The Problem with the Problem of Evil

[JackVk]

This evening, I was watching a National Geographic documentary about the 2011 tornado in Joplin, Missouri. Of course, being on YouTube, there were comment box crusaders disparaging the idea of God and the victims (Missouri has many religious people).

But it occurred to me that those who are victims of natural evils are often not the ones who believe that their miseries are proof against God. My parish’s youth minister sends money to a little girl in Mexico; the latter sends the former joyful letters about her life, despite living in abject poverty.

It seems that so-called “brights” simply use natural disasters to cudgel religious people and their beliefs; the former’s motives are not out of empathy for the victims, but out of a cynical opportunism to support atheism (comedian Ricky Gervais made disparaging remarks about religious victims of the Moore, OK tornado in 2013, then donated money to relief efforts to make himself look like the good guy).

But I digress. There’s one thing that stands out to me when considering the problem of evil. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a knock-out proof against the existence of God.

That then leaves the question: What are we to make of human suffering if there is no God?

After a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that, if there is no God, then there is no reason to have empathy for victims of natural disasters and what-not. If there’s no God, and therefore it follows that we’re not made in His image and likeness, then what does that make the victims of tornadoes or kids dying of cancer? If anything, it makes them the rejects of evolution. Their inability to adapt to the standards of surviving (which, granted, are random, fickle, and arbitrary) is proof of their evolutionary incompetence.

One may object that this seems to “blame the victims”, that it says, “they can’t survive something beyond their control”. To that, evolution coldly responds, “tough beans”. An ideal organism would be one that is essentially immortal and impervious to all disease or harm. Of course, no such organism exists. Hence, natural selection.

Some people have objected when I have made this statement. They essentially say that I’m a heartless sociopath because I find no reason for compassion outside my religion. Well, this is precisely the thought of Nietzsche. Might makes right, and the world is divided into two groups: the winners and the dead. A group of mercenaries leveling an African village, from a biological standpoint, is no different than a dog eating a nest of baby bunnies.

In conclusion, if the problem of evil disproves God, then it also disproves the existence of good and bad. It is all just natural selection on a greater scale.

 

[Bradski]

After a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that, if there is no God, then there is no reason to have empathy for victims of natural disasters and what-not.

So you came to the conclusion that the only reason you have empathy is *because *there is a God?

…comedian Ricky Gervais made disparaging remarks about religious victims of the Moore, OK tornado in 2013, then donated money to relief efforts to make himself look like the good guy.

Actually he made a financial donation to help and then, following that, after some fatuous celebs said they were offering their prayers said: “I feel like an idiot now… I only sent money.” Do you want to correct what you wrote or just acknowledge what was probably an honest mistake?

 

[JackVk]

So you came to the conclusion that the only reason you have empathy is *because *there is a God?

Actually he made a financial donation to help and then, following that, after some fatuous celebs said they were offering their prayers said: “I feel like an idiot now… I only sent money.” Do you want to correct what you wrote or just acknowledge what was probably an honest mistake?

An honest mistake on my part. Forgive me.

 

[Aloysium]

Nature does what nature does.

God is Love.

Loving, we find joy in each other, infinite in God.
We mourn, we cry, we hurt because we love.
Love is eternal, transcending time and space.

All else is transient, illusory, empty.

The more we give of ourselves,
of what God has given us,
the greater what is of true value in us.

Evil is not so much a problem as it is a mystery.
It is so hard not to choose oneself. Why?

 

[ericc]

Perhaps it is better that the problem be segregated to Natural evil and Personal evil.

I too have pondered long over this.
Question1 being if evil exist does God exist.
Question 2 being If God exist, should he intervene to prevent ALL evil.

