The Problem of Evil

[Christianus_Dei]

So… yes, the Problem of Evil. It’s something most of us struggle with on some level, personal, debate-wise, spiritually, and otherwise… As for me, whether it is answered of not has no bearing on my faith. But I would like to know, and at least to be able to defend my faith.

And as for the problem, I know why God couldn’t stop a murderer from pulling the trigger of a gun aimed at an innocent–free will, never to be violated no matter the consequence. But doesn’t our moral theology deem it murder not to prevent evil from happening if in our power to do so? So then, why does God allow the bullet to reach the victim? I know there are good reasons. I don’t know if we can comprehend them. I am not questioning God’s omnibenevolence, just wishing to understand it further.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So… yes, the Problem of Evil. It’s something most of us struggle with on some level, personal, debate-wise, spiritually, and otherwise… As for me, whether it is answered of not has no bearing on my faith. But I would like to know, and at least to be able to defend my faith.

And as for the problem, I know why God couldn’t stop a murderer from pulling the trigger of a gun aimed at an innocent–free will, never to be violated no matter the consequence. But doesn’t our moral theology deem it murder not to prevent evil from happening if in our power to do so? So then, why does God allow the bullet to reach the victim? I know there are good reasons. I don’t know if we can comprehend them. I am not questioning God’s omnibenevolence, just wishing to understand it further.

It would be a greater evil for God to take away one’s free will than allow them to do whatever evil intent they had. To remove free will from one is akin to the destruction of that one’s soul.

 

[Farien]

I know there are good reasons. I don’t know if we can comprehend them.

There are no good reasons. Read this and weep. The tale of the twelve officers

 

[cornbread_r2]

It would be a greater evil for God to take away one’s free will than allow them to do whatever evil intent they had. To remove free will from one is akin to the destruction of that one’s soul.

I don’t see how misdirecting a bullet or causing the gun to jam is taking away the free will of the perp. The perp would still be guilty of making a free choice in attempting to kill someone – they just wouldn’t be successful. IIRC, Peter and Paul were both miraculously saved from their persecutors. Did God take away the free will of their jailers?

Why is the free will of a perp more important to God than the free will of a victim not to be victimized?

 

[Sair]

It would be a greater evil for God to take away one’s free will than allow them to do whatever evil intent they had. To remove free will from one is akin to the destruction of that one’s soul.

Given the mounting evidence against the existence of free will in the first place - evidence from neurology that mental functioning is the result of physical processes in the brain and so on, coupled with the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for a soul or a homunculus or any separate substance that could be called the seat of the ‘self’ - it might be worth considering whether God really has such a compelling reason to preserve that which probably doesn’t exist, in the face of evil that (being omnipotent and all) he could prevent at no cost to himself.

 

[tonyrey]

Given the mounting evidence against the existence of free will in the first place - evidence from neurology that mental functioning is the result of physical processes in the brain and so on, coupled with the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for a soul or a homunculus or any separate substance that could be called the seat of the ‘self’ - it might be worth considering whether God really has such a compelling reason to preserve that which probably doesn’t exist, in the face of evil that (being omnipotent and all) he could prevent at no cost to himself.

If free will doesn’t exist all your conclusions are unreliable, being caused by non-rational factors beyond your control. The unrealistic assertion that God “could prevent” evil “at no cost to himself” implies personal insight and experience into creating universes. How would you justify your qualifications?

 

[yellow8yellowM]

So… yes, the Problem of Evil. It’s something most of us struggle with on some level, personal, debate-wise, spiritually, and otherwise… As for me, whether it is answered of not has no bearing on my faith. But I would like to know, and at least to be able to defend my faith.

And as for the problem, I know why God couldn’t stop a murderer from pulling the trigger of a gun aimed at an innocent–free will, never to be violated no matter the consequence. But doesn’t our moral theology deem it murder not to prevent evil from happening if in our power to do so? So then, why does God allow the bullet to reach the victim? I know there are good reasons. I don’t know if we can comprehend them. I am not questioning God’s omnibenevolence, just wishing to understand it further.

