The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Sair]

I apologize for my snide remarks (ie - my comment about whether the lights were on at home) in response to a misunderstanding of your position on the reality of evil. I mistakenly thought you were a subjective relativist and that you considered evil only a subjective experience. Thank you for clarifying what you really think for me. I was arguing about the objective reality of evil (which only has meaning in context with objective good to me) with the incorrect idea you were in denial about it’s existence. I realize this discussion with you about the reality of evil was out of context with the OP and was a diversion from it’s central theme.

Question just so that I don’t spin any more wheels in the wrong direction - are you an athiest or agnostic?

This topic is the same as discussed by CS Lewis in his book “The Problem of Pain”. How do you reconcile the existence of evil, pain and suffering in the world if God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving? This is an extremely important topic.

Thanks for your words - amazing how a little clarity can heal the rift, eh?

I guess my answer to your question depends upon which definition of ‘atheist’ you choose to apply. If by ‘atheist’ you mean someone who is convinced that there is absolutely no god anywhere within or outside the known universe, then I’m agnostic, because I don’t think there’s enough evidence to know that there is no god - that whole problem of proving a negative and all.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that there is such a being as the Christian God - a personal God who interacts meaningfully with people, is all-knowing, all-powerful, everpresent and infinitely good. To my mind, there is far too much evidence counting against such a being existing - the problem of evil being a major issue. Also, as I think Touchstone has pointed out in a couple of posts on other threads, the fact that scientific investigation has been inexorably pushing the God question into the background - by demonstrating that there is a naturalistic explanation for so many observed phenomena that were formerly assumed to be the work of God, science has largely made God obsolete, at least in terms of objective, empirical evidence. It has become almost entirely a matter of subjective experience as to whether one believes in a personal god or not - and I do not.

As I mentioned on another post, I am somewhat sentimentally fond of the idea of god the scientist, who set up the universe as an ongoing experiment, and has been a detached observer of its progress ever since - although of course I have no way of knowing the truth or otherwise of this notion!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Also, as I think Touchstone has pointed out in a couple of posts on other threads, the fact that scientific investigation has been inexorably pushing the God question into the background - by demonstrating that there is a naturalistic explanation for so many observed phenomena that were formerly assumed to be the work of God.

Just because somebody thought at one time that something was the work of God but was in fact mistaken does not tell me that God did not create the world and that natural events are not intended to fulfill a purpose. What science does tell me, is that natural events have a larger part to play in the development of the universe than what was understood to be the case a thousand years ago. The idea of “natural events” is not an alien concept to Christianity and neither is it contradictory. The only thing that has fundamentally changed is our understanding of natural events and the part that they play in Gods creation. But if one is determined to disbelieve, you can just imagine to your self that all events are natural events; make them infinite if you so please or make-believe that it all popped out of nothing. How one chooses to interpret scientific data in light of ultimate questions is up to the individuals conscience and reasoning abilities. If you are a honest person and you lack the abilities to perceive the irrationality of absolute-naturalism, then fair enough.

science has largely made God obsolete, at least in terms of objective, empirical evidence.

Science deals with what can be measured. God is not a question for science, and the idea that science is disproving Gods role in the development of the world is an unscientific world-view. That you only value evidence that can be measured and weighed is a convenience for your chosen worldview, i am sure; but nothing more than that.

It has become almost entirely a matter of subjective experience as to whether one believes in a personal god or not - and I do not.

Almost? What do we really know of reality that we can assume that we almost know what existence is and what causes it? We would have to assume that physical reality is the only kind of reality that exists. Your statement is assuming first that there is no kind of evidence for Gods existence; secondly, that science is the only valid means of knowledge. And thirdly, that the scientific data some how does away with the need to consider God as the ultimate source of physical existence. This is false.

But you are right about one thing. Your disbelief is a personal preference.

As I mentioned on another post, I am somewhat sentimentally fond of the idea of god the scientist, who set up the universe as an ongoing experiment, and has been a detached observer of its progress ever since - although of course I have no way of knowing the truth or otherwise of this notion!

Of course you are fond of that idea! You don’t have to answer to God for your moral short-comings if he doesn’t give a dame.:

 

[Sair]

Of course you are fond of that idea! You don’t have to answer to God for your moral short-comings if he doesn’t give a dame.:

No, but I still have to answer to real, flesh-and-blood people who are hurt or offended by my shortcomings.

 

[MindOverMatter]

No, but I still have to answer to real, flesh-and-blood people who are hurt or offended by my shortcomings.

I guess you can’t escape everything.

 

[Sair]

I guess you can’t escape everything.

This has gotten very old. Again we’re seeing the bog-standard ‘critique’ of atheism that claims the only reason people turn away from religion and god is because they want to live in amoral abandon.

Clearly you are someone who values - and perhaps requires - a sound objective basis for your beliefs. And if you don’t have have all the facts, or if the facts don’t fit the interpretation you want, then gosh darn it to heck, you’ll make up some that do. Your baseless assumption concerning my morality or lack thereof is a perfect example: you have already formed a heavily biased mental picture of what an ‘atheist’ is, and you’ll just keep telling yourself that all atheists, including me, fit that picture, regardless of manifold indications to the contrary.

Why would I, an atheist humanist, choose such a path through a wish to be absolved of moral responsibility for my actions? I may not believe in a personal god to whom I have to answer for my faults, but I live as part of a community of friends and family who are affected by my actions and words, and whose words and actions affect me in turn. Their happiness matters to me, and from all indications, mine matters to them. Why would I even desire to escape my moral responsibilities, when they lead to happiness for me and mine, and others besides?

You might get a clearer picture of how seriously I consider morality from reading a thread I started on this forum recently called ‘Morality and Subjectivity’.

 

[MindOverMatter]

This has gotten very old. Again we’re seeing the bog-standard ‘critique’ of atheism that claims the only reason people turn away from religion and god is because they want to live in amoral abandon.

I wasn’t giving a critique. I was stating a fact of life. I.e. no matter how you feel about it, there are going to be people with world veiws and feelings that are different from yours. I am just following what you were saying. You said that you still have to deal with real people with real emotions that have to deal with your moral limitations. And i am saying that you can’t escape everything; you can’t have everything your own way. People, by their objective nature of being persons, are offended by selfish attitudes and mostly protest or become aware of wrong when they become the unfortunate object of somebodies selfish desires. This is objectively true of people. Also, i never said that you want to be “amoral”. I said that you want to be your own God. There is a slight difference, at least in so far an atheist can be generaly good to a relative degree just like everyone else and yet be his or her own God. I know this because i was an atheist once.

But Christianity demands more. It demands that we give up our personal agendas and completly resign ourselves to the will of God. In the face of this, you obviously think that there is greater bennefit in disbelief than having hope or obedience in God. Otherwise you would have hope, since no rational or practical person would go through life telling themsleves, without absolute proof, that their life has no more objective value than cows dung and that they are going to ultimately cease to exist, unless they thought that they had something to gain from entertaining that world veiw. You can pull the wool over your eyes, but that won’t stop me from seeing you for what you are. You are a human being with hopes and desires and you decided at some point that atheism is the best way to fullfil your desire because the lifestyle choices that Christianity demands of you doesn’t reflect how you want use your life as an individual. I say that this line of atheistic thinking is irrational, because its logically impossible to be ultimately, objectively, and existentially fulfilled by telling ourselves the antithesis of that which objectively and eternally fullfils us both in terms of our existence and our moral value as persons.

 

[Sair]

I am just following what you were saying. You said that you still have to deal with real people with real emotions that have to deal with your moral limitations. And i am saying that you can’t escape everything; you can’t have everything your own way.

You’re still doing it! Still reading into my posts what you presuppose is there. You’re not following what I’m saying at all, but completely missing the point. I wasn’t speaking of ‘dealing with’ people and their different worldviews. I was speaking of fulfilling moral responsibilities to others, working with others for our mutual happiness - which is an entirely different matter to your idea of merely ‘coping’ with the fact that every person is different.

People, by their objective nature of being persons, are offended by selfish attitudes and mostly protest or become aware of wrong when they become the unfortunate object of somebodies selfish desires. This is objectively true of people.

Do you mean metaphysically objective, epistemologically objective, or both?

Also, i never said that you want to be “amoral”. I said that you want to be your own God. There is a slight difference, at least in so far an atheist can be generaly good to a relative degree just like everyone else and yet be his or her own God. I know this because i was an atheist once.

I feel so much better now that you’ve conceded that I can be at least relatively, generally good. I suppose that’s a decent step up from the scum of the earth which some protestant sects believe humans are, minus the grace of their god! Atheists don’t believe they are their own gods. Atheists don’t believe in any gods - which you would know if you actually were an atheist, rather than a self-aggrandiser or even just a moral nihilist. People arrive at atheism for many and varied reasons. It’s a fair bet, from everything we’ve covered here, that my reasons are different to yours.

You can pull the wool over your eyes, but that won’t stop me from seeing you for what you are.

Oh, and I’m the one trying to be a god here…?

I say that this line of atheistic thinking is irrational, because its logically impossible to be ultimately, objectively, and existentially fulfilled by telling ourselves the antithesis of that which objectively and eternally fullfils us both in terms of our existence and our moral value as persons.

Logically impossible? Upon what premises, and what proof? And how do you define fulfilment? Bearing in mind that if you define fulfilment as unity with your god, your argument takes on something of a circular quality. :ehh:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Logically impossible? Upon what premises, and what proof? And how do you define fulfilment? Bearing in mind that if you define fulfilment as unity with your god, your argument takes on something of a circular quality. :ehh:

Throughtout my discussion with you I have given you a full explanation of my position in regards to the word “fullfilment”. You can either prove how deceptive and dishonest you are by making straw-men of my arguement; or you can face the reality of my arguement as i have presented it throughout this discussion. Its up to you.

Goodbye.

 

[Sair]

I’m sorry, but i don’t think that you really understand what you are talking about. You seem to be just throwing things out there, and hoping that i might be blind enough not to see the fatal flaws in your thinking.

The thing is that you are more overtly “throwing things out there”, and I’m not convinced, from what you’ve written, that you have any actual understanding of what is meant by terms such as ‘objective’, ‘personhood’, or ‘fulfilment’, to give a few examples. These appear, from your writing, to be nebulous concepts that make some kind of sense to you, but which you don’t seem to be able to explain in such a way as to make your understanding of them intelligible to others. You just assume that your understanding is everyone’s understanding, and leave it at that.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The thing is that you are more overtly “throwing things out there”, and I’m not convinced, from what you’ve written, that you have any actual understanding of what is meant by terms such as ‘objective’, ‘personhood’, or ‘fulfilment’, to give a few examples. These appear, from your writing, to be nebulous concepts that make some kind of sense to you, but which you don’t seem to be able to explain in such a way as to make your understanding of them intelligible to others. You just assume that your understanding is everyone’s understanding, and leave it at that.

The problem is, other people do understand what i am saying. You do not, or more to the point, you don’t want to.

 

[James_S_Saint]

“Evil” is the reverse spelling of the word “live” for a reason. Evil is anti-life. In German it is “Efyl”, reversed to spell “Lyfe”.

Evil must exist simply because life exists. Evil is the effort in the opposite direction as life.

The “problem of Evil” is the challenge of Life. If there is no challenge for life, life can have no spirit and cannot grow strong or remain strong. The threat of the problem is all that is really required by those who know better how to make it clear.

 

[Oreoracle]

If there is no challenge for life, life can have no spirit and cannot grow strong or remain strong.

…Unless an omnipotent being simply chooses to make us strong, happy, etc., by default. And with that, the real Problem of Evil, not the one you’re talking about, lives on.

Blasted atheists, always pointing out that bothersome omnipotence that we keep attributing to God for some reason.

 

[James_S_Saint]

…Unless an omnipotent being simply chooses to make us strong, happy, etc., by default. And with that, the real Problem of Evil, not the one you’re talking about, lives on.

Blasted atheists, always pointing out that bothersome omnipotence that we keep attributing to God for some reason.

And ignoring the answers to that omnipotence issue.

Omnipotence never meant being inconsistent or illogical. God IS the consistency and the real Logic. Being consistent, there are opposites to every endeavor.

If God “simply chose” to do the things that you suggest, He would not be God.

