Theodicy/Problem of Evil

[TxPatriot281]

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

God does care, but he also gave everyone FREE-WILL and cannot interfere with anyone’s will, otherwise it wouldn’t be FREE!

 

[Chiral]

But without Satan & his demons tempting us a lot more folks would go to Heaven – isn’t that what God wants?

Okay, one last post. Ever read the Book of Job or read about the saints? These are people who remain faithful despite temptation and tribulation, or people who repent after sinning.
What God seems to want is us to be free, free to choose between heaven and hell, free to love or not. Satan’s contention seems to be, without him tempting people away, who’s to say we are really free? And without eating of the tree, without knowing good from evil, could we have really been free? Just something to think about…

 

[ThomasToo]

Okay, one last post. Ever read the Book of Job or read about the saints? These are people who remain faithful despite temptation and tribulation, or people who repent after sinning.
What God seems to want is us to be free, free to choose between heaven and hell, free to love or not. Satan’s contention seems to be, without him tempting people away, who’s to say we are really free? And without eating of the tree, without knowing good from evil, could we have really been free? Just something to think about… [Emphasis added]

Why would God create an entire race simply to love, honor and cherish Him? That’s the part I never got. It seems so… egotistical, selfish, self-serving and childish.

Also, isn’t the notion that eating from the proverbial tree sin in itself and hence it must have involved freedom to choose not to do so? In other words, since man chose to eat of the fruit of the tree isn’t it obvious that he was already free?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

And what is God’s excuse for letting Satan run around loose tempting us?
Obviously that’s a question all thinking believers have asked themselves. I don’t know the answer. I could concoct an answer or cop out by saying we are not meant to know all that God knows, but I won’t.

[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?

I’m told that’s what God wants. If He wants it, why doesn’t it come to pass?
I’m also told God doesn’t want to be a puppet master. He has created us with a free will and has created Satan to be the Prince of this World. God wants us to choose Him over Satan. Or so I’m told. Is God entertaining Himself? I don’t know.

What I do know is, I have enough evidence of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to convince me His message, set forth in the Gospels, is the truth. If that’s my default position, the rest is mandatory.

[/quote]

 

[redhen]

‘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).

Section II of this essay discusses the Cartesian and Behaviourist views on animal pain.
humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html

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…

This reminds me of Nagel’s essay* What’s it like to be a bat? * Not what it might be like for you to be a bat, but what it’s like for a bat to be a bat. Nagel’s answer is that it is impossible to know. But leaving aside subjectivity, I think it’s safe to extrapolate from our nearest cousins, chimpanzees, to see how they react and express pain, fear, anger, etc.

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.

Good to see a Catholic with these views. Here’s a short 10 min video you might find interesting. oxfordanimalethics.com/what-we-do/media/film-profile-of-director

 

[IntegraCatholic]

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.

The difference is that these are all ontological goods but not moral goods if they happen apart from free will.

 

[R_Daneel]

The difference is that these are all ontological goods but not moral goods if they happen apart from free will.

You are perfectly correct. And thank you for the reply.

Now comes the question: “why is moral good prefereable to the ontological good”? As an example: “consider a doctor, who will forego his very well deserved and necessary break (or vacation) to voluntarily stay on the job to help and cure more people”. It is a “minor” sacrifice, he does not give up his whole life, but it is a sacrifice nevertheless. Obviously this would be a morally good behavior, which brings forth ontological good. It would be an act of will, so by the usual definition it would be “love”.

Now compare this to a hypothetical “robot-doctor”, who never gets tired, who can perform the same help and deliver the same cure. This “robot-doctor” has no freedom to act otherwise, his actions are programmed. Why is this considered “inferior” to the actions of the human doctor? Do the parients care, who cured them? Do they appreciate the human doctor’s sacrifice? Should they care?

 

[o_mlly]

You are perfectly correct. