, as modern as it might be. We understand it to be the privation of the Good. Evil is often made evident to us by “malevolence, wickedness, a conscious effort to maim, to hurt, to drag something down.”

I really wish we could establish a common dictionary, with precisely defined meanings, so we would not have to waste precious time on establishing the meaning of words. It is very frustrating to take side tracks (over and over again).

Yeah, I hear you. Had you been around Catholicism a lot longer, that would not be a problem - not to say you wouldn’t have other problems with it, but, that wouldn’t be one of them.

No, what you say is not “evil”. It may be the worst situation in the world, but that is not “evil”.

Did you read what you just said? You can’t break away from relating it all to this world. I’m not putting you down, please don’t think that! Even so-called Catholics have that same problem.

The devil, on the other hand is supposed to be the ultimate evil, the embodiment of malevolence and wickedness, whose only desire is to hurt. It is also a Catholic doctrine that God cannot tolerate evil. So why does he “tolerate” the ultimate evil? Don’t you realize that the whole Catholic teaching is a huge, self-contradicting set of assertions?

No, it is Catholic doctrine that God permits evil. It is a consequence of absence from him and from Grace, not to mention the pure, unadulterated, physicality of corporeal things. Again, sorry, but, no matter how evil you believe Satan to be, you are still confusing state of being, a condition of being, with a Being that can possess that condition…

I know I probably didn’t help you much. I don’t know what else to say or do. You have problems with your conception of Catholicism, as I have problems with my conception of Buddhism. It is possible, though I doubt it, that even I might find some agreement(s) with Buddhism - if I understood it better.

Happy Holidays,
jd

 

[Spock]

Yet you still don’t get it. This life, while very important to many of us, is trivial to him. It is merely the pathway to his realm (or the other realm). (Sorry, I don’t know how else to say that. IOW, I’m not imputing “places.”)

Previously you insinuated that it is incorrect to speculate about the mind of God, but now you seem to speak authoritatively about it. But, strangely enough, I agree that God does not care about this existence - according to the evidence we have. What I cannot fathom, that despite that fact you may still call God “loving” and “caring”.

No it wouldn’t. I rather like my freedom, my ability to make choices. Sorry, but, that’s me. IOW, your speculative desire may not be shared universally. That’s all.

I already said that I am not talking about your freedom. Since I think that you are nice person, who does not wish to do evil things, there is no need to limit your freedom. What about the freedom of those who want to rape, kill and maim? Should we always “respect” their freedom? And please do not say that limiting their freedom somehow robs you of your freedom. That would be absurd.

Again, sorry to say, sorry, again, but, you haven’t been around Catholicism nearly long enough to have learned the Catholic perspective. I have, and even then, there’s so much to it that I’m not 100% sure that my Catholic perspective is correct all the time.

I have been around these boards long enough, and read many posts here. I base my understanding on what I read here. If you think that my understanding is faulty, you have two choices: you can think that I am too stupid to understand the message, or you can blame the posters for giving me the false message. (Or maybe a combination of both.)

That’s your perspective. It doesn’t have to follow from the fact that God loves us, that he wishes the best for us - on earth. That’s clearly not experientially obvious.

It is obvious, by judging the evidence. But the word of “omnibenevolent” is not the same as “selectively benevolent, sometimes and uncaring at other times”.

Again, sorry, but that is simply wrong. That is your definition, as modern as it might be. We understand it to be the privation of the Good.

Not “my” definition - it is the one and only sensible definition. And since you (Catholics) wish to define it differently we lack the common platform to develop a meaningful conversation. And I have been complaining about this for a long time.

Happy Holidays

And merry Christmas to you.

 

[Windfish]

I don’t see any problem between to those def. of evil, I think they are compatible. They mean the same thing.

 

[The_Exodus]

I don’t deny that some instances of pain in certain circumstances are logically necessary to bring forth some good.

All right then. The Christian doctrine states that all evil that exists in the world is permitted in order to bring about a greater good. If you can agree with this in principle, there is nothing more to point out to you.

I’m not claiming to be able to show you “evil x” and then show you “good y” which comes of it. The supposition is that evil is allowed for a greater good. Not that we can know the particular reason for each and every evil.

spock:

Today the anasthesiology does not require the patient to bite the bullet when an amputation is performed, unlike a few hundred years ago.

Yes, and the result is an unconscious patient who has no idea what is going on. If God wanted certain kinds of people – ones who were consciously willingly for instance – then anasthesia would be pointless.

spock:

The real problem is much wider. From the fact that some instances of pain can be justified it does not follow that all instances can be justified.

No, but it does follow, on principle, that it is possible that all instances are justified. That is all I need, and that is what Christianity claims.

spock:

Let’s take a not-so-nice example. Unfortunately it happens that children are abused and beaten.

Emotional appeals are effective, and are usually deployed after the logical appeals have failed.

I am not at all trying to say pain isn’t painful, or that it is not a tragedy some of the evils that go on in the world. So, while I sympathize with this, I do not think it really gets us anywhere in terms of an argument.

spock:

If God allows even one iota of gratuitous pain, he cannot be called “good” any more. Your position is simply untenable.