 

[Sair]

And ignoring the answers to that omnipotence issue.

Omnipotence never meant being inconsistent or illogical. God IS the consistency and the real Logic. Being consistent, there are opposites to every endeavor.

If God “simply chose” to do the things that you suggest, He would not be God.

It seems to me that this view presents some problems from the point of view of those (mostly Biblical literalists, I suspect, although I don’t know how prevalent such views are amongst Catholics) who believe that God originally created a paradise in which there was no sin, no death, no predation(!) - essentially, nothing that was ‘anti-life’ - and it was that couple of pesky humans who went and spoiled it for everyone by exercising their (presumably God-given) free will.

Now, would an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god have allowed this to happen, if only for the sake of balancing all this life and happiness with a seasoning of death and misery?

We’re back again to the problem of reconciling the all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good god with the fact that evil - as you say, anti-life - obviously exists. If this god must, by nature, be logical and consistent, that doesn’t sit well with the concept of omnipotence, since it implies limits on a being supposed to be limitless. On the other hand, if this god chooses to allow evil to exist, despite being all-powerful and all-knowing, then it kind of puts paid to the theory that this same god is all-good.

This is a problem philosophers have struggled with for millennia, and it can’t be simply waved away - its implications call for either a hefty dose of doublethink or a complete reimagining of the nature of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is a problem philosophers have struggled with for millennia, and it can’t be simply waved away - its implications call for either a hefty dose of doublethink or a complete reimagining of the nature of God.

Wouldn’t a complete reimagining of the nature of goodness also do the trick?

 

[James_S_Saint]

We’re back again to the problem of reconciling the all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good god with the fact that evil - as you say, anti-life - obviously exists. If this god must, by nature, be logical and consistent, that doesn’t sit well with the concept of omnipotence, since it implies limits on a being supposed to be limitless. On the other hand, if this god chooses to allow evil to exist, despite being all-powerful and all-knowing, then it kind of puts paid to the theory that this same god is all-good.

This is a problem philosophers have struggled with for millennia, and it can’t be simply waved away - its implications call for either a hefty dose of doublethink or a complete reimagining of the nature of God.

I think the real problem is people getting stuck on the idea that God, in order to be kind, should be illogical. That is a very liberal and feminine idea (and is largely why it was Eve who was tempted).

If an all powerful god creates an entire universe and within it there is life, that life must necessarily experience evil. This is true simply because by having anything trying in one direction, the opposite direction must exist and present some resistance. Such is not a matter of choice. It is a logical necessity. Logic is the realm of God’s rules.

Eve chose to be irrational. God had created Ahdam, stark and rational, alone and no challenge, no spirit to live and accomplish. Eve was then created so as to give challenge and cause growth. But that meant that Eve had to be susceptible to being irrational, else Eve would have been the merely the same as Ahdam and would not be inspiring self-perpetuating life. God would have to go make each individual. Again, this is not a choice. It is a logical necessity. And to be expected.

Literally the RNA/DNA process within every living cell functions in exactly the same manner. That is what causes it to grow. The cells could complain, but why must we struggle?

People presume that it would be nicer if God would go fix everything without them having to do it or suffer for not doing it. That alternative leaves people as nothing but robots not even capable of reproducing.

What you propose would be irrational of God to do. The problem is that you cannot discern rational from irrational without a great deal of education that you do not currently have. Once you acquire it, you won’t argue.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

people have problems trying to reconcile the actions of an omniscient, omnipotent G-d, with their expectations.

the problem being , of course, that man not being omniscient himself, has absolutely no idea what an omniscient, omnipotent being should do. not only does man himself lack these qualities, making such expectations irrational, but more importantly man fails to recognize the existence of evil and the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient G-d are not mutually exclusive.

under rational examination, the so-called Problem of Evil evaporates.

 

[MindOverMatter]

the real Problem of Evil, not the one you’re talking about, lives on.

