Theodicy/Problem of Evil

[jinminn]

Well, we weren’t all created to be the Mother of God. I think Catholic Theology still requires Mary to have been saved by Christ.

But the point is that he can create us such. Again, returning to natural vs. supernatural, what makes more sense: a) Mary was just like all other humans and the Church decided to figure out a doctrine that made sense of how she was to be the virgin mother of god or b) she was the only human in all of existence specifically created without concupiscence and it will never happen again.

I believe that there is some truth in all religions but that the fullness of truth is in the Church.

Funny, all other religions say the same about their church. It’s odd that this is so ‘built-in’ to religions, isn’t it?

The proof of God is in the experience of God. If you haven’t experienced God yet, perhaps you will one day.

I would have said I had that experience, however in examining the evidence, I’m willing to submit my previous subjective evidence in light of the overwhelming objective realities about. The problem of evil is one such reality. Biblical issues are another. Diminishing tangible interactions between god and man are another. And so on…

I don’t know that people would come to belief as a result of a bunch of magic. The Gospels record that many people who saw Jesus’ miracles, nevertheless, did not believe in Him. Besides, I don’t know that mere belief (in the sense that “I think there is a God”) is quite what God is looking for. So what if I think there is a God? The demons believe in God.

You contradict yourself a lot here. The Bible has many instances of Jesus foretelling that he was about to do miracles so that people would believe. You would need to argue that no more people would believe because of miracles compared to no miracles. I believe this would not be a good argument, and that even if some persisted in unbelief, many (like myself) would believe given good evidence.

Not just an observed miracle. An experienced miracle. Every moment in prayer and every Sunday at Mass. If you haven’t had the same experience, that doesn’t invalidate my experience.

I still go to mass and pray and have no such experiences. Many bystanders did not ‘experience a miracle’ but truly did ‘observe a miracle.’ Not even that… they were simply ‘told of a miracle.’ These reports are drastically reduced compared to the olden days. God does not speak out loud to us. Prophecies made today are concerning odd vagueties and are not specific by any stretch of the imagination. Prayer to Jesus does not fulfill his promise to give anything to those asking (and I really do mean deep, needed, things like healing, not money or a mansion).

Lastly, if your faith is rooted in ‘your experience’… fine. But at that point you invalidate any objective claims that you could possibly ever make about the world with respect to me. I have been a believer for about 7 years. I did ministry work, prayed over people, prayed about my house, wife, whether to have a child or not. I lived Christianity.

Now I doubt and am fairly convinced that it was not true. Part of the reason I followed my questioning is that I did not want to be in the situation you just put yourself in, namely one of subjective grounds for evangelization. I want to point to the world as all humans experience and see it and provide an answer to that picture that has predictable, repeatable power to explain it. I do not want to resort to ‘you’re not looking hard enough’ or ‘you just don’t see it as I do’ or ‘these are miracles even though you don’t experience’ them or anything else in these areas.

I have found that natural explanations for the problem of evil and all other issues I’ve had do an unbelievably superior job of explaining our world when compared to souls, miracles, a man in the sky, experiencing love as the answer to sickness and death, etc.

 

[Slowlearner]

“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, C 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?”

What would be the best way to address this?

To me the clue to his unhappiness is in this statement: “I prayed and prayed and prayed for god to make me happy”

Jesus does not promise us happiness on the earth. He tells us to take up his cross and follow him. He tells us to serve others. If we follow Jesus, the Holy Spirit will bring us joy. St. Paul was imprisoned and executed. He could not have been very happy. Yet he was full of joy.

Your friend’s prayer will be answered when he prays for God to help him be a better helper of others and better servant of God. Joy will follow the answer to that prayer.

 

[Slowlearner]

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

Here is my answer to the original question. By giving us Jesus, God gives us the PERFECT ANTIDOTE (or offering) for all suffering. Love is the antidote for all evil actions by man and all natural disasters on earth. God does not promise us we will he rich, healthy, powerful, happy, accident free, etc. on earth. He promises us that if we accept Jesus, we will have everything in God’s Kingdom.

One thing that fascinates me is the grace possessed by many young children/adults with cancer. They are at peace with their circumstances. Rather than envy the health of others, they are grateful for each day they have. Parents of children with disabilities are similar. They love their downs syndrome child and are grateful.

