M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
There is the strong version and the weak version.
1. The strong version: complains that there is a necessary contradiction between the concept of a loving God and the concept of evil. This is debunked by the fact that if God is ontologically the nature of love, then he possesses a nature that would not force his creatures to love each other. Love, in the context of preparing people for heaven, by its very nature is freely given and is not forced. To force ones self upon another is a selfish act. The goal of God, is that everybody should freely choose to love God, because by doing so, mans nature as both an ontologically dependent and morally independent creature is fulfilled. Since all true acts of love can only exist because of Gods nature, we can only express love to a perfect degree by freely conforming to all aspects of Gods will. If the nature of perfect love is not forceful of loving actions, then it is logically possible that evil can exist in the presence of a perfect ontological love. The consequence of this is that people can harm each other; this is to say that they can act in opposition to love. Given that God loves all his children equally, it follows from that fact that he therefore values the freedom of all his children equally. Thus the world we see before us is to be expected, since humanity is free to act as it pleases.
While this argument doesn’t explain everything about evil in the world it does refute the argument that there is a necessary contradiction between the concept of love and the concept of evil.
2. The weaker version: complains that while there is no necessary contradiction between the existence of a perfectly good God and the existence of evil, this still does not justify the degree to which evil is present in the world. It would not explain why a good God would allow the raping of an innocent child by an adult.
First of all, the freewill argument still stands in favor of the Christian. Secondly, if its the will of God to save both the soul of the child and the rapist, and it is also true that he loves them both equally, than it may be the case that in Gods wisdom he can see that while the rape itself is evil and should not exist, he still should not act because a greater good would be undone if he did act.
Thus the weaker argument, while it is certainly a powerful argument, it suffers from an epistemological flaw. In the context of saving souls (as opposed to merely preventing harm), given our finite nature we simply do not have the wisdom of God to make an ultimate judgment about Gods actions or lack of, because we cannot see all the possible angles. The argument assumes that we can know what a good God would do in all possible circumstances. However, without “context”, we really don’t have a justified reason to conclude that God does not exist or that it is unreasonable to place ones hope in God.
Also, it can be further argued, that while there is great suffering in the world, there is also much good, and thus there is justified reason to put ones hope in the existence of a good God.
One more argument, which is perhaps the most important one, is that brothers and sisters ought to wish upon each-other the greatest good at any price even their own lives, and that if they knew that humanity could only be saved through the permission of suffering then they would, if they were truly good, desire the permission of suffering rather than saved themselves from it, so that their bothers and sisters could be saved. For it is a great good to give ones life for the sake of their fellow human. This argument is hinted at more fundamentally through the sacrificial cross of Jesus Christ, for only through his suffering in his humanity could humanity be saved. Jesus is a revelation that suffering is necessary. God permits suffering so that a greater good in the end can come from it.
This is why Catholics speak of taking up ones cross of suffering. Far from ignoring the existence of suffering in the world, catholicism embraces it so that they can transform it to a greater good.
1. The strong version: complains that there is a necessary contradiction between the concept of a loving God and the concept of evil. This is debunked by the fact that if God is ontologically the nature of love, then he possesses a nature that would not force his creatures to love each other. Love, in the context of preparing people for heaven, by its very nature is freely given and is not forced. To force ones self upon another is a selfish act. The goal of God, is that everybody should freely choose to love God, because by doing so, mans nature as both an ontologically dependent and morally independent creature is fulfilled. Since all true acts of love can only exist because of Gods nature, we can only express love to a perfect degree by freely conforming to all aspects of Gods will. If the nature of perfect love is not forceful of loving actions, then it is logically possible that evil can exist in the presence of a perfect ontological love. The consequence of this is that people can harm each other; this is to say that they can act in opposition to love. Given that God loves all his children equally, it follows from that fact that he therefore values the freedom of all his children equally. Thus the world we see before us is to be expected, since humanity is free to act as it pleases.
While this argument doesn’t explain everything about evil in the world it does refute the argument that there is a necessary contradiction between the concept of love and the concept of evil.
2. The weaker version: complains that while there is no necessary contradiction between the existence of a perfectly good God and the existence of evil, this still does not justify the degree to which evil is present in the world. It would not explain why a good God would allow the raping of an innocent child by an adult.
First of all, the freewill argument still stands in favor of the Christian. Secondly, if its the will of God to save both the soul of the child and the rapist, and it is also true that he loves them both equally, than it may be the case that in Gods wisdom he can see that while the rape itself is evil and should not exist, he still should not act because a greater good would be undone if he did act.
Thus the weaker argument, while it is certainly a powerful argument, it suffers from an epistemological flaw. In the context of saving souls (as opposed to merely preventing harm), given our finite nature we simply do not have the wisdom of God to make an ultimate judgment about Gods actions or lack of, because we cannot see all the possible angles. The argument assumes that we can know what a good God would do in all possible circumstances. However, without “context”, we really don’t have a justified reason to conclude that God does not exist or that it is unreasonable to place ones hope in God.
Also, it can be further argued, that while there is great suffering in the world, there is also much good, and thus there is justified reason to put ones hope in the existence of a good God.
One more argument, which is perhaps the most important one, is that brothers and sisters ought to wish upon each-other the greatest good at any price even their own lives, and that if they knew that humanity could only be saved through the permission of suffering then they would, if they were truly good, desire the permission of suffering rather than saved themselves from it, so that their bothers and sisters could be saved. For it is a great good to give ones life for the sake of their fellow human. This argument is hinted at more fundamentally through the sacrificial cross of Jesus Christ, for only through his suffering in his humanity could humanity be saved. Jesus is a revelation that suffering is necessary. God permits suffering so that a greater good in the end can come from it.
This is why Catholics speak of taking up ones cross of suffering. Far from ignoring the existence of suffering in the world, catholicism embraces it so that they can transform it to a greater good.
Does that make sense! Yes, when we realise that without the power of choice we are incapable of love - which is more important than anything else. We have to be out of God’s control to be genuinely in control of ourselves. And there is no half-way stage between love and evil…