1. If God intervened in each of these cases it would make a very unpredictable world. Miracles are so rare so that we should never act thinking that we will be saved by a miracle. If there were too many miracles causing bullets to stray from their paths you would get a lot more “innocent” people trying to walk in front of them thinking they’d be safe.
2. It is a mystery. God could have a created a world where free will did not exist and he would have a bunch of robots with Him in heaven. Could He have created a world with free will AND without sin? That is a mystery, but I would think that if He made sin impossible then it would severely if not completely detract from the glory of making it to heaven.
3. It is evil for us not to prevent evil when it is in our power to do so. But you cannot say that God is evil for allowing somebody to get cancer, etc. God plays by different rules, so to speak. We start from the definition that God is good and go from there.

 

[Sair]

If free will doesn’t exist all your conclusions are unreliable, being caused by non-rational factors beyond your control. The unrealistic assertion that God “could prevent” evil “at no cost to himself” implies personal insight and experience into creating universes. How would you justify your qualifications?

I can, to an extent, understand how you might claim that my conclusions, under determinism, are not ‘mine’, since you believe the self is something that exists separately from the physical manifestation of a person - but ‘unreliable’? Why would conclusions drawn - and decision made - from a chain of prior causes be any less reliable, in principle, than decisions made by a semi-detached ‘soul’ or ‘mind’ that doesn’t, ultimately, have any real stake in their outcome?

And I’m well aware that pretty much any assertion made about the God of Classical Theism is bound to be unrealistic - there are too many incompatible qualities attempted to cram into the one being. Wouldn’t such a god have insight and experience into creating universes? Why couldn’t he have made a different one - one that didn’t permit young children to be shot by lunatics with semiautomatic weapons, or infants to be kidnapped, bound and raped, or indeed any innocent being to be subjected to horrific suffering? When has your God ever prevented any distaster befalling folk who really didn’t deserve the extent of horror that befell them? I’d like specific times and places, if you can.

 

[tonyrey]

If free will doesn’t exist all your conclusions are unreliable, being caused by non-rational factors beyond your control. The unrealistic assertion that God “could prevent” evil “at no cost to himself” implies personal insight and experience into creating universes. How would you justify your qualifications?

On what basis do you distinguish “the physical manifestation of a person” from the body of person?

And I’m well aware that pretty much any assertion made about the God of Classical Theism is bound to be unrealistic - there are too many incompatible qualities attempted to cram into the one being.

Such as?

Wouldn’t such a god have insight and experience into creating universes? Why couldn’t he have made a different one - one that didn’t permit young children to be shot by lunatics with semiautomatic weapons, or infants to be kidnapped, bound and raped, or indeed any innocent being to be subjected to horrific suffering?

A different one in which everyone is compelled to “subjugate” (to use your term) their beliefs, desires and decisions to the Creator? Would you prefer to abandon your present situation?

When has your God ever prevented any distaster befalling folk who really didn’t deserve the extent of horror that befell them? I’d like specific times and places, if you can.

The use of the term “deserve” presupposes a belief in objective justice - which in your scheme of things is an illusion. Which is it to be?

I can, to an extent, understand how you might claim that my conclusions, under determinism, are not ‘mine’, since you believe the self is something that exists separately from the physical manifestation of a person - but ‘unreliable’?

Faulty reasoning. Your conclusions are not “yours” if they are already explained entirely by physical events. You become superfluous because you are merely a cog in the machine…

Why would conclusions drawn - and decision made - from a chain of prior causes be any less reliable, in principle, than decisions made by a semi-detached ‘soul’ or ‘mind’ that doesn’t, ultimately, have any real stake in their outcome?

Conclusions and decisions made by a series of physical causes lack insight and understanding.