I never claimed he allowed “gratuitous” pain. In fact, I claimed just the opposite. You can go on to talk about all the seemingly gratuitous pain (to you), but it would irrelevant, and a straw man.

spock:

Sorry, that is not acceptable. Your first sentence is meaningless. Of course “evil” is not a thing, it is a volitional action of some moral agent intending to cause gratuitous harm.

I really wonder why you come on the forum to post such things about Christianity, and yet don’t want to take the time to try and understand it.

Anyway, it’s ashame my position is “not acceptable.” You can think it meaningless or not. My point is, if you’re going to attack it, you ought first to know what you are attacking.

 

[Spock]

All right then. The Christian doctrine states that all evil that exists in the world is permitted in order to bring about a greater good. If you can agree with this in principle, there is nothing more to point out to you.

Actually this is not professed generally. Sometimes this is the argument, and sometimes there is a totally different one. To wit: the evil is the result of free will. Not a prerequisite to some unspecified “good”. This doctrine does not deny the existence of gratuitous evil. There is a third one, too, somewhat less frequently stated: it says that all the pain, suffering, misery in this world is irrelevant when one considers the “big picture”. Whatever happens in this short life is not important when compared to the eternal bliss that supposedly follows. And there is fourth one, too, which is rare, but happens. It outright denies the pain and suffering, especially when it comes to animals. It states that animals may exhibit a behavior which seems to indicate pain, but we cannot know that it is actually pain. So there is no generally professed Christian doctrine. So, since not even Christians can agree on your principle, why I you surprised that an abominable heathen questions it?

I’m not claiming to be able to show you “evil x” and then show you “good y” which comes of it. The supposition is that evil is allowed for a greater good. Not that we can know the particular reason for each and every evil.

OK. Then we all can examine the evidence and see which stance is more reasonable, the one that that the “seemingly” gratuitous pain is really gratuitous, or stick to the “doctrine” which says the opposite. Since the doctrine is not based upon evidence, just some nebulous “may be”, it is irrational to uphold it in the face of the evidence.

Yes, and the result is an unconscious patient who has no idea what is going on.

At what cost? The trauma still lingers on. But if you wish to choose the “bite the bullet” method for yourself, that is your business. If someone chooses to endure pain (for example to glorify God) no one should interfere.

No, but it does follow, on principle, that it is possible that all instances are justified. That is all I need, and that is what Christianity claims.

Possible it may be. Reasonable it is not. It did happen that someone fell out of an airplane (without a parachute) and survived the incident. But it is not reasonable to say: “well, it is possible, so let’s just all jump out of airplanes”.

Emotional appeals are effective, and are usually deployed after the logical appeals have failed.

Nonsense. There is nothing emotional about the example. It is simply factual.

I never claimed he allowed “gratuitous” pain. In fact, I claimed just the opposite. You can go on to talk about all the seemingly gratuitous pain (to you), but it would irrelevant, and a straw man.

Other Christians do, those who maintain that evil is not a prerequisite, but a consequence of free will.

I really wonder why you come on the forum to post such things about Christianity, and yet don’t want to take the time to try and understand it.

I am trying to understand it. But there is no coherent explanation which would be offered. Off the wall definitions, applied in a haphazard manner. There are as many Christian views as Christians. Which is already problematic. But the real problem is the same Christians will argue both sides of the same question, if the question is presented in an appropriate manner. That is why the credibility of the posters is simply zilch.

 

[The_Exodus]

Actually this is not professed generally. Sometimes this is the argument, and sometimes there is a totally different one…etc

All three of the things you mentioned are part of the same answer. Freedom is the cause of evil. God’s permissive will is the reason he allows it to occur. He does this because he is omnipotent enough to bring about a greater good. That’s the common doctrine that’s been held by traditional Christianity since it began.

spock:

OK. Then we all can examine the evidence and see which stance is more reasonable, the one that that the “seemingly” gratuitous pain is really gratuitous, or stick to the “doctrine” which says the opposite. Since the doctrine is not based upon evidence, just some nebulous “may be”, it is irrational to uphold it in the face of the evidence.

Any claims about evil – whether it is gratuitous or not – require faith. Christianity as a doctrine is no different. It is impossible to prove or “show it reasonable” that there is no “gratuitous evil.” Indeed, if that were the case – if we could know beyond a shadow of doubt – faith would be useless, and there would be no sadness at all (pain or otherwise), since the mind would find it impossible to hold anything other than “a greater good will be brought about from what is going on.” As it is now, this involves an assent of the will.

spock:

At what cost? The trauma still lingers on. But if you wish to choose the “bite the bullet” method for yourself, that is your business. If someone chooses to endure pain (for example to glorify God) no one should interfere.

The scenario is not so different than you describe.

God wants to make us into certain types of creatures. He wants to make us good. The only way he can do that is by doing good to us. There is no other good in the universe – no other good to have – than the good he has. In our current condition, since the fall, this is painful.

Now, one can refuse this “divine makeover.” Your will is still free. The truth of the matter is different from what you propose. Numbing the pain only hurts the patient in the end. The only way to get well is to go in for the full treatment.

spock:

Possible it may be. Reasonable it is not. It did happen that someone fell out of an airplane (without a parachute) and survived the incident. But it is not reasonable to say: “well, it is possible, so let’s just all jump out of airplanes”.