Many questions have been further posted to qualify the first 2 statements. For example:

1. God created a world which obeys certain laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc. If there is a natural disaster about to happen e.g. hurricane , should God stop (a) all hurricanes (b) only if there are people there (c) what do we do with “thrill seekers” who for whatever reasons decided to live near such areas such as California a known earthquake prone area, near an active volcano etc. However, all these natural events have side effects which may be beneficial/crucial for the general functioning of the Earth which we might not fully understand yet.
2. Same as above but more on biology. DNA. Atheists like to bring up babies/infants suffering from certain defects/sickness. Genetics also follow certain rules. A parent with certain genes when combined with another parent of a different set of genes may result in certain weakness of the offspring. Offspring suffers and dies. Should God suspend the laws of genetics? For special cases only or for all? Then should God intervene for all sickness for everyone? You expose yourself to dangerous chemicals/germs/virus/radiation but everyone is miraculously protected. Cigarettes and alcohol and drug etc are all rendered harmless. Second hand smoke don’t cause any problems or living next to a factory that emits gasses of the sort that you’d rather not breathe in are all rendered harmless.

Is such a world possible? If it is not, then it is asking God to create a four-sided triangle. A contradiction. An impossibility.

1. Personal evil. Freewill has been mentioned. And debates on what constitute freewill . Regardless of the degree of freedom, should God intervene in ALL wars. Which means probably the Americas will still be populated by the Incas, Aztechs, and the Indians. And many other countries colonized by the Europeans such as Australia/NZ.
2. A intends to harm B. God intervenes. B is safe. Should God intervene in ALL cases? Or only in cases personally affecting you only? Apparently, some stories I hear seems to suggest that as long as they are not the person affected by bad things around them, God exist. But when it is they who are impacted, suddenly God is not a good God anymore. “Bad” person gets killed. Should God intervene? YOU think Osama bin Ladin is bad. His followers think he is a good guy. Why should one view prevails over the other?
3. If one is protected from harm, sickness, then how should one die then?

There are more but I think these examples are sufficient to trigger a deeper thinking into the problem of Evil. Should God intervene?

 

[JackVk]

So you came to the conclusion that the only reason you have empathy is *because *there is a God?

Not only that, but that God’s grace is what makes us capable of empathy. Further, there’s nothing from a naturalistic worldview that indicates we have a duty to other people, or that they deserve our empathy.

Granted, someone could repay you for kindness. But that repayment could be a knife in the jugular. No good deed goes unpunished. In that situation, if there is a God, then you’re a martyr, but if there is no God, then you’re a loser.

 

[meltzerboy]

An honest mistake on my part. Forgive me.

I don’t know: their forgiveness may hinge on whether the act has an evolutionary benefit.

 

[JackVk]

I don’t know: their forgiveness may hinge on whether the act has an evolutionary benefit.

Can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not. Guess I’ll watch my back tonight, just to be on the safe side.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t know: their forgiveness may hinge on whether the act has an evolutionary benefit.

I don’t know about evolutionary as it would be seen in the animal world, but it clearly benefits society and the individual, based as it is on what is real and lasting.

 

[meltzerboy]

Can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not. Guess I’ll watch my back tonight, just to be on the safe side.

No need for that. Just an observation based on your comment; no ill will intended.

 

[JackVk]

No need for that. Just an observation based on your comment; no ill will intended.

Granted, I don’t think that atheists use evolutionary benefit as incentive for an action. Often they appeal to morality (which, though they believe in it, they have nothing to account for it). I’m well aware that most atheists are not scheming backstabbers.

 

[meltzerboy]

Granted, I don’t think that atheists use evolutionary benefit as incentive for an action. Often they appeal to morality (which, though they believe in it, they have nothing to account for it). I’m well aware that most atheists are not scheming backstabbers.

I agree with you there. But maybe on an unconscious level our actions are motivated by evolutionary gain as well as in the service of self-interest, including both atheists and theists.

 

[belorg]

Granted, I don’t think that atheists use evolutionary benefit as incentive for an action. Often they appeal to morality (which, though they believe in it, they have nothing to account for it). I’m well aware that most atheists are not scheming backstabbers.

They have just as much (or just as little) to account for it than theists.

 

[Bradski]

An honest mistake on my part. Forgive me.

Not required after so gracious a post.

 

[St_Francis]

Jack,
I see what you are saying: that atheism *as a philosophy *theoretically leads to what you said, just as it did Nietzsche. You are speaking philosophically rather than in real life.

What a lot of people I run into don’t realize is how much their upbringing and experience lead them to “be good.” We are raised with “How do you think Johnny feels when you take away his toy?” and other ways which bring out our empathy. This is actually what some call Christian social capital: our parents taught us that because their parents taught them that because their parents taught them that back to parents teaching that so the children would be *holy, *not just nice. And parents may in the future start leaving that part of raising their children out because there’s no real reason for doing so in a dog-eat-dog world.

So lots of people who are not particularly interested in God think that certain things our parents worked really hard to develop in us are actually part of human nature! And this is not the case, as we can see when we consider other cultures. Wanting to help others is not a part, say, of Hindu culture because Hindus believe that helping others will mess ip their karma. So they step over dying beggars in Calcutta rather than being moved to help.

And I like the way you’ve linked it to the principles of evolution.

 

[fred_conty]

This evening, I was watching a National Geographic documentary about the 2011 tornado in Joplin, Missouri. Of course, being on YouTube, there were comment box crusaders disparaging the idea of God and the victims (Missouri has many religious people).

But it occurred to me that those who are victims of natural evils are often not the ones who believe that their miseries are proof against God. My parish’s youth minister sends money to a little girl in Mexico; the latter sends the former joyful letters about her life, despite living in abject poverty.

It seems that so-called “brights” simply use natural disasters to cudgel religious people and their beliefs; the former’s motives are not out of empathy for the victims, but out of a cynical opportunism to support atheism (comedian Ricky Gervais made disparaging remarks about religious victims of the Moore, OK tornado in 2013, then donated money to relief efforts to make himself look like the good guy).

But I digress. There’s one thing that stands out to me when considering the problem of evil. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a knock-out proof against the existence of God.

That then leaves the question: What are we to make of human suffering if there is no God?

After a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that, if there is no God, then there is no reason to have empathy for victims of natural disasters and what-not. If there’s no God, and therefore it follows that we’re not made in His image and likeness, then what does that make the victims of tornadoes or kids dying of cancer? If anything, it makes them the rejects of evolution. Their inability to adapt to the standards of surviving (which, granted, are random, fickle, and arbitrary) is proof of their evolutionary incompetence.

One may object that this seems to “blame the victims”, that it says, “they can’t survive something beyond their control”. To that, evolution coldly responds, “tough beans”. An ideal organism would be one that is essentially immortal and impervious to all disease or harm. Of course, no such organism exists. Hence, natural selection.

Some people have objected when I have made this statement. They essentially say that I’m a heartless sociopath because I find no reason for compassion outside my religion. Well, this is precisely the thought of Nietzsche. Might makes right, and the world is divided into two groups: the winners and the dead. A group of mercenaries leveling an African village, from a biological standpoint, is no different than a dog eating a nest of baby bunnies.

In conclusion, if the problem of evil disproves God, then it also disproves the existence of good and bad. It is all just natural selection on a greater scale.

I like what you said because it is hard not to recognize truth.

 

[PRmerger]

That then leaves the question: What are we to make of human suffering if there is no God?

Most important question, ever, as it applies to atheism.

There seems to be no answer from atheism. Nor from science.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . There seems to be no answer from atheism. Nor from science.

Science, like a computer, can only give back what is (name removed by moderator)ut. Garbage in, garbage out. It has to do with operational definitions, which are based on one’s pre-existing view. So, if one sees suffering as a neurological response, you will get to know about neurological processes. The fact that I, in myself experience my pain, and no one else’s, that it feels bad (What is that, anyway?) have no meaning given the purely physiological paramaters. Medicine, including Psychiatry seek to mitigate physical and psychological pain as they understand it from a physical and psychodynamic/cognitive basis.

However, as persons, an encounter with suffering is an encounter basically with death. We are forced to address our individual existence. This is scary and we tend to want to simply get away. Intellectual formulations are one way to do this, and this is most of the appeal of Atheism. You can run from the wolves, but you can’t hide; they will catch you. But, who are you? Who suffers? and Why? An immediately real answer is demanded.

“fuhgeddaboudit” seems to be at the root of the answers from self-proclaimed atheistic spokespersons. Be happy, don’t worry; When things get rough you can always terminate your existence.

The holiest person I met and recognized as such was a Hindu. The eastern answer, with many variations, essentially is that suffering is the result of craving that is associated with ignorance. No origin is specifically described or emphasized, but it acknowledges the source of the problem. Depending on one’s fundamentalist tendencies, how rigidly and “literally” one understands the world, it is hard not to see a description of sin. The approach there is to basically forgo commiting sin. That is obvious. The problem is that we can’t. The sin in us wants to sin. So they have all these techniques that assist the person in overcoming his sinfulness. While there are jungle/forest monks, for the most part one needs a Guru or Master. Shamanism has its own take on all this and its own methods. To me, there is no rival to the Catholic Church.
In keeping with Black Friday messages all over the media - the Church provides one-stop shopping for all your spiritual needs.

 

[edwest2]

This evening, I was watching a National Geographic documentary about the 2011 tornado in Joplin, Missouri. Of course, being on YouTube, there were comment box crusaders disparaging the idea of God and the victims (Missouri has many religious people).

But it occurred to me that those who are victims of natural evils are often not the ones who believe that their miseries are proof against God. My parish’s youth minister sends money to a little girl in Mexico; the latter sends the former joyful letters about her life, despite living in abject poverty.

It seems that so-called “brights” simply use natural disasters to cudgel religious people and their beliefs; the former’s motives are not out of empathy for the victims, but out of a cynical opportunism to support atheism (comedian Ricky Gervais made disparaging remarks about religious victims of the Moore, OK tornado in 2013, then donated money to relief efforts to make himself look like the good guy).

But I digress. There’s one thing that stands out to me when considering the problem of evil. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a knock-out proof against the existence of God.

That then leaves the question: What are we to make of human suffering if there is no God?

After a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that, if there is no God, then there is no reason to have empathy for victims of natural disasters and what-not. If there’s no God, and therefore it follows that we’re not made in His image and likeness, then what does that make the victims of tornadoes or kids dying of cancer? If anything, it makes them the rejects of evolution. Their inability to adapt to the standards of surviving (which, granted, are random, fickle, and arbitrary) is proof of their evolutionary incompetence.

One may object that this seems to “blame the victims”, that it says, “they can’t survive something beyond their control”. To that, evolution coldly responds, “tough beans”. An ideal organism would be one that is essentially immortal and impervious to all disease or harm. Of course, no such organism exists. Hence, natural selection.

Some people have objected when I have made this statement. They essentially say that I’m a heartless sociopath because I find no reason for compassion outside my religion. Well, this is precisely the thought of Nietzsche. Might makes right, and the world is divided into two groups: the winners and the dead. A group of mercenaries leveling an African village, from a biological standpoint, is no different than a dog eating a nest of baby bunnies.

In conclusion, if the problem of evil disproves God, then it also disproves the existence of good and bad. It is all just natural selection on a greater scale.

There’s an old joke:

“God is dead.” Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is dead.” God

Human beings have survived without modern technology for a long time. They also realized someone had to be in charge and rules had to be set down. As time passed, right and wrong human actions were further clarified and a formal system of judging the wrong/illegal actions of individuals was created.

“Natural selection,” viewed from a utility viewpoint is more complex than what you are thinking. Human beings naturally protect their young, formed communities - nomadic, fixed settlements, and eventually, cities, or very large protected enclaves with a castle to run to for safety and defense. The Great Wall of China was designed to keep those pesky Mongols out.

It would be sociopathic to have zero compassion for anyone, including those involved in natural disasters. Other human beings today, provide whatever support they can to those who survive natural disasters, and help to those who mourn over lost loved ones. That’s why we have cemeteries, both religious and non-sectarian. Since man’s early history, dead bodies that could be recovered were not left to rot. They were buried in some way. Or cremated.

Peace,
Ed