A
AbideWithMe
Guest
I agree.
- Status
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I missed that part
Christians say God is perfect Goodness
We’re entitled to explore and question what this claim actually means.
I do love the answer though regarding the problem of evil
Sex before marriage - we know for a fact God doesn’t like and it’s a sin.
Eating pork if you’re a certain faith - we know for a fact God doesn’t like and it’s a sin.
Using contraception - whoa we know beyond any doubt God certainly doesn’t like and it’s a sin.
The problem of evil - no idea, it’s a mystery
Sarah x
S
sw85
Guest
The hubris is in the thinking that you know exactly how much suffering is “necessary,” so that you can judge that the present level of suffering is “unnecessary” and thus evidence of a contradiction in the Christian theological system.
The point is, you don’t know this. Not only don’t you know it, you can’t possibly know it. The level of knowledge required to make this judgment is beyond your reckoning.
This is borderline muddying the waters. No one denies the fact of evil in the world is a difficult one to reconcile ourselves to. That’s not what this post or the cited blog post was about, which should be pretty obvious.
What is being denied is that the fact of evil in the world can be taken as proof of God’s nonexistence – specifically, that any human has the capacity to know how much evil is so much that an all-good God wouldn’t allow it to be.
In other words, the problem of evil depends for its rhetorical force on the claim that there is no possible way an omnibenevolent God would allow suffering to occur. But how can the nonbeliever possibly know that there is no possible way to do this?
The “problem” is doubly ridiculous since the logical impetus for God’s omnibenevolence is rational, not evidential. So, again, the “problem of evil” is only a “problem” insofar as it supposes to reveal a logical contradiction in the Christian theological system.
Again, it’s not meant to. It denies that it is a “problem” at all.
Again, the hubris is in the presumption that you know exactly what a “better” world looks like, that you know exactly how much evil is too much, how much suffering is too much, etc. That you know exactly what a world designed by an omnibenevolent and omniscient God would look like. In a sense, that you are His equal.
This is the entire point of the opening lines of Job 38: Where were *you *when He laid the foundations of the world, hmm? (Because it’s not as if the mystery of evil in the world was first recognized by Jeremy Bentham). It’s the perennial temptation of the gnostic/modern/liberal in action.
Clearly, I deny this premise. There is no reason to believe it’s true – none whatsoever. Tolerance of evil may well be instrumental to promote greater good – you certainly have no way of knowing.
I’m sure this seems compelling to you since you have no idea where the prohibitions on sex or contraception come from, but I assure you if you would pick up a book on moral theology (such as Feser’s Aquinas), this false equivalence would be quickly dispelled.I missed that part
Christians say God is perfect Goodness
We’re entitled to explore and question what this claim actually means.
I do love the answer though regarding the problem of evil
Sex before marriage - we know for a fact God doesn’t like and it’s a sin.
Eating pork if you’re a certain faith - we know for a fact God doesn’t like and it’s a sin.
Using contraception - whoa we know beyond any doubt God certainly doesn’t like and it’s a sin.
The problem of evil - no idea, it’s a mystery
Sarah x
F
fhansen
Guest
Evil is considered to be a problem or a mystery only because we don’t fully understand why it’s allowed, not because we don’t have an idea of what it is…I missed that part
Christians say God is perfect Goodness
We’re entitled to explore and question what this claim actually means.
I do love the answer though regarding the problem of evil
Sex before marriage - we know for a fact God doesn’t like and it’s a sin.
Eating pork if you’re a certain faith - we know for a fact God doesn’t like and it’s a sin.
Using contraception - whoa we know beyond any doubt God certainly doesn’t like and it’s a sin.
The problem of evil - no idea, it’s a mystery
Sarah x
G
Gods_Peace
Guest
She just wants to be provocative, so let the girl be what she will, because she certainly does not want to eat at our table.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Really?
How very presumptuous of you.
I’ve learned so much here about the Catholic position regarding sex, it’s purpose and so on and contraception and why the Church holds the views it does, from wonderful Catholics who like to explain, rather than presume.
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Oh, I’ve been made most welcome at the table
I just don’t like the seating arrangements sometimes.
The food is always sumptuous, the drink overflowing, the conversation excellent, it’s just I sometimes have to move along the banqueting table a little as certain individuals give me indigestion.