But you’ve already agreed with me in principle that you can see how evil can be permitted to bring about a greater good. I’m only extending what we agree in on principle to the totality of evil.

Second – how can a thing be possible, and yet not reasonable? Your example doesn’t show it “unreasonable” a man live after falling out a plane, only that it is “unlikely.” Perhaps you’d like to clarify what you mean by “reasonable.”

spock:

Other Christians do, those who maintain that evil is not a prerequisite, but a consequence of free will.

Freedom is the condition on which evil is possible. This condition is a good and is allowed by God because he can bring forth greater good from it.

spock:

I am trying to understand it. But there is no coherent explanation which would be offered. Off the wall definitions, applied in a haphazard manner. There are as many Christian views as Christians. Which is already problematic. But the real problem is the same Christians will argue both sides of the same question, if the question is presented in an appropriate manner. That is why the credibility of the posters is simply zilch.

I find it difficult to believe you’re truly trying to understand what’s being said, particularly since you continue making bold claims such as “there is no coherent explanation” and “off the wall definitions” when it is obvious that have such misgivings of the doctrine as you do. You also continually make sarcastic posts and mock that in which you’re trying to understand (demons’ existence, for example.) If you are sincere, I applaud you. But if not, then why are you wasting your time?

I do agree however that there are many different Christians. Some are brighter than others. But there is, behind all that, a core of very fundamental agreement.

 

[Spock]

All three of the things you mentioned are part of the same answer. Freedom is the cause of evil. God’s permissive will is the reason he allows it to occur. He does this because he is omnipotent enough to bring about a greater good. That’s the common doctrine that’s been held by traditional Christianity since it began.

How can these be identical or even similar? There are 4 ways to explain the problem. The first two are:

1. Evil is necessary, so that some greater good can be brought out of it. Without the evil the good cannot materialize. You stressed that this is true for ALL evil, you said that there is no gratuitous, or unnecessary evil.
2. Contrary to this the second one does not deny the gratuitous evil at all. It does not say that any and all evils will result in greater good. It says that the the evil is the result of free will.
   Don’t you see that these are diametrically opposing views?

Moreover, you say that the free will is the cause of evil. This is simply incorrect. The causative relationship is between the free will and the possibility of evil, not the actuality of it. Don’t you see that?

But you’ve already agreed with me in principle that you can see how evil can be permitted to bring about a greater good. I’m only extending what we agree in on principle to the totality of evil.

I agreed that there are some situations where this is the case. I did not agree that it can be generalized to all cases. You cannot generalize from the particular to “all”.

Second – how can a thing be possible, and yet not reasonable? Your example doesn’t show it “unreasonable” a man live after falling out a plane, only that it is “unlikely.” Perhaps you’d like to clarify what you mean by “reasonable.”

Yep, you misunderstood me. It is very unlikely, but possible that such an event would take place. The unreasonable part is to attempt to generalize from such an event. You said it needs faith for you to believe that all evils belong to the same category. You also admitted that you have no idea what that greater good might be and what would be the causative relationship between the two. That is called blind faith. And blind faith is completely unreasonable.

 

[The_Exodus]

How can these be identical or even similar? There are 4 ways to explain the problem. The first two are:

1. Evil is necessary, so that some greater good can be brought out of it. Without the evil the good cannot materialize. You stressed that this is true for ALL evil, you said that there is no gratuitous, or unnecessary evil.
2. Contrary to this the second one does not deny the gratuitous evil at all. It does not say that any and all evils will result in greater good. It says that the the evil is the result of free will.
   Don’t you see that these are diametrically opposing views?

Evil is not necessary. I never said that. I said that, granted that there is freedom, evil is necessarily possible. It is permitted in order to bring about a greater good. You are using the term “necessary” equivocally. For instance: “there is no unnecessary evil” is true. Yet it does not follow from this that: “therefore, evil is necessary.” This is because the necessity rests on the freedom of creatures in the second place, but on the omnipotence of God in the first.

God gave creatures the ability to do evil. This is freedom. Now, granting this freedom, there is a possibility – not a necessity – of evil. Yet God is powerful enough that, should this possibility become actualized, he will not permit it to be “gratutitous” or “pointless.” This is because he can draw forth a greater good form it.

spock:

Moreover, you say that the free will is the cause of evil. This is simply incorrect. The causative relationship is between the free will and the possibility of evil, not the actuality of it. Don’t you see that?

That possibility is actualized when the will commits evil, ergo, freedoom is the condition of evil, and a particular creature’s use of that freedom – it’s free choice – is the cause of evil. This is why theologians say that creatures who are evil are “deficient” causes.

spock:

I agreed that there are some situations where this is the case. I did not agree that it can be generalized to all cases. You cannot generalize from the particular to “all”.

Sure I can, so long as we agree in principle. The question at hand is not the principle: evil can be used to bring about greater good, but rather particular applications of that principle.

Put in syllogism, it would read:

Evil is permitted to bring about a greater good.
Action x is evil.
Therefore, action x is permitted in order to bring about a greater good.

You and I are in disgareement with the second premise – namely, which evils, how many, how severe, etc. But this is irrelevant to the argument, since the first premise has been granted.

spock:

Yep, you misunderstood me. It is very unlikely, but possible that such an event would take place. The unreasonable part is to attempt to generalize from such an event. You said it needs faith for you to believe that all evils belong to the same category. You also admitted that you have no idea what that greater good might be and what would be the causative relationship between the two. That is called blind faith. And blind faith is completely unreasonable.

A few things.

You admit it possible, and, therefore in some respect reasonable. I don’t need any more than that, unless you wish to show it impossible.

I am not generalizing. You’ve misunderstood the generalization fallacy. As a matter of fact, you offered no intellectual rigor, you simply stated – without demonstrating – that I was moving from a particular to a universal and therefore I was wrong. The fallacy in itself is simply a name. If you cannot apply a coherent train of thought to it, it is worthless.

Also, although I did say I don’t know what the greater good may be or the particular causative relationship between the two (why did child x in the Congo starve today), I never said I have no idea between the causative relationship of good and evil at all. It is allowed to exist, to bring about a greater good, which, for all I know, may be hid eternally from every creature but God. This is a claim of faith. I’m not sure the word “blind” helps you much here, except as an emotive device. (I’ve noticed, by the way, that you are fond of such devices: “completely unreasonable” is another example.) I’ve never claimed “sensory knowledge” or “demonstrative proof” (in fact, “good” and “evil” cannot themselves be “proven” this way.) I’ve merely offered a worldview that is an explanation of my own experiences of existence.

 

[Spock]

Sure I can, so long as we agree in principle. The question at hand is not the principle: evil can be used to bring about greater good, but rather particular applications of that principle.

Put in syllogism, it would read:

Evil is permitted to bring about a greater good.
Action x is evil.
Therefore, action x is permitted in order to bring about a greater good.

You and I are in disgareement with the second premise – namely, which evils, how many, how severe, etc. But this is irrelevant to the argument, since the first premise has been granted.

But I do not agree to your first premise as you stated it - and not even all Christians agree to it either. There is a very sizable number of Christians and Christian philosophers (Plantinga comes to mind) who do not say that “every piece of evil” will bring forth some greater good. They explicitly say that God allows gratuitous evil. You should try to convince them first, so there would be a common Christian platform.

I only agreed that it is conceivable that under very special and well-defined circumstances something that we consider “evil” is logically necessary to achieve some greater good. But in these cases the “greater good” can be precisely defined, and the method to achieve that is logically established. In your syllogism you already stipulated the “all”, while I only agree to “some”. Your syllogism’s first premise is formed vaguely. It can be read two different ways. One is:
**Some **evil is permitted to bring about a greater good.
Action x is evil.
Therefore, action x is permitted in order to bring about a greater good.

Or it could be:
**All **evils are permitted to bring about a greater good.
Action x is evil.
Therefore, action x is permitted in order to bring about a greater good.

If you use the first one, you commit the fallacy of generalization. If you use the second one, you already stipulate the desired final result as one of the premises, and therefore your syllogism is circular.

I cannot be clearer than this.

 

[The_Exodus]

But I do not agree to your first premise as you stated it - and not even all Christians agree to it either. There is a very sizable number of Christians and Christian philosophers (Plantinga comes to mind) who do not say that “every piece of evil” will bring forth some greater good. They explicitly say that God allows gratuitous evil. You should try to convince them first, so there would be a common Christian platform.

Plantinga is known for holding heterodox beliefs. I doubt, however, that any sane Christian would say God allows “gratuitous” evil, if what they mean by that is “pointless” or “purposeless” suffering. They may concede that they do not know the particular purpose, but I can’t imagine an intelligent Christian saying there is no purpose for it at all.

I’m simply saying that all evil has a purpose, not that I know that purpose, or that that makes pain somehow miraculously more bearable when it is experienced.

If you don’t agree with this (which you are not obliged to do – I am only offering a Christian answer to a Christian question), then we simply hold different views. But all your critiques of my view are more or less straw men, since I implicitly hold that all evil is permitted to bring about a greater good.

 

[Spock]

Plantinga is known for holding heterodox beliefs. I doubt, however, that any sane Christian would say God allows “gratuitous” evil, if what they mean by that is “pointless” or “purposeless” suffering. They may concede that they do not know the particular purpose, but I can’t imagine an intelligent Christian saying there is no purpose for it at all.

Well, some do. Here is their reasoning. They say that God cannot interfere with free will, and free will logically leads to evil, even if no good comes out of it. In a sense it is the reversal of the “later” greater good argument, they say that “free will” is the “greatest good”. Of course they are wrong. Free will does not logically lead to the actuality of evil, it only leads to the potentiality of it - and on this we agreed.

Also, we routinely intefere with the freedom of criminals, and no one says that we should not. Everyone agrees that to put criminals in jail is a good thing. So, if it is proper for us to interfere with free will, why is it not proper for God to do the same?

I’m simply saying that all evil has a purpose, not that I know that purpose, or that that makes pain somehow miraculously more bearable when it is experienced.

If you don’t agree with this (which you are not obliged to do – I am only offering a Christian answer to a Christian question), then we simply hold different views. But all your critiques of my view are more or less straw men, since I implicitly hold that all evil is permitted to bring about a greater good.

Yes, I understand this. And, of course I disagree with it. Here is why.

From your line of thought it follows that if you see some evil act to be performed, then you are in a conondrum: should you attempt to interfere or should you not? From your belief it follows that if you do not interfere, then you are following God’s plan to bring forth that “unspecified and unknowlable” greater good from that evil act. If you interfere, then you thwart God’s plan. Of course, you can also say that it is God’s plan that you should interfere. Since you admit it that you cannot know which one leads to the greater good, you have no rational basis to make a decision. Are you going to toss a coin?

It should be obvious that the two possible courses of action (interfere or not) cannot lead to the same “greater good”. It is impossible that two contradictory causes would lead to same effect. No matter which one you choose, you will prevent the “other” grater good to happen. But since you have no idea, you cannot choose rationally.

Of course, we all would attempt to interfere if we could. If you say that this is the proper way to act, you implictly admit that allowing the evil to happen is not desirable. As such you make a value judgment, but because of you professed ignorance, that judgment is not rational.

You also say that you don’t know what “greater good” can come out of that evil act. I don’t know about you, but I firmly stand on the duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it is very probably a duck”. Translated: “if it looks evil, feels evil, if there is no rational doubt that it is evil, it is very probably evil”. If some criminal woul try the defense: “you cannot know what greater good will come out that seemingly evil act I performed, therefore you have no basis to convict me”, and you were of the jury, what would your reaction be? In jurisprudence the axiom is: “if there is no reasonable doubt…”. And in those evil cases there is no reasonable doubt. To say that “maybe” there is some greater good behind them is anything but reasonable. And you agreed that your view is based on faith - and not reason.

 

[The_Exodus]

Well, some do. Here is their reasoning. They say that God cannot interfere with free will, and free will logically leads to evil, even if no good comes out of it. In a sense it is the reversal of the “later” greater good argument, they say that “free will” is the “greatest good”. Of course they are wrong. Free will does not logically lead to the actuality of evil, it only leads to the potentiality of it - and on this we agreed.

Yes, I think we here are in agreement. Free choice only leads to the logical possibility – not inevitability (even if foreseen) – of evil.

spock:

Also, we routinely intefere with the freedom of criminals, and no one says that we should not. Everyone agrees that to put criminals in jail is a good thing. So, if it is proper for us to interfere with free will, why is it not proper for God to do the same?

We ought to interfere with the freedom of criminals, but we do not entirely effect their freedom. Put a man in a prison, subject him to the gallows, etc. and you cannot “get inside him.” This is the lesson of Andy Dufresne, by the way.

Now, so far as my point goes, it may be that God “buffers” our freedom as much as possible, in the same way that we would a criminal. This may not appear so to us, but again, when we are talking about omnipotence, I see no reason to impose a necessary limitation.

It must be admitted, however, that God allows evils which seem to us too terrible to understand, the justification of which would seem impossible – Auschwitz for instance. The Christian response is one of faith, but it is not, as John Paul II said, in an “indifferent omnipotence” as Deism and the book of Job speaks to. It is a God who enters into his creation and takes on suffering himself.

spock:

From your line of thought it follows that if you see some evil act to be performed, then you are in a conondrum: should you attempt to interfere or should you not? From your belief it follows that if you do not interfere, then you are following God’s plan to bring forth that “unspecified and unknowlable” greater good from that evil act. If you interfere, then you thwart God’s plan. Of course, you can also say that it is God’s plan that you should interfere. Since you admit it that you cannot know which one leads to the greater good, you have no rational basis to make a decision. Are you going to toss a coin?

This is no conundrum particular to Christianity. It is simply the fact that we all have to make choices at some points, the outcomes of which we do not know for certain. This is true in any philosophy. All a person can do is the best one can.

Now, your example seems to have particular force because you’ve presented a vague generality, instead of a concrete example. Were you to give a particular example, it probably would not be so difficult (isn’t it rather more often the case that we know the good we are supposed to do, yet we simply don’t do it?) The Christian is commanded to do good, even if he doesn’t understand why, and put his trust in God. Again, this is why faith is important. The answer is not so black and white very often, however. This is why ethics is a branch of philosophy!

spock:

It should be obvious that the two possible courses of action (interfere or not) cannot lead to the same “greater good”.

Just because we do not know the greater good, it does not follow that there is no such one. Meanwhile, we are suppose to do the good we know, not the potential good we do not.

spock:

“if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it is very probably a duck”.

I agree. We ought to stop evil to the best of our ability, and leave “the greater good” to the omnipotence of God.

spock:

And you agreed that your view is based on faith - and not reason.

Well, you are asking a Christian question. Are you expecting an answer that is not Christian?

Nevertheless, I readily admit my answers rests on faith – the faith of Christianity. But that does not make them *implicitly *against reason or un-reasonable.

 

[Spock]

Yes, I think we here are in agreement. Free choice only leads to the logical possibility – not inevitability (even if foreseen) – of evil.

Excellent. We have complete agreement.

We ought to interfere with the freedom of criminals, but we do not entirely effect their freedom. Put a man in a prison, subject him to the gallows, etc. and you cannot “get inside him.” This is the lesson of Andy Dufresne, by the way.

This is also good. We agree that limiting someone’s course of action is acceptable if we are reasonably certain that the person is likely to commit some more evil acts. Of course God can know for sure (which is much better than our reasonably certain knowledge), who is going to do what if allowed.

Now, so far as my point goes, it may be that God “buffers” our freedom as much as possible, in the same way that we would a criminal. This may not appear so to us, but again, when we are talking about omnipotence, I see no reason to impose a necessary limitation.

I agree again. There are many physical limitations built into the physical reality, which prevent us from doing many things (and some of those would be very good, while some others would be bad). There are also some psychological limitations built into some of us, which will prevent some undesired actions. The question is: “why are the limits implemented at the level as they are?”. On one hand we have not enough freedom to do good, of the other we have too much freedom to do bad.

It must be admitted, however, that God allows evils which seem to us too terrible to understand, the justification of which would seem impossible – Auschwitz for instance. The Christian response is one of faith, but it is not, as John Paul II said, in an “indifferent omnipotence” as Deism and the book of Job speaks to. It is a God who enters into his creation and takes on suffering himself.

I understand that as well. But I do not share it. I understand that for you this is a sufficient explanation, but you should also realize that for an atheist it is not.

This is no conundrum particular to Christianity. It is simply the fact that we all have to make choices at some points, the outcomes of which we do not know for certain. This is true in any philosophy. All a person can do is the best one can.

Of course. For me it is simple. If I would see a planned abduction, I would attempt to prevent it. I would not stop and hesitate and ponder: “but what if God’s plan needs that abduction to bring forth some unknowable greater good?”. And I am quite certain that you would not hesitate either. Why? Because deep down you don’t “really” believe that it is the case. You only “believe” that in such sterile circumstances, as this conversation, but you do not when push comes to shove and you are in the thick of the action.

Well, you are asking a Christian question. Are you expecting an answer that is not Christian?

Well, think about it. If I would ask a believer and an atheist why do they attempt to prevent an abduction, the answer would be the same: “because there is no need to assume that the abduction is somehow necessary to lead to some greater good”. If it looks like that it is an evil act, then we must prevent it. Even if both would have ample time to think about it in detail.

Nevertheless, I readily admit my answers rests on faith – the faith of Christianity. But that does not make them *implicitly *against reason or un-reasonable.

Agreed, not in a blanket fashion. But in a particular case it does. In an actual abduction example what you would do is the opposite than what you say about the hypothetical case. And that is my point: “your actions would belie your words”.

 

[JDaniel]

Previously you insinuated that it is incorrect to speculate about the mind of God, but now you seem to speak authoritatively about it.

Straw man: two different things. 1.) Humans cannot know the mind of God; this means, as we view the quanta of existence, we cannot know the why’s and wherefore’s of God’s reasoning. 2.) We can know a great deal about his nature; that has been revealed to us through Revelation. This allows people to draw reasoned conclusions on providential questions.

But, strangely enough, I agree that God does not care about this existence - according to the evidence we have. What I cannot fathom, that despite that fact you may still call God “loving” and “caring”.

If he weren’t, he could destroy us with a snap of his infinite fingers. If he weren’t, we might not be here. We can “see,” through Revelation, that God “commiserated,” so to speak, in the decision about what we were to be. He let Christ be man. He let Christ participate in pain. He provided the physical exigency of “shock.” He provided a culture of man to help one’s brothers and sisters in times of need. He provided the healing processes. He provided an earth full of potential medicines. And, he gave us the abilities to find them.

I already said that I am not talking about your freedom. Since I think that you are nice person, who does not wish to do evil things, there is no need to limit your freedom. What about the freedom of those who want to rape, kill and maim? Should we always “respect” their freedom?

Of course not. It is the Christian belief that he has written the first principle of morality on our hearts, so to speak. From that, most - but, not all - men choose, or, have chosen, to align themselves with his goodness. A few have chosen to align themselves with nothing. In the privation of God (“goodness”), they have chosen to make the children of God suffer. It is as though they do evil as an ultimate affront to him. They are “seen” for what they do, in the same way we are “heard,” when we pray.

And please do not say that limiting their freedom somehow robs you of your freedom. That would be absurd.

I won’t. God has also made it clear that such men can be subjected to human law. They can, and for the most part (but not always) are thwarted from carrying out their purposes timelessly. Sooner or later they are caught up with!

I have been around these boards long enough, and read many posts here. I base my understanding on what I read here. If you think that my understanding is faulty, you have two choices: you can think that I am too stupid to understand the message, or you can blame the posters for giving me the false message. (Or maybe a combination of both.)

Well, you’re not stupid, but, that is a very different concept from ignorance. I do agree that many posters tend to write what and how they themselves feel, not necessarily what God has revealed explicitly or implicitly.

It is obvious, by judging the evidence. But the word of “omnibenevolent” is not the same as “selectively benevolent, sometimes and uncaring at other times”.

Again, that’s anthropomorphizing. I don’t know what God’s ultimate purposes are. I don’t know why certain people embrace a life of pain. I don’t know why others, not wishing to participate in such a life, are subject to it in any event. I know God exists (from dialectical induction, logic and Revelation); I have Faith that he is ultimately a good god (otherwise, our suffering could be immense!).

Not “my” definition - it is the one and only sensible definition. And since you (Catholics) wish to define it differently we lack the common platform to develop a meaningful conversation. And I have been complaining about this for a long time.

I will have to come back to this, as I don’t remember what it concerned - too much time away from the fora due to Christmas, you know.

Happy New and God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I will have to come back to this, as I don’t remember what it concerned - too much time away from the fora due to Christmas, you know.

OK, now I know what it was. Look, although you may think it is the most reasonable way to define evil, I cannot - for precisely the same reason: A thing cannot be evil - that we often, and anthropomorphically, postulate it so, is unfortunate. Substances are indifferent to good and evil, purely and simply. Good and evil can only be conditions of material substances (including the immaterial thoughts and intentions found in some materialities). If good and evil were substantial essences of matter, the most evil of substances, on earth, would no doubt be radioactive isotopes. Yet, used with care and intelligence, radioactive isotopes can annihilate cancer tumors. Radioactive isotopes are indifferent to good and evil. The immense power of them can be used judiciously or injudiciously - for good or evil.

Both good and evil must be rationally understood to be conditions in the possession of not in something else, as though it could be squeezed out of it like lemon juice from a lemon. A man is good because he lacks the condition of evil. He is evil because he lacks the condition of good. And so with natural occurrences and ontological things: they are not good or evil in and of themselves. They are evil because they lack good, or good because they lack evil.

I cannot see how that is anything but purely logical and reasonable - and, scientific! Wouldn’t you agree with this?

God bless and Happy new year,
jd

 

[Spock]

Straw man: two different things. 1.) Humans cannot know the mind of God; this means, as we view the quanta of existence, we cannot know the why’s and wherefore’s of God’s reasoning. 2.) We can know a great deal about his nature; that has been revealed to us through Revelation. This allows people to draw reasoned conclusions on providential questions.

Previously you said: “This life, while very important to many of us, is trivial to him.”. This sounds pretty straightforward “knowledge of God’s mind”. You happen to mention revelation quite a few times. I know that it is an important factor in your reasoning preocess, but I hope you realize it is not something I accept.

I won’t. God has also made it clear that such men can be subjected to human law. They can, and for the most part (but not always) are thwarted from carrying out their purposes timelessly. Sooner or later they are caught up with!

Sooner or later is not much of a consolation for those who already were raped, tortured and murdered. As they say: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”. Since God can foresee the evil acts, and has the power to prevent them, why does he not do it? This is the central question.

Well, you’re not stupid, but, that is a very different concept from ignorance. I do agree that many posters tend to write what and how they themselves feel, not necessarily what God has revealed explicitly or implicitly.

I sure wish that you would come to my side when those posters “overstep” the limits of their authority. Of course I know that you have much more important things to do.

Again, that’s anthropomorphizing. I don’t know what God’s ultimate purposes are. I don’t know why certain people embrace a life of pain. I don’t know why others, not wishing to participate in such a life, are subject to it in any event. I know God exists (from dialectical induction, logic and Revelation); I have Faith that he is ultimately a good god (otherwise, our suffering could be immense!).

Not necessarily so. Only if God were explictly evil. The signs actually point to an indifferent God.

 

[Spock]

OK, now I know what it was. Look, although you may think it is the most reasonable way to define evil, I cannot - for precisely the same reason: A thing cannot be evil - that we often, and anthropomorphically, postulate it so, is unfortunate. Substances are indifferent to good and evil, purely and simply. Good and evil can only be conditions of material substances (including the immaterial thoughts and intentions found in some materialities). If good and evil were substantial essences of matter, the most evil of substances, on earth, would no doubt be radioactive isotopes. Yet, used with care and intelligence, radioactive isotopes can annihilate cancer tumors. Radioactive isotopes are indifferent to good and evil. The immense power of them can be used judiciously or injudiciously - for good or evil.

So far completely agreed. “Things” are neither good, nor evil. They may be beneficial (good), or harmful (bad) or neutral.

Both good and evil must be rationally understood to be conditions in the possession of not in something else, as though it could be squeezed out of it like lemon juice from a lemon. A man is good because he lacks the condition of evil. He is evil because he lacks the condition of good. And so with natural occurrences and ontological things: they are not good or evil in and of themselves. They are evil because they lack good, or good because they lack evil.

Here you go in circles. You define “good” as not “evil” and then you define “evil” as not “good”. Nice, little merry-go-round. You have to stop and define one of them in absolute terms, before you can negate it. And you should not forget the “in-between” either. Some things are neutral. The world is not black and white.

I also agree that only a moral agent can be “morally good” or “evil”. These words are not applicable to inanimate “things”, or living creatures which are not moral agents.

 

[The_Exodus]

The question is: “why are the limits implemented at the level as they are?”. On one hand we have not enough freedom to do good, of the other we have too much freedom to do bad.

Any freedom to do bad is, consequently, freedom to do good as well. Any temptation that can lead to a bad action is at the same time a temptation which can be overcome, and thus can lead to a good.

spock:

Well, think about it. If I would ask a believer and an atheist why do they attempt to prevent an abduction, the answer would be the same: “because there is no need to assume that the abduction is somehow necessary to lead to some greater good”. If it looks like that it is an evil act, then we must prevent it. Even if both would have ample time to think about it in detail.

But your example assumes that pain is the greatest evil, and extrapolates from there that God ought to prevent all pain. But sin, according to Christianity, is the greatest evil. It is this which has to do with freedom. Pain, in a sense, is only the ramification of sin.

Suppose you had a daughter who had become a young adult, and suppose she wanted to live in such a way that you thought was destructive to her health and well-being. Suppose she became a prostitute, for example. Now, would you prevent her living her life at all costs? I’m sure you would do a great deal to help her see the error of her ways, but would you stop it in the same way you would stop the abduction?

spock:

Agreed, not in a blanket fashion. But in a particular case it does. In an actual abduction example what you would do is the opposite than what you say about the hypothetical case. And that is my point: “your actions would belie your words”.

The abuction example doesn’t really get at the heart of the issue concerning freedom and evil, as my example above tries to show.

 

[JDaniel]

Previously you said: “This life, while very important to many of us, is trivial to him.”. This sounds pretty straightforward “knowledge of God’s mind”. You happen to mention revelation quite a few times. I know that it is an important factor in your reasoning process, but I hope you realize it is not something I accept.

My apologies for how that sounded. It was actually a conclusion derived from many areas of Scripture. Our souls are far more important than this life. Attaining the Beatific Vision is far more important than this life. He lowered the number of years that men and women lived, not to merely increase the number of living things on earth, but, rather to increase the number of potential souls that would come to him. In my opinion. Besides, the emphasis, regarding this life, is on our actions, how we live it.

Sooner or later is not much of a consolation for those who already were raped, tortured and murdered. As they say: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”. Since God can foresee the evil acts, and has the power to prevent them, why does he not do it? This is the central question.

Many have given their thoughts, in these forums. There’s not much more that I can tell you that hasn’t already been said.

That said, I guess that I’ve grown somewhat calloused, over time. I have known several girls and women who were raped. I am aware of how some reacted to it. But, I was amazed that none of the girls I knew were blown away by the event. The first girl that ever told me about it was raped by the son of the preacher of the church she was attending. I guess I had empathy written all over my face. So, she said to me, “What are you torn up about? I’m not torn up - it was just disgusting. But, here I am and I’m fine.” Notwithstanding, I felt somewhat the fool!

Anyway, they all thought the experiences were disgusting, but, they were not utterly torn up by them. None were fearful about going anywhere. None were fearful about living alone. I guess what I’m saying is that we who have never experienced such an event, tend to over-posit the real suffering.

I remember, as a kid, that what tore me up most, was not getting that which I dearly wanted. Example: I wanted a dog. My parents said no. I was devastated for weeks. But, being hit by a baseball bat or a baseball, having fish hooks penetrate my fingers, getting toenails ripped off by falling through a trampoline, having a couple of pretty intense surgeries, falling out of trees, skinning my knees on sidewalks, and so on and so forth, I forgot about them almost as quickly as the pain subsided. IOW, I think we’re built to take a whole lot more than we’re given credit for. To this day, I know I had surgeries, and that they were each were supposedly painful, but, they exist in a dream-world now.

Yes, I’ve discovered that I have a thick skin and that has, I think, made me much less sensitive to other people’s trials. Murder, well, that’s rather final. No more memory even! I often laugh at the way some of those things are presented on T.V. It somehow feels wrong to lessen those things, but, I really can’t help it. I think I’ve been through almost all there is to go through - the above is an abbreviated list of the things I’ve been through. Then, my wife passed away in 1994. Not everything made it to this short-list.

I sure wish that you would come to my side when those posters “overstep” the limits of their authority. Of course I know that you have much more important things to do.

I would be glad to. Please let me know by message whenever you think I might be interested in taking a look at something. The rules of this board are fairly rigid, but, newbies will overstep, particularly. The admins read so much that I don’t know how they do it. Anyway, I’ll keep my eyes open for those kinds of posts. I’ve seen some around these fora and they are not Christian.

Not necessarily so. Only if God were explicitly evil. The signs actually point to an indifferent God.

I can’t help but feel that way myself sometimes. I have learned to get past those times by repetitive prayer. Not supplicative prayer, but just sort of talking with him more formally than herein.

No matter what, I regard you as a great friend. I am here to watch your back. You put me in mind of de Beauvoir. You are metaphysical without being religious. A rare quality. I think Rossum exhibits some of it too. I’m sorry, I capitalize names out of respect. Unless this keyboard permits me to blunder! (I know Rossum uses “rossum” for his username.)

God bless you and I hope you and your family had a nice holiday,
jd