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

I would have said I had that experience, however in examining the evidence, I’m willing to submit my previous subjective evidence in light of the overwhelming objective realities about. The problem of evil is one such reality. Biblical issues are another. Diminishing tangible interactions between god and man are another. And so on…

Do you really put your subjective experience in the light of objective realities? The very suffering we are talking about is the same sort of existential event. We know that someone else can experience pain, but what do we really know of someone else’s suffering? Not much. Those are personal, subjective experiences.

I have yet to meet anybody who lives without the entanglements of subjective experience. Materialistic protestations to the contrary, people live as though their subjective experience matters. As though there is purpose, as though there is hope, as though there is happiness and love. Science answers questions of “how”? It doesn’t answer “why”? The minute you venture into “why” questions, you’re into subjective experience.

In fact, I would be impressed if somebody actually lived as though they put all their subjective experience to the test. Things like “how can I be really sure my wife and kids love me”? What, objectively, is my purpose in life? Why am I suffering?

Lastly, if your faith is rooted in ‘your experience’… fine. But at that point you invalidate any objective claims that you could possibly ever make about the world with respect to me. I have been a believer for about 7 years. I did ministry work, prayed over people, prayed about my house, wife, whether to have a child or not. I lived Christianity.

Now I doubt and am fairly convinced that it was not true. Part of the reason I followed my questioning is that I did not want to be in the situation you just put yourself in, namely one of subjective grounds for evangelization. I want to point to the world as all humans experience and see it and provide an answer to that picture that has predictable, repeatable power to explain it. I do not want to resort to ‘you’re not looking hard enough’ or ‘you just don’t see it as I do’ or ‘these are miracles even though you don’t experience’ them or anything else in these areas.

I have found that natural explanations for the problem of evil and all other issues I’ve had do an unbelievably superior job of explaining our world when compared to souls, miracles, a man in the sky, experiencing love as the answer to sickness and death, etc.

I’ve found just the opposite. For example… One day, in 1983, a little girl was in a car with her mom waiting to turn into see a movie. The car was stopped at a traffic light. A truck pulled out of the plaza and, as it did so, it’s trailer became unhitched, falling over onto the car, killing the woman. A freak accident that resulted in a tragedy. The little girl in that car was my future wife.

I think we would agree that this woman has experienced a high degree of suffering. Yet, this woman is one of the most devout women I know - partially because of her suffering instead of in spite of it. Though she’ll never fully understand why the tragedy happened, her faith and her experience of the love of God have, among other benefits, given her the ability to remain sane.

Her father, on the other hand, became an alcoholic.

Many people are like my wife and have found some meaning in their suffering through their faith. The fact that someone doesn’t believe does exactly nothing to decrease the validity of their experiences.

As for your desire to “point to a world as all humans experience it”… good luck with that. You can have repeatable science, yes. That’s the nature of science. But, the world as humans experience it goes beyond science. This very conversation with ideas like “evil” and “good” and “suffering” is very unscientific. The very experience of suffering is different from person to person. My suffering is not like your suffering.

And, I really don’t see what science has to say to the child in our earlier example or in response to a tragedy like my wife experienced. After all, objectively, there’s no meaning to anything. If we were really honest and brave with our objectivity, we’d abandon such quaint notions as “hope” and “meaning” and “suffering”. We don’t. And, because we don’t, your desire to point to a world that we all experience is, I’m afraid, going to remain unfulfilled.

 

[redhen]

Here is my answer to the original question. By giving us Jesus, God gives us the PERFECT ANTIDOTE (or offering) for all suffering. Love is the antidote for all evil actions by man and all natural disasters on earth. God does not promise us we will he rich, healthy, powerful, happy, accident free, etc. on earth. He promises us that if we accept Jesus, we will have everything in God’s Kingdom.

A heavenly afterlife where every tear shall be wiped away may be fine for homo sapiens sapiens. What about the gratuitous pain and suffering experienced by untold numbers of other species through eons of time?

I’ll take a chance on the evolution ban and throw in archaic hominids as well.

 

[Chiral]

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

In case you are still looking for answers to this question, have you or your friend ever read Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamazov. In the chapter titled “Rebellion”, this same challenge is presented in another story, as it has been from time immemoriam. Apparently the clear and simple answer is just too unacceptable (if not offensive) to many, namely that ‘free will’ is more important than suffering, even the suffering of an innocent child.
There has never yet been presented, in the span of human history, a logical reason why an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent deity (if you believe in that sort of thing) must intervene against the wills of individuals involved in suffering. On the contrary, logic holds that such a deity must uphold the wills of the individuals involved.
Why is ‘free will’ more important than an innocent child’s suffering? Why must it be upheld even whilst it is used to cause suffering and lasting pain?
The short answer is Love, which is the actual ‘all-important’ thing, and Love requires ‘free will’. Suffering is not ‘evil’, it does not of itself stand in opposition to Love. While suffering sucks, it can be redemptive, and it can teach us more about love, among other things.