 

[ColdComfort]

Given the mounting evidence against the existence of free will in the first place - evidence from neurology that mental functioning is the result of physical processes in the brain and so on,

From what I understand and have read about these experiments they are highly controversial, to say the least of it.

coupled with the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for a soul or a homunculus or any separate substance that could be called the seat of the ‘self’

Complete lack of unambiguous evidence! You only have to observe yourself. In this Descartes and St. Augustine were absolutely right. It is plain as the nose on your face or rather plainer because I need a mirror to see my nose. -

it might be worth considering whether God really has such a compelling reason to preserve that which probably doesn’t exist, in the face of evil that (being omnipotent and all) he could prevent at no cost to himself.

Game of Sims.

 

[ColdComfort]

There are no good reasons. Read this and weep. The tale of the twelve officers

Here we go again. I’ve never been challenged intellectually by suffering. Perhaps because I’ve never suffered physically. But this officer’s explanation, with modifications, is a good one:

"I’ll let you in on a secret," said the ninth officer."Moments after Ms. K. flatlined, I had her resuscitated, and flown to a tropical resort where she is now experiencing extraordinary bliss, and her ordeal is just a distant memory. I’m sure you would agree that that’s more than adequate compensation for her suffering, so the fact that I just stood there watching instead of intervening has no bearing at all on my goodness."

Her eternal fate, if it is the beatific vision, is not compensation. The suffering and the pleasures of this life are nothing, quite literally nothing, in view of Heaven and Hell. There are no scales that can balance eternity and time. If you double a finite set of numbers it bears the exact same relationship to an infinite set of numbers as before it was doubled. If her fate is the miserific vision than the manner of her death is just as irrelevant.

Shakepeare puts it nicely:

KING HENRY V
…Besides, there is no
king, be his cause never so spotless, if it come to
the arbitrement of swords, can try it out with all
unspotted soldiers: some peradventure have on them
the guilt of premeditated and contrived murder;
some, of beguiling virgins with the broken seals of
perjury; some, making the wars their bulwark, that
have before gored the gentle bosom of peace with
pillage and robbery. Now, if these men have
defeated the law and outrun native punishment,
though they can outstrip men, they have no wings to
fly from God: war is his beadle, war is vengeance;
so that here men are punished for before-breach of
the king’s laws in now the king’s quarrel: where
they feared the death, they have borne life away;
and where they would be safe, they perish: then if
they die unprovided, no more is the king guilty of
their damnation than he was before guilty of those
impieties for the which they are now visited. Every
subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s
soul is his own. Therefore should every soldier in
the wars do as every sick man in his bed, wash every
mote out of his conscience: and dying so, death
is to him advantage; or not dying, the time was
blessedly lost wherein such preparation was gained:
and in him that escapes, it were not sin to think
that, making God so free an offer, He let him
outlive that day to see His greatness and to teach
others how they should prepare.
WILLIAMS
'Tis certain, every man that dies ill, the ill upon
his own head, the king is not to answer it.

Henry V, Act 4, Sc.1

 

[MPat]

I don’t see how misdirecting a bullet or causing the gun to jam is taking away the free will of the perp. The perp would still be guilty of making a free choice in attempting to kill someone – they just wouldn’t be successful. IIRC, Peter and Paul were both miraculously saved from their persecutors. Did God take away the free will of their jailers?

Why is the free will of a perp more important to God than the free will of a victim not to be victimized?

Well, let’s say that the God would interfere in such way all the time. Wouldn’t anyone notice? And if everyone was sure that pointing the gun in someone’s head and pulling the trigger would cause no harm, how would one “mak[e] a free choice in attempting to kill someone”?

Also, the last question assumes that it is possible (and not unreasonable) to take away the free will from the murderer without taking it away from the victim. Well, is the victim sinless…? Wouldn’t almost the same reasoning work in his case as well? And so, eventually we end up with the world where no one has free will (with, perhaps, some very rare exceptions like Mary)… Not a very good result if the world was created so that (to put it shortly) God would get more friends…

 

[sw85]

[BIBLEDRB]Job 38[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Christianus_Dei]

Given the mounting evidence against the existence of free will in the first place - evidence from neurology that mental functioning is the result of physical processes in the brain and so on, coupled with the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for a soul or a homunculus or any separate substance that could be called the seat of the ‘self’.

Are the studies you’re talking about working on the assumption that the spiritual doesn’t exist? Just in case it’s just filling in the blanks.

 

[sw85]

Given the mounting evidence against the existence of free will in the first place - evidence from neurology that mental functioning is the result of physical processes in the brain and so on, coupled with the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for a soul or a homunculus or any separate substance that could be called the seat of the ‘self’ - it might be worth considering whether God really has such a compelling reason to preserve that which probably doesn’t exist, in the face of evil that (being omnipotent and all) he could prevent at no cost to himself.

I suspect you don’t know what Catholics believe. The soul just is the form of the human person, so we have souls the way statues have shapes and paintings have patterns. It’s not a thing that exists in any particular part of it. It just is the thing.

“Evidence,” btw, is a proof of a physical phenomenon, so by claiming it doesn’t exist because there’s no evidence for it, you’re begging the question epistemologically, the question being “is material stuff all there is?”

 

[Farien]

Here we go again. I’ve never been challenged intellectually by suffering. Perhaps because I’ve never suffered physically. But this officer’s explanation, with modifications, is a good one:

"I’ll let you in on a secret," said the ninth officer."Moments after Ms. K. flatlined, I had her resuscitated, and flown to a tropical resort where she is now experiencing extraordinary bliss, and her ordeal is just a distant memory. I’m sure you would agree that that’s more than adequate compensation for her suffering, so the fact that I just stood there watching instead of intervening has no bearing at all on my goodness."

Her eternal fate, if it is the beatific vision, is not compensation. The suffering and the pleasures of this life are nothing, quite literally nothing, in view of Heaven and Hell. There are no scales that can balance eternity and time. If you double a finite set of numbers it bears the exact same relationship to an infinite set of numbers as before it was doubled. If her fate is the miserific vision than the manner of her death is just as irrelevant.

There are several problems here.

The so called “greater good” defense states that allowing “necessary suffering”, which will lead to some “greater good” is morally permissible - provided that the suffering cannot be lessened or eliminated even with God’s assumed omnipotence.

However, even the “modified” argument cannot establish that the eternal bliss would be logically impossible without the prior suffering. As such her suffering was not necessary, and omni-benevolence is not supposed be like that. It would care about even smaller sufferings.

Of course, I seriously doubt that you simply shrug off a toothache or some other disease, by stipulating that it does not matter in the “greater scheme” of things. Or if you just look at your suffering child (if you have one) and say: “no big deal”. If you do, I salute you. If you don’t, you are a hypocrite. Which one will it be?

 

[tonyrey]

Here we go again. I’ve never been challenged intellectually by suffering. Perhaps because I’ve never suffered physically. But this officer’s explanation, with modifications, is a good one:

"I’ll let you in on a secret," said the ninth officer."Moments after Ms. K. flatlined, I had her resuscitated, and flown to a tropical resort where she is now experiencing extraordinary bliss, and her ordeal is just a distant memory. I’m sure you would agree that that’s more than adequate compensation for her suffering, so the fact that I just stood there watching instead of intervening has no bearing at all on my goodness."

Her eternal fate, if it is the beatific vision, is not compensation. The suffering and the pleasures of this life are nothing, quite literally nothing, in view of Heaven and Hell. There are no scales that can balance eternity and time. If you double a finite set of numbers it bears the exact same relationship to an infinite set of numbers as before it was doubled. If her fate is the miserific vision than the manner of her death is just as irrelevant.