Sarah x
N
NonServiam
Guest
As an atheist, I always cringe when I hear other atheists use “the problem of evil” as a serious argument against the existence of gods – not so much because it is an expression of “hubris” but because I consider it an exceptionally childish and stupid argument.
The question of whether there is/are god(s) or not is unaffected by the character of that/those god(s). There may very well exist a god who acts in ways of which I do not approve.
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, but those atheists are usually attacking the notion of the specifically Christian God.
N
NonServiam
Guest
Doesn’t matter. If the Christian God exists, he might act in ways that I don’t consider good, but he might think they’re very good (and even “all-good”).
Whether the God is “good” or not, or even someone whose character I approve of, is irrelevant to questions of whether the God exists.
Further, these people who use the “problem of evil” always end up sounding like they’re whining, complaining about their life, or motivated primarily by emotion and not reason. For all of these reasons I detest the “problem of evil argument.”
F
fhansen
Guest
Most people don’t deny the existence of evil in any case, especially considering the most heinous acts humans or societies/groups commit, so the question that asks, ‘How can a good god allow evil’ is still separate, IMO, from ‘How can any god allow evil?’
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
But Catholic tradition has always insisted upon the non-beingness of evil. There is no stuff of pure evil–there are no forces of pure evil in the universe. Given that being is itself a good, something that has being cannot possibly be pure evil, because as pure evil, it would cease to be. Evil is fittingly defined, therefore, in negative terms: evil is the deprivation of the good. We notice evil only when we notice the absence of a good. To choose evil is not to choose the opposite of a good, but to choose a way of being towards the good which diminishes it. We are often more willing to seek to possess a diminished good than we are to receive a good in its wholeness. If we’re conscious of making that choice for a diminished good or for the diminishing of a good while we are making it, our choice is malicious; if we are unconscious of making that choice, it is often the case that our choice stems from moral infirmity.
The mystery of evil, though, is not a mystery because evil itself is so mysterious–it is a mystery because the* good* is ultimately so mind-bogglingly wonderful, and whatever evil is depends intimately on the nature of the good. Which is to say that even when we see the diminishment of the good all around us, and even when we recognize the part we play in that diminishment, it nonetheless remains the case that what is good can never be completely destroyed by our or anyone’s sinful efforts. The good can be wounded, it can be diminished, it can be covered over, it can be obscured, but it can never be destroyed. Which means: redemption, healing, wholeness always remain real possibilities by the grace of God. And part of the mystery is that the goodness of God is so…well…good that redemption elevates the good redeemed to a position which transcends its original goodness. This is the mystery of the Felix Culpa as the Easter Exsultet illustrates: “O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem.” (“O happy fault which merited to have such and so great a Redeemer!”)
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
I think the thing that flummoxes our atheist brothers and sisters–and some of our Christian brothers and sisters too–about the “problem of evil” is that they begin to understand the problem from a more Manichaean point of view: there’s evil stuff and evil forces over here; and over there, there’s good stuff and good forces. How can all this stuff possibly co-exist or be created together?.
But Catholic tradition has always insisted upon the non-beingness of evil. There is no stuff of pure evil–there are no forces of pure evil in the universe. Given that being is itself a good, something that has being cannot possibly be pure evil, because as pure evil, it would cease to be. Evil is fittingly defined, therefore, in negative terms: evil is the deprivation of the good. We notice evil only when we notice the absence of a good. To choose evil is not to choose the opposite of a good, but to choose a way of being towards the good which diminishes it. We are often more willing to seek to possess a diminished good than we are to receive a good in its wholeness. If we’re conscious of making that choice for a diminished good or for the diminishing of a good while we are making it, our choice is malicious; if we are unconscious of making that choice, it is often the case that our choice stems from moral infirmity.
The mystery of evil, though, is not a mystery because evil itself is so mysterious–it is a mystery because the* good* is ultimately so mind-bogglingly wonderful, and whatever evil is depends intimately on the nature of the good. Which is to say that even when we see the diminishment of the good all around us, and even when we recognize the part we play in that diminishment, it nonetheless remains the case that what is good can never be completely destroyed by our or anyone’s sinful efforts. The good can be wounded, it can be diminished, it can be covered over, it can be obscured, but it can never be destroyed. Which means: redemption, healing, wholeness always remain real possibilities by the grace of God. And part of the mystery is that the goodness of God is so…well…good that redemption elevates the good redeemed to a position which transcends its original goodness. This is the mystery of the Felix Culpa as the Easter Exsultet illustrates: “O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem.” (“O happy fault which merited to have such and so great a Redeemer!”)