No. The problem of evil you speak of is really a fallacy and a fantasy because it fails to comprehend what it means for God to create a morally good world; rather than just a world that merely serves to manifest material pleasure in human beings. Its your definition of love and the moral good that leads you to think that there is a problem because you fail to see that love runs deeper than just the material good. You perceive and desire a counterfeit version of love and goodness. You mistakenly think that a loving world is a world with out pain. But if you study love as it truly is and as it relates to the creation of personal beings and their ultimate end, it will reveal to you that the development of love within the soul of humanity demands the freedom for both acts of good and evil, and the freedom to choose ultimately between the two. For God to force us to be good would be a selfish act and would be quite impossible because God is Love and love is about personal relationships and choices which cannot be achieved if human beings are puppets on a string.
A mature understanding of love does not reveal a world full of good, but rather the potential for good.

The antithesis of love is selfishness, not necessarily pain. Pain can be used for the service of selfish gain, but it is not the root of selfishness. Pain can also be used for good. There are many instances where people and nations have gained in moral virtue because of their experience of pain. Selfishness is caused by the absence of love in the hearts and choices of human beings; a love that humanity must freely choose to accept. The root of evil is selfishness; not pain. Some Academic Atheists who are interested in the philosophy of religion do not believe that evil is a necessary contradiction to the existence of a good God; but rather they now claim there is so much evil in the world that a good God is unlikely to exist. This to me is a much more honest and intelligent proposition from the atheist.

But if we understand that “selfishness” is the root of evil, then the question should not be, “why did God allow pain and suffering”. The real question should be, “is it selfish of God to create human beings in-order to offer them eternal happiness, and the fulfillment of moral values, knowing that they will suffer greatly for a finite period of time”. An honest person, with the intelligence to understand the question, will say no. To say that objective eternal happiness and the moral good is not worth fighting for and suffering for, is an irrational answer, since in the first place the atheist is saying that God is not fulfilling the moral good which we desire and thus causes us to rebel, when in fact God eternally fulfills the moral good in the offering of eternal happiness. Thus we ought to accept the invitation despite any suffering that may commence, since it is happiness that a rational person desires; and the greatest kind of happiness is that which eternally fulfills our value as persons. Heaven is worth living for and fighting for because it ultimately fulfills our value as persons. And as persons, a fundamental factor of that fulfillment is our freedom to make an ultimate choice between good and evil.

Potential suffering, pain, and the inevitability of death has opened the eyes of many to the concept of the greater good, the value of life, and the moral virtues that we must achieve in order to bring goodness into the world. In turn, those that have learned, have taught what they have come to know. We can freely reject what we are taught and live merely to serve our selves. But even in the event of serving our selves we have learned many good things by being the antithesis of love. There is a lot of virtues that humanity has achieved because they have suffered, because we die, because we age, because we get disease, because we are tempted. We have become aware of things through experience that we would not have otherwise become aware of. Thus; once we understand that selfishness has nothing or little to do with pain accept that pain is an inevitability in our freely coming to know God, then we can understand the permission of pain is a great good and a blessing without which we would not be permitted to have eternal happiness. Jesus’ death and suffering explicitly reveals that the path to heaven is suffering. This is the price of freedom.

We have freely come to comprehend the reality of good through our experience. Our experience and relationship with the moral good is at its greatest when one has freely chosen to grow in virtue and harmony with love. The sacraments help us to do this. Those that are the closest to the nature of love are those who worship love as something they “ought” to be united with and in service of, rather than a tool over which human beings are the rulers and the lawgivers. You have defined good according to what suits your inventions and desires; and that is according to how you want to see existence, not according to what suits the greatest moral virtues. That is not to say that you do not want good things, or that you haven’t achieve good things in your life, but rather, you do good and recognize good only according to what suits you in the here and now, and you define good in a merely subjective sense that goes no deeper than the material good or what necessitates you acting in a good way in-order to survive in the here and now. Also, it is good that you desire the material good; but the material good alone will not fulfill you as an existential person because it is finite and fleeting. I am not a good person either; but i know that i ought to be good, and that “ought” suggests the existence of something greater than the finite material good.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The person incapable of pain or suffering will die… end of story.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Blasted atheists, always pointing out that bothersome omnipotence that we keep attributing to God for some reason.

All you have pointed out is the weakness in the “straw-men” that you continue to invent and attribute to the Christian God. In reality, you have little understanding of God. You have come to the debate with false preconceptions that has nothing to do with God. But is your pride going to let you admit that?