Shakepeare puts it nicely:

KING HENRY V
…Besides, there is no
king, be his cause never so spotless, if it come to
the arbitrement of swords, can try it out with all
unspotted soldiers: some peradventure have on them
the guilt of premeditated and contrived murder;
some, of beguiling virgins with the broken seals of
perjury; some, making the wars their bulwark, that
have before gored the gentle bosom of peace with
pillage and robbery. Now, if these men have
defeated the law and outrun native punishment,
though they can outstrip men, they have no wings to
fly from God: war is his beadle, war is vengeance;
so that here men are punished for before-breach of
the king’s laws in now the king’s quarrel: where
they feared the death, they have borne life away;
and where they would be safe, they perish: then if
they die unprovided, no more is the king guilty of
their damnation than he was before guilty of those
impieties for the which they are now visited. Every
subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s
soul is his own. Therefore should every soldier in
the wars do as every sick man in his bed, wash every
mote out of his conscience: and dying so, death
is to him advantage; or not dying, the time was
blessedly lost wherein such preparation was gained:
and in him that escapes, it were not sin to think
that, making God so free an offer, He let him
outlive that day to see His greatness and to teach
others how they should prepare.
WILLIAMS
'Tis certain, every man that dies ill, the ill upon
his own head, the king is not to answer it.

Henry V, Act 4, Sc.1

Shakespeare was a Catholic at a time of persecution in England when many died for their faith…

 

[ColdComfort]

There are several problems here.

The so called “greater good” defense states that allowing “necessary suffering”, which will lead to some “greater good” is morally permissible - provided that the suffering cannot be lessened or eliminated even with God’s assumed omnipotence.

However, even the “modified” argument cannot establish that the eternal bliss would be logically impossible without the prior suffering. As such her suffering was not necessary, and omni-benevolence is not supposed be like that. It would care about even smaller sufferings.

Of course, I seriously doubt that you simply shrug off a toothache or some other disease, by stipulating that it does not matter in the “greater scheme” of things. Or if you just look at your suffering child (if you have one) and say: “no big deal”. If you do, I salute you. If you don’t, you are a hypocrite. Which one will it be?

You miss the point. The suffering is nothing compared to our eternal fate. I’m not suggesting that any suffering will lead to Heaven as “compensation” as cause and effect let alone that they have to be proportional in the way you suggest. And please don’t put your version of a ‘greater good defense’ or that ‘suffering calculus’ in my mouth: it is not Christian. This is the ultimate truth when Catholic philosophers say evil is a privation. Heaven is what we were made for and what God wants for all of us eternally; Hell is it’s eternal privation. In the end it’s all that matters. “The only tragedy is not becoming a saint” someone said.

God cares about physical suffering and so do I. Your argument is why He doesn’t always do something about it here and now. I’m suggesting one of the answers. It is the scale of values that you don’t understand. It is Christianity you don’t understand.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

As the OP raised the question of why God doesn’t intervene to prevent the commission of an act of evil, we should probably consider the mechanism by which he would respond, and our own roles.

We feel that the chief of police of a large town, or the director of the FBI should take action to prevent a terrorist act or a murder. We do not feel that the chief or FBI director has to personally defuse a bomb or arrest a felon, as he has command over those he has deputized to act under his commands and directives. Those police officers and special agents themselves have the moral responsibility both to carry out their commander’s orders, and to rescue and protect those in danger.

God also has access to moral beings capable of choice under his command. He has angels, beings of pure spirit and great power.

He also has us. We have been set the moral directive to care for and protect others. We are not mere animals that God feeds and waters, but creatures that He has created with a soul and the ability to discern right from wrong. It is likely that part of the answer to the problem of evil is that we have been given the authority and the obligation to prevent evil, and the question we should be asking as creatures with free will and moral obligation is not “Why did God let this happen?” but “How did we fail God and our fellow man by letting this happen?”

Every act of human evil happens because of free will on the part of the one who commits the evil, but also because of the freely willed actions and inactions of many, maybe countless others. The man who murders a father of two in a gas station robbery failed in his obligation to God. So did the drug dealer who sold him the drugs that dulled his sense of moral duty. So did the mother who raised him with poor values. So did the father who abandoned his family to pursue another woman. So did those who created a popular culture than extolls violence. So did everyone who treated him with scorn or laid a hand on him as a child. So did the detective who failed to prevent the drug sale. So did the jurors who failed to convict the robber on an earlier crime. So did the criminal who burglarized the house and stole the gun he sold to the robber. So did the home owner who failed to properly secure it. And on and on, in the vast web of human relationships. All failed to follow the commandments Jesus laid on us, to love the other as we love ourselves.

Even acts of suffering which seem to have come from purely external forces - natural disasters, illness, accidents - are exacerbated by our own moral choices - those who suffered after Hurricane Katrina paid the price for corrupt politicians who diverted money intended for levee pumps to their own pockets. Those in the third world who suffer from tsunamis and earthquakes often suffer from the corruption of local building inspectors who are paid to look the other way on substandard construction. If human actions are causing global climate change (I lack the scientific background to evaluate all the arguments in this matter), we all bear a share of responsibility for the destruction on the eastern seacoast. If we fail to provide the aid and comfort the sick and dying need, or fail to fund the research to reduce such suffering, we also are part of the problem.

Are we giving alms to the poor? Are we helping the Church in caring for the suffering, both physically and spiritually? Are we volunteering to help the poor? Are we offering guidance and help to friends and family in need? We all fall short in these.

The objection that God somehow “fails” to follow up and prevent an evil if we fail to do so is incorrect, in that there is no higher authority than God that could command or judge Him. Our role is the one that has been appointed to prevent evil, and we cannot pass the responsibility either upwards or downwards. As they say in the military, you can delegate authority, but not responsibility. God is, in this case, the Supreme Delegator. We cannot pass the responsibility back up to Him.

The claim that we lack Free Will is, of course, ridiculous. No one who makes this claim actually lives their life as if that is the truth. Someone who refuses to live their life in accordance with their philosophical pretensions can be safely ignored.

We can trust in God for both Justice and Mercy and Love, and that those who suffer on this earth will be received into his arms.

This is my personal belief, but I think Jesus pointed this way when he spoke clearly of the problem of both personal and natural evil in Luke 13:1-5: “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

This passage also tells us that this question was common even in Christ’s time. Christ was not startled or dumbfounded by the question, His answer was short and to the point and consistent with all His teachings: All suffering is the result of sin, we are all responsible as we all have sinned, you have not been preserved from suffering so far because you are somehow better than those who suffered and those who suffered were no more - or less - guilty of sin than you, and that ultimately disaster and evil, (which Christ himself suffered), are useful, if incredibly painful, as they are calls to the repentance that will ultimately save our immortal souls.

Certainly one of the harder teachings of Jesus, but true.

The answer to the problem of human evil, and suffering, lies in us. Evil comes from not aligning ourselves more fully with Christ.

 

[fred_conty]

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott

The present world will be destroyed on the Last Day. (Sent. certa.)
The present world will be restored on the Last Day. (Sent. certa.)​

If we had not had original sin, this would not have been necessary.
But as things now stand, we have evil.

The answer to why God dosen’t stop the bullet or weapons of mass destruction is up to us.
His will is that we use that power of prevention that we have.
Some refuse to use that power of prevention and we suffer.

And “why”, because they do not follow the directions of Jesus.
And so the argument is, “why dosen’t Jesus follow them around all day and prevent their messes?”
How many billions does He have to follow around?
Then the next thing, they would deliberately do evil to see him clean it up, and then laugh about it.

And in the end, the world will be restored to order and peace, and not before, because we are not listening to Him. The “weed and the wheat” are being allowed to grow together, but in the end, they will be separated, meaning no more evil.

“Lord speak, for your servant hears.” Samuel.

Just one thought, there are so many more on this subject.