If you believe in all that crazy stuff about eternal life, heaven and hell, etc. then ‘lasting-pain’ only applies to those who inflict it upon themselves, namely the sinners in hell. As for those upon whom suffering is inflicted, if they attain salvation (again, if you believe in it), then all this (i.e. our mortal existence) is but a speck of a moment in a vast eternity. Was that speck of suffering unnecessary of excessive?
Well, if you do not believe in god, then ‘necessary’ does not apply as events are really ‘determined’ by chance (or whatever one may like to call it). So NO.
If you do believe in a deity as described above, and if the alternative to this particular infliction of suffering demands suspension of agent ‘free will’, NO at least as far as divine action is concerned. It might be ‘unnecessary’ as far as the human agent is concerned, and thereby can blame (sin) be ascribed to the agent, but only if that agent is free in the first place.
So in the end, the suffering was neither necessary nor unnecessary with respect to god or chaos. It can only be qualified with regard to the agent’s ‘free will’.

So, this omnibenevolent omnipotent deity cannot abrogate ‘free will’. But one might come up with all sorts of ways in which a supposed deity could intervene to prevent many or at least one instance of suffering without totally abrogating individual ‘free will’. For example, coincidence: a man about to cause suffering is suddenly prevented by the unexpected arrival of a witness; a gun fails to fire, a bomb fails to explode, etc.

Actually, how often do events like these happen, where intended suffering is coincidentally avoided or mitigated? What if this supposed deity is intervening in just such a way everyday? Can one quantify the number or value of avoided instances of intended suffering?..

But if this deity could prevent or mitigate so many instances of suffering without abrogating free will, as history and experience suggest may be the case, then why not more? Or why not go about it another way? Why do we still experience suffering at the hands of others?? (not going into natural disasters and non-human pain as it wasn’t part of the OP)
The standard answer to this is, why do we assume such a god must prevent more suffering, that our experience of suffering is unnecessary/excessive with regard to the greatest ‘good’? Should there also be more rain, or more sunlight, or fewer continents and people? Are there too many men, too few women? Should we have three arms, two heads, and thirty fingers? What else, from our limited perspective, will we require to accept the logical possibility of this deity? This is where people start quoting Scripture about the pot criticizing its maker. PROVE that such changes are necessary for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. No such proof has yet been offered that has withstood scrutiny. Even in the Bible, non-believers say, “if this god existed, he would have done this,” or “he would not allow this,” etc. but such claims cannot be substantiated, they are mere speculation.

So why is there suffering in the world? Either the Judeo-Christian God does not exist (perhaps some other deity might) or we simply don’t know everything. It is by reason of this latter answer that some authors contend that there is no PoE from a logical standpoint, for it assumes sufficient knowledge of the circumstances to judge, which we clearly lack.

So, what does the Church teach about suffering and our role in regard to it? Pray and work to mitigate/prevent it, within the bounds of moral truth and love.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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.

LOL!! Obviously traditional Christian beliefs are false because – what? Kuschner is God? You say his is a great book. Others say it’s a lousy book, so obviously Kuschner’s book is a lousy book. Not a clear thinker, are you?

Your introductory remarks are risible. Your so-called analogies do not respond to what you’re allegedly responding to.and are not analogies at all.

 

[jinminn]

So why is there suffering in the world? Either the Judeo-Christian God does not exist (perhaps some other deity might) or we simply don’t know everything. It is by reason of this latter answer that some authors contend that there is no PoE from a logical standpoint, for it assumes sufficient knowledge of the circumstances to judge, which we clearly lack.

This is probably the primary point to make. In my search, this theme is one that has proved extremely frustrating on all fronts. If a supposed proof can be established, it is used. If it’s not, then ‘we just don’t know.’ No offense, but you criticize the use of scripture and then fall back on one… namely that ‘god’s ways are above our ways.’

A helpful read might be found HERE.

Regardless of the response to suffering, referred to as love, it does not change the fact that it exists. I can love my wife after beating her… but I still beat her. I can even advise her that the best psychological and emotional state she can achieve will result from loving me back.