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
If we cannot make moral judgments, then he has just introduced a much larger problem.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
I absolutely love the “mystery” excuse!
My view is that the problem of evil is a problem. That view is correct. Why? It’s a mystery.
I also apply it to my personal life. Why was I late for work? It’s a mystery! I didn’t answer your question? What do you mean? I already told you it’s a mystery!
The mystery approach is so spectacular that you can make anything into truth!
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Yes, we’re all whiners and complainers. “We” includes a millennium of Christian philosophers that have struggled to make peace with the problem of evil.
C
capoly
Guest
Nonsense. We do not need any kind of omniscience to know that throwing a toddler into a furnace or seeing innumerable animals perish in an earthquake are unnecessary sufferings. The toddler will simply burn to death. If you attempt to explain away this suffering by saying that MAYBE that toddler will be “reimbursed” in heaven, then think again. The “maybe reimbursement” is not logically dependent upon the prior suffering. The “greater good” defense is only possible if
- the prior suffering is logically necessary for the greater good to materialize, and
- the suffering cannot be lessened, because even a miniscule lessening would render the “greater good” impossible.
Congratulations. We always make judgment called based upon the available evidence. If all the evidence shows that there is “unnecessary” suffering, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then the only possible, rational verdict is that the suffering was unnecessary.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Equating animals dying from a natural disaster with a toddler being thrown into a furnace.Nonsense. We do not need any kind of omniscience to know that throwing a toddler into a furnace or seeing innumerable animals perish in an earthquake are unnecessary sufferings. The toddler will simply burn to death. If you attempt to explain away this suffering by saying that MAYBE that toddler will be “reimbursed” in heaven, then think again. The “maybe reimbursement” is not logically dependent upon the prior suffering. The “greater good” defense is only possible if
Obviously there was no “good” coming out of the Holocaust - which could be used to justify it. And even if there was, you would have to prove that if only one person would have avoided the death camps, that “nebulous” good could not have happened. Good luck trying that. You just introduced a thinly veiled attempt called “argument from ignorance” mixed with “special pleading”. Two fallacies in one post.
- the prior suffering is logically necessary for the greater good to materialize, and
- the suffering cannot be lessened, because even a miniscule lessening would render the “greater good” impossible.
Calibrated.
C
capoly
Guest
Sailor kenshin:
Of course the apologists never attempt to point out what these “assumed” greater goods would be, and how the suffering would lead to them. Big surprise there. It is all empty fluff of words, without substance. No wonder that the problem of evil is alive and well, and it will never get a satisfactory answer. All the apologists can do is sweep it under the rug. Pitiful, really.
There is no “equating” here. However, both are examples of unnecessary suffering. Both are examples of such suffering, even if there is some difference. From the idea of a benevolent deity it would follow that only necessary suffering would be allowed - where “necessary” means “logically necessary”. In other words, even God’s alleged omnipotence cannot find a way to achieve that nebulous greater good without imposing the said suffering.
Of course the apologists never attempt to point out what these “assumed” greater goods would be, and how the suffering would lead to them. Big surprise there. It is all empty fluff of words, without substance.
No wonder that the problem of evil is alive and well, and it will never get a satisfactory answer. All the apologists can do is sweep it under the rug. Pitiful, really.
P
PioYapJr
Guest
If a god exists who agrees with everything that I believe, specially with my idea of what to do with evil, then he is not God. He is me!
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
So is this.There is no “equating” here. However, both are examples of unnecessary suffering. Both are examples of such suffering, even if there is some difference. From the idea of a benevolent deity it would follow that only necessary suffering would be allowed - where “necessary” means “logically necessary”. In other words, even God’s alleged omnipotence cannot find a way to achieve that nebulous greater good without imposing the said suffering.
Of course the apologists never attempt to point out what these “assumed” greater goods would be, and how the suffering would lead to them. Big surprise there. It is all empty fluff of words, without substance.
I agree with PioYapJr. Better minds than mine OR yours (Fr. Barron, Dinesh D’souza–only a couple of examples) have wrestled with this problem; why do you not avail yourself of their easily-attainable works?
Calibrated, to the tenth power.
- Status