Theodicy/Problem of Evil

[SnakeMauler]

So I am answering a friend’s questions about Catholicism. Now, I’m typically more concerned about learning what I believe and whatnot rather then diagnosting all of these hypothetical situations. But heres what he gave to me (and I had never heard of “theodicy” before this):

Anyway, here’s something for you to be an apologetic for. Let’s talk theodicy.

Here is a hypothetical situation. You are in a park about to witness a child being raped by a small weak man. You are a strong young man and could easily overpower this child molester and stop what would certainly be a horrible, painful situation that will haunt this poor child for the rest of its life. But you just go, “Meh”, shrug your shoulders and walk away leaving the child to suffer alone. That’s what god does every time a child is raped because he supposedly has the power to stop it but he doesn’t. Either god doesn’t care, he is evil, or he doesn’t exist.

What should I say to this?

Thanks,
Snakemauler

 

[flyingfish]

So I am answering a friend’s questions about Catholicism. Now, I’m typically more concerned about learning what I believe and whatnot rather then diagnosting all of these hypothetical situations. But heres what he gave to me (and I had never heard of “theodicy” before this):

What should I say to this?

Thanks,
Snakemauler

That if God intervened in every act of human/natural evil, there would be other negative consequences unforeseen by your friend that would be worse than a raped child.

You have to argue that this is the best possible world.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Thank you, I will point that out. But in case he asks what these “unforseen consequences” are, what should I say?

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

Theodicy is a specific branch of theology and philosophy which attempts to reconcile belief in God with the perceived existence of evil.

Firstly you have to get the idea that choice matters. If one can’t chose evil one can’t chose good either.

You could try some reading on this matter:

Alvin Plantinga: God, Freedom, and Evil

Pope John Paul II: SALVIFICI DOLORIS.

Richard G. Swinburne: Providence and the Problem of Evil

there are other things put there but these are good.

 

[R_Daneel]

Firstly you have to get the idea that choice matters. If one can’t chose evil one can’t chose good either.

Which is simply not true.

To use a few simple analogies: to be healthy would be good even if no illness would ever happen. To care for someone injured would be good, even if the option of kicking the sufferer into the gutter would be absent. If there would be a “robot” doctor, who had no option but be helpful, his healing would not diminish in value, just because he could not choose the opposite. What is true, that the “good” would not be appreciated as much if no “bad” happened. And to that I would say: “who cares?”. One should not live one’s life on relative terms.

Going back to the opening dilemma: there is really no answer, only different levels of cop-outs. Rabbi Kuschner wrote a book: “When bad things happen to good people”. Definitely a great book. He admits that the omnimax attributes of God cannot be reconciled with the exitence of evil. His solution is simple: God is aware of the unnecessary evil (omniscience), God wants to remedy all the unnecessary evil (omnibenevolence), but God is not able to do so (lack of omnipotence). It is as good a solution as any, though it flies in the face of traditional Christian beliefs. So, obviously the traditional Christian beliefs are simply false. What else is new?

Theodicy is dicey… sorry for the pun.

 

[o_mlly]

Which is simply not true.

To use a few simple analogies: “A” to be healthy would be good even if no illness would ever happen. “B” To care for someone injured would be good, even if the option of kicking the sufferer into the gutter would be absent. “C” If there would be a “robot” doctor, who had no option but be helpful, his healing would not diminish in value, just because he could not choose the opposite. What is true, that the “good” would not be appreciated as much if no “bad” happened. And to that I would say: “who cares?”. One should not live one’s life on relative terms.

This is nonsense. In “A,” there is no human choice, in “B” the choice to withold care is always present, and in “C” there is no human agent, therefore, no moral value applies.

Going back to the opening dilemma: there is really no answer, only different levels of cop-outs. Rabbi Kuschner wrote a book: “When bad things happen to good people”. Definitely a great book. He admits that the omnimax attributes of God cannot be reconciled with the exitence of evil. His solution is simple: God is aware of the unnecessary evil (omniscience), God wants to remedy all the unnecessary evil (omnibenevolence), but God is not able to do so (lack of omnipotence). It is as good a solution as any, though it flies in the face of traditional Christian beliefs. So, obviously the traditional Christian beliefs are simply false. What else is new?

Theodicy is dicey… sorry for the pun.

The more realistic statement Kuschner should have asked is, “When good things happen to bad people.” However, theodicy is the best but still flawed argument for the atheist.

Their is a logical answer to the simultaneous presence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God and evil. God cannot contradict Himself. Having given his creature free will, He must allow the evil that emanates from the creature’s choices.

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

Which is simply not true.

To use a few simple analogies: to be healthy would be good even if no illness would ever happen. To care for someone injured would be good, even if the option of kicking the sufferer into the gutter would be absent. If there would be a “robot” doctor, who had no option but be helpful, his healing would not diminish in value, just because he could not choose the opposite. What is true, that the “good” would not be appreciated as much if no “bad” happened. And to that I would say: “who cares?”. One should not live one’s life on relative terms.

Going back to the opening dilemma: there is really no answer, only different levels of cop-outs. Rabbi Kuschner wrote a book: “When bad things happen to good people”. Definitely a great book. He admits that the omnimax attributes of God cannot be reconciled with the exitence of evil. His solution is simple: God is aware of the unnecessary evil (omniscience), God wants to remedy all the unnecessary evil (omnibenevolence), but God is not able to do so (lack of omnipotence). It is as good a solution as any, though it flies in the face of traditional Christian beliefs. So, obviously the traditional Christian beliefs are simply false. What else is new?

Theodicy is dicey… sorry for the pun.

You can have any colour you like as long as it’s red?
What choice do I have?
Thanks

 

[SnakeMauler]

Whats dicey mean? And whats the best “Catholic” way to answer my friend’s proposal?

 

[redhen]

Whats dicey mean? And whats the best “Catholic” way to answer my friend’s proposal?

It means justice, (judicial is a cognate of it), so theodicy means God’s justice. In other words, the explanation for the problem of evil (PoE).

Your question concerned moral evil, bad things that people do to others. That’s easily answered by free will. Beings that aren’t mere robots have to have to be autonomous (free to make choices).

Natural evil is a much harder problem. Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God use such a slow process like macro-evolution, that involves things like the planets crust shifting, tornadoes, volcanoes, Tyrannosaurus Rex, sharks, all kinds of other carnivores that survive by eating other animals alive? That last bit is usually known as nature red in tooth and claw.

Why couldn’t God have created the planet and everything in it say in Six days? That would at least mitigate millions of years or pain and suffering.

The answer to this is usually a) it’s the best of all possible worlds. But if there are two identical planets, but x has a tree with one extra leaf, does that make it better than y?

b) nomic regularity, in short, that’s just the way things have to be.

There is another answer in the book of Ecclesiastes (Hebrew Qoheleth). It’s that stuff happens. We don’t know why.

 

[tonyrey]

So I am answering a friend’s questions about Catholicism. Now, I’m typically more concerned about learning what I believe and whatnot rather then diagnosting all of these hypothetical situations. But heres what he gave to me (and I had never heard of “theodicy” before this):
What should I say to this?

Thanks,
Snakemauler

Two words sum up the solution: choice and chance.

1. Freedom is our greatest gift. It is absurd to argue that we would be better off if we were created as do-gooders who have no choice about what to believe and how to live. Many people have died fighting for freedom knowing that slavery - mental or physical - is a fate worse than death.
2. Most people believe everything is due to Chance or Design but chance events occur within the framework of Design. The universe is fundamentally orderly but there is an element of disorder. Coincidences are inevitable in an immensely complex world. Sooner or later some one is bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - in the path of an avalanche or a tsunami. No one has ever produced a blueprint of a perfect world for the simple reason that it is impossible. Just ask your friend to explain how every accident, disaster, disease and deformity could be prevented…

 

[Yab_Yum]

This is nonsense. In “A,” there is no human choice, in “B” the choice to withold care is always present, and in “C” there is no human agent, therefore, no moral value applies.

The more realistic statement Kuschner should have asked is, “When good things happen to bad people.” However, theodicy is the best but still flawed argument for the atheist.

Their is a logical answer to the simultaneous presence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God and evil. God cannot contradict Himself. Having given his creature free will, He must allow the evil that emanates from the creature’s choices.

Tay Sachs disease, tsunamis, child leukemia, earthquakes, etc are not explained by the free will defense.

 

[Yab_Yum]

Which is simply not true.

To use a few simple analogies: to be healthy would be good even if no illness would ever happen. To care for someone injured would be good, even if the option of kicking the sufferer into the gutter would be absent. If there would be a “robot” doctor, who had no option but be helpful, his healing would not diminish in value, just because he could not choose the opposite. What is true, that the “good” would not be appreciated as much if no “bad” happened. And to that I would say: “who cares?”. One should not live one’s life on relative terms.

Going back to the opening dilemma: there is really no answer, only different levels of cop-outs. Rabbi Kuschner wrote a book: “When bad things happen to good people”. Definitely a great book. He admits that the omnimax attributes of God cannot be reconciled with the exitence of evil. His solution is simple: God is aware of the unnecessary evil (omniscience), God wants to remedy all the unnecessary evil (omnibenevolence), but God is not able to do so (lack of omnipotence). It is as good a solution as any, though it flies in the face of traditional Christian beliefs. So, obviously the traditional Christian beliefs are simply false. What else is new?

Theodicy is dicey… sorry for the pun.

We ate the tree of the *knowledge *of good and evil. There’s only one benefit of being human - we *know *when and how something is good.

Colossians 1:16 For by him *all *things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—*all *things were created through him and for him.

 

[SnakeMauler]

See, the trouble I have with that is that I really tried hard to be a believer. I got baptized, I went to church, I went to bible classes, I prayed and prayed and prayed for god to make me happy like I see all the really good believers seemed to be, but I was never happy as a believer. I wanted to believe but I couldn’t. I was depressed and suicidal and I thought god hated me because he wouldn’t answer my prayers. Then I quit trying to believe and I realized that it didn’t matter and I quit worrying about how much god hated me.

What would be the best way to address this?

 

[ThomasToo]

Tay Sachs disease, tsunamis, child leukemia, earthquakes, etc are not explained by the free will defense.

Neither are the pain and suffering of all non-human animals…

Darwin:

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice

Hardly on the same level as those problems you list (and numerous other problems like them) but still an interesting case because the free will argument holds no water.

 

[flyingfish]

Thank you, I will point that out. But in case he asks what these “unforseen consequences” are, what should I say?

I’m not sure, maybe you could argue that if God intervened to fix every act of human evil we’d lose out on character development, we’d lose out on self sufficiency, something or other. Maybe the lost character development would outweigh the happiness of children saved from rape. Maybe having problems to solve is a benefit to how we live our lives.

 

[R_Daneel]

This is nonsense. In “A,” there is no human choice, in “B” the choice to withold care is always present, and in “C” there is no human agent, therefore, no moral value applies.

Maybe you did not read the post I repied to. It said that there is no “good” without “evil”. As for your objection, I say: “so what?”.

Their is a logical answer to the simultaneous presence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God and evil. God cannot contradict Himself. Having given his creature free will, He must allow the evil that emanates from the creature’s choices.

Except that your answer is no good. On one hand it does not answer the problem of the so-called “natural evils”, on the other hand it does not reply to the question: “why does God always ‘respect’ of the free will of the strong ones over the free will of the weak ones?”. Some people answer this with “the free will of the weak one who wants to escape the harm is not in jeopardy by the virtue that she is unable to carry out her will not to be harmed”. Which is the ultimate nonsense. If that would be the case then the strong and evil person’s will would not be restricted either if he were unable to carry out his wish to cause actual harm. On the other hand, a will which cannot be acted upon is not free at all.

 

[R_Daneel]

Whats dicey mean?

Dicey: risky, fraught with danger. And it was just a pun, for amusement. (thefreedictionary.com/dicey)

 

[redhen]

Alvin Plantinga: God, Freedom, and Evil

But Plantinga defeats the PoE by simply denying it. He posits that natural evils like earthquakes and hurricanes are actually caused by Satanic forces, so it becomes a moral problem. Hey presto! No more problem.

I was recommended this book too, but his proposition is absurd and odious.

 

[redhen]

Their is a logical answer to the simultaneous presence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God and evil. God cannot contradict Himself. Having given his creature free will, He must allow the evil that emanates from the creature’s choices.

Right, the logical problem of evil can be defeated by a claim to the greater good. God has some secret reason for allowing evil that outweighs the harm caused by it. This is logically plausible.

But then there is the* evidentia*l problem, the evidence of moral and natural evil is so overwhelming that a commensurate greater good cannot justify it.

 

[o_mlly]

Maybe you did not read the post I repied to. It said that there is no “good” without “evil”. As for your objection, I say: “so what?”.

To be precise, my post was a conslusion not an objection. To prove your claim – "there is no ‘good’ without “evil”-- give examples of evil from which no good has or ever will come.

Except that your answer is no good. On one hand it does not answer the problem of the so-called “natural evils”, on the other hand it does not reply to the question: “why does God always ‘respect’ of the free will of the strong ones over the free will of the weak ones?”. Some people answer this with “the free will of the weak one who wants to escape the harm is not in jeopardy by the virtue that she is unable to carry out her will not to be harmed”. Which is the ultimate nonsense. If that would be the case then the strong and evil person’s will would not be restricted either if he were unable to carry out his wish to cause actual harm. On the other hand, a will which cannot be acted upon is not free at all.

This is also nonsense. You apparently don’t understand the difference between innate freedom that freedom which is God-given and circumstantial freedom that which is determined by fate. Read Boethius.

As to physical evils, in a finite world upon whose resources human temporal life is dependent, in order to add immortal human life requires terminating existing temporal human life in this world. This action serves to increase the number of immortal human beings in existence – a good thing, don’t you think?