While saying that things ‘just couldn’t be any other way’ (namely, that god had to grant free will as a higher value than anything else) is also interesting as it hypothesizes about exactly what god values, wanted, and brought into the world through creative power. So, we can ‘see into the mind of god’ in this respect, but must throw our hands up in ‘I-dunnos’ when asking why creation puzzles our ‘god-given’ reasoning skills and what we think we might have done even slightly better?

In my mind, this also gets weird as god created the world with all foreknowledge from the beginning, so given that he knows my genetics/predispositions/encounters-to-come, we enter into the free-will vs. predestination debate. In other words, I’m acting in ‘free-will’, but someone knew what I would do ahead of time, no? Aquinas or Molina?

Returning to your original statement… this is probably the best thing that has been stated in the post, and usually where some apologists leave it. The PoE is only resolved by hypothesizing that god has a morally sufficient reason for permitting it. Beyond that, we just don’t know.

This would also divide the aisles… either you accept that and continue in faith or consider that this answer is a non-answer and that god’s morally sufficient reason looks exactly as if there is no god at all.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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

Of course they are. Free will includes the will to evil, the will to follow Satan rather than God. From the experience of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah we know God reacts negatively to evil and there is an abundance of evil in this world. It seems to me God has His limits.

How do we know the calamities you mention would not occur if all mankind obeyed God’s law to “love one another as I have loved you.”?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

What would be the best way to address this?

Don’t EVER put God to the test. The person you quoted demanded a result from his attempts to believe. He did not believe. He dared God to make him happy. (Or her.)

 

[redhen]

(not going into natural disasters and non-human pain as it wasn’t part of the OP)

That’s why I initially answered that the problem of moral evil is** easily** defeated by invoking free will.

But if the atheist the OP is talking to is worth his salt, he will bring up the problem of gratuitous pain and suffering inherent in creation.

Additionally, I think the earths geological forces are less of a problem than say human birth defects. I’m thinking along the lines of Harlequin type ichthyosis. I’m not linking to a picture because it is truly grotesque.

 

[redhen]

This is probably the primary point to make. In my search, this theme is one that has proved extremely frustrating on all fronts. If a supposed proof can be established, it is used. If it’s not, then ‘we just don’t know.’ No offense, but you criticize the use of scripture and then fall back on one… namely that ‘god’s ways are above our ways.’

A helpful read might be found HERE.

Regardless of the response to suffering, referred to as love, it does not change the fact that it exists. I can love my wife after beating her… but I still beat her. I can even advise her that the best psychological and emotional state she can achieve will result from loving me back.

While saying that things ‘just couldn’t be any other way’ (namely, that god had to grant free will as a higher value than anything else) is also interesting as it hypothesizes about exactly what god values, wanted, and brought into the world through creative power. So, we can ‘see into the mind of god’ in this respect, but must throw our hands up in ‘I-dunnos’ when asking why creation puzzles our ‘god-given’ reasoning skills and what we think we might have done even slightly better?

In my mind, this also gets weird as god created the world with all foreknowledge from the beginning, so given that he knows my genetics/predispositions/encounters-to-come, we enter into the free-will vs. predestination debate. In other words, I’m acting in ‘free-will’, but someone knew what I would do ahead of time, no? Aquinas or Molina?

Returning to your original statement… this is probably the best thing that has been stated in the post, and usually where some apologists leave it. The PoE is only resolved by hypothesizing that god has a morally sufficient reason for permitting it. Beyond that, we just don’t know.

This would also divide the aisles… either you accept that and continue in faith or consider that this answer is a non-answer and that god’s morally sufficient reason looks exactly as if there is no god at all.

Excellent post, I’ll have to bookmark it. Yes, there is no logical problem if you assume that it’s for the greater good. But the evidential problem is huge. When I look at nature, cruel and indifferent, it’s exactly what I would expect to find if there was no loving god.

 

[Chiral]

This is probably the primary point to make. In my search, this theme is one that has proved extremely frustrating on all fronts. If a supposed proof can be established, it is used. If it’s not, then ‘we just don’t know.’ No offense, but you criticize the use of scripture and then fall back on one… namely that ‘god’s ways are above our ways.’…

It is the primary point as far as logical debate regarding the PoE is concerned, yes. There can be no objective logical debate concerning it. It would be like debating whether or not it would be better for humans to have three hands, etc. as I mentioned in the post.
However, no where did I ‘criticize’ the use of scripture. I’d actually encourage a thorough study of scripture for those seeking an answer to this problem, but I do worry that many will stop at the ‘god’s ways are above our ways’ and leave it at that. That is not supposed to be the end.

…Regardless of the response to suffering, referred to as love, it does not change the fact that it exists.

But the existence of suffering is not a problem, which is the point of theodicy. There is no logical contradiction between the existence of suffering in our world and the supposed existence of this deity…

While saying that things ‘just couldn’t be any other way’ (namely, that god had to grant free will as a higher value than anything else) is also interesting as it hypothesizes about exactly what god values, wanted, and brought into the world through creative power. So, we can ‘see into the mind of god’ in this respect, but must throw our hands up in ‘I-dunnos’ when asking why creation puzzles our ‘god-given’ reasoning skills and what we think we might have done even slightly better?

The question you seem to be asking is, “Why didn’t god do it this way? Why wouldn’t this be better?” The “I dunno” is hypothesizing what we imagine this deity should value. The hypotheses (‘seeing into the mind of god’) about what he does value come from scripture, revelation, sacred tradition, (if you accept any of those) and logical analyses (via ‘‘god-given’ reasoning skills’). Beyond these, of course everyone is stumped. But accepting them in the first place seems to be the real problem.

The PoE is only resolved by hypothesizing that god has a morally sufficient reason for permitting it. Beyond that, we just don’t know.

This would also divide the aisles… either you accept that and continue in faith or consider that this answer is a non-answer and that god’s morally sufficient reason looks exactly as if there is no god at all.

I agree that it is a matter of non-faith concerning PoE (as stated above).
But those who believe in this deity do not start with, “I wonder if there is a morally sufficient reason for suffering in the world?” and then come up with this god. They (or at least I) assume that there is no such god and that suffering is ‘justified’ precisely according to our own subjective reasoning, e.g. those who cause suffering deserve to suffer, those who do not do not. But this desire is not always realized in the world, and much suffering (e.g. natural disasters, animals, etc.) seems devoid of moral value entirely (no acting moral agent), except in regard to human response to it. The conclusion: suffering exists, that’s all there is to it. There is no ‘why’, no meaning or reason, or at least none that anyone knows for certain.

But then one finds evidence for the existence of this omnibenevolent, omnipotent deity and comes to faith. And suddenly there is a moral agent beyond those usually observed, i.e. someone to blame! So how is faith in this deity’s existence reconcile with that of suffering?
A) The evidence for and faith in god is faulty and suffering is still meaningless or not understood.
B) The faith is secure and suddenly suffering does have meaning! One might still be confused with regard to specific instances, but others become clear as day…

I think this may be the reason many people trust in their faith in this god and do not worry so much about the existence of suffering - they have other reasons for believing in the god and the existence of suffering does not pose a problem to that belief.

 

[Chiral]

…When I look at nature, cruel and indifferent, it’s exactly what I would expect to find if there was no loving god.

That’s very Hobbesian, a skewed viewpoint based on preconceived ideas. MANY others see just the opposite.

And to remain objective, one really should not ‘humanize’ nature, don’t you agree?

 

[Sheila77]

If either the older or younger man had been in Christ, the child would have been spared from the crime. The older would not have even pondered raping a child, the younger man would have prevented it. God gives us free will. We may choose good or evil. He does not ‘make’ us love Him. We ask in Church that we are forgiven for what we have done, but also what we have failed to do. God gives us the graces to avoid evil, it is our own choice if we refuse Him.

 

[redhen]

That’s very Hobbesian, a skewed viewpoint based on preconceived ideas. MANY others see just the opposite.

I’m not referring to Hobbes’ “war of all against all”. That only addresses human violence. Pain and suffering are inherent in creation, which includes all other species, living or extinct. I could argue that this natural evil far surpasses that experienced by just our species.

And to remain objective, one really should not ‘humanize’ nature, don’t you agree?

What do you mean, anthropomorphism? I’ve been through this many times on this forum. I accredit any species that has a nervous system and can experience pain as the basis for natural evil. Other species besides ours experience pain and suffering, this is indisputable.

Anthropomorphism, in my books, is the “attempt to project obviously human needs and emotions onto animals as when, for example, we enter the Beatrix Potter world of animals dressed up in human clothes and enjoying gardening.”
humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html

 

[Chiral]

I’m not referring to Hobbes’ “war of all against all”. That only addresses human violence. Pain and suffering are inherent in creation, which includes all other species, living or extinct. I could argue that this natural evil far surpasses that experienced by just our species.

By “Natural evil” do you mean the experience of pain in the bodies of non-sentient organisms? Perhaps I should search the forum for a thread on this topic. My initial reaction is that ‘evil’ implies ‘sin’ which implies an accessible higher moral authority (god) and also knowledge of ‘good vs evil’. I find it highly suspicious to suggest that animals or ‘Nature’ can ‘sin’. Suffer, yes. But suffering is not ‘evil’. What makes you think it is?

What do you mean, anthropomorphism?..

Anthropomorphism: Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropomorphism
Who disputes that organisms other than humans experience pain? Tell such a person that he/she is being silly.
What I dispute is the notion that animals or ‘nature’ (as if it were an entity) can be ‘cruel’ as if possessing the requisite understanding and ‘free will’. Heck, not even all humans can be ‘cruel’…

 

[redhen]

By “Natural evil” do you mean the experience of pain in the bodies of non-sentient organisms? Perhaps I should search the forum for a thread on this topic. My initial reaction is that ‘evil’ implies ‘sin’ which implies an accessible higher moral authority (god) and also knowledge of ‘good vs evil’. I find it highly suspicious to suggest that animals or ‘Nature’ can ‘sin’. Suffer, yes. But suffering is not ‘evil’. What makes you think it is?

Natural and moral evil is just the philosophic language used to refer to pain and suffering. You are quite right, I don’t know of anyone who posits that non-human animals can be moral agents. Which actually makes the “Problem of Evil” even worse, because as C.S. Lewis famously wrote; “So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or of virtue; therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it.” - Problem of Pain.

Who disputes that organisms other than humans experience pain? Tell such a person that he/she is being silly.

There are some here on this forum that come close to a Cartesian view of animal pain, in that it’s not really pain as we experience it, and the noises they make when vivisected is the just noise of machinery breaking down. These same people also deny emotions in animals such as fear and anger. You’re right, they are quite silly, but it allows them to deny the existence of the problem of evil in theodicy.

 

[didymus]

Of course they are. Free will includes the will to evil, the will to follow Satan rather than God. From the experience of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah we know God reacts negatively to evil and there is an abundance of evil in this world. It seems to me God has His limits.

And what is God’s excuse for letting Satan run around loose tempting us?

Go figure:
God creates the angels, a large portion of whom rebel (a third? I forget) and they are cast out of Heaven.
God creates humans and puts them up in an earthly paradise and forbids the to eat the fruit of the tree &c.
Instead of leaving Satan and his angels locked up in Hell (which will happen eventually) God leaves them free to tempt humans. It works on Adam and Eve and they’ve been at it ever since.

Okay, A & E might have fallen eventually w/o the snake. But without Satan & his demons tempting us a lot more folks would go to Heaven – isn’t that what God wants?

 

[Chiral]

Natural and moral evil is just the philosophic language used to refer to pain and suffering. You are quite right, I don’t know of anyone who posits that non-human animals can be moral agents. Which actually makes the “Problem of Evil” even worse, because as C.S. Lewis famously wrote; “So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or of virtue; therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it.” - Problem of Pain.

I’ll get back to this tomorrow, if that’s okay. This is my last post for now. To preview, Lewis didn’t leave it at that…

There are some here on this forum that come close to a Cartesian view of animal pain, in that it’s not really pain as we experience it, and the noises they make when vivisected is the just noise of machinery breaking down. These same people also deny emotions in animals such as fear and anger.

‘Not really pain’? I think the part you should focus on is the ‘as we experience it’ (I hope that’s what they really meant). I am a scientist, involved in research on animal subjects. They experience pain, and certainly they experience fear, but not the way we experience it, i.e. with ‘sentience’ or perhaps we should say ‘sapients’. How closely does their experience mirror our own? That would require some sort of interspecies telepathy, I think… But to think of animals as mere ‘machinery’ is a gross simplification and disrespectful to their Creator (if you believe in such a thing). I would consider such a view ‘materialist’ and would only expect to hear it from the mouths of such people…

It is enough to know that animals DO experience pain (of whatever sort), they suffer, and as humans we have an ethical obligation (IMHO) to treat them (and all living things) with a level of respect.

Alright, I’ll hopefully be back tomorrow. Sorry to depart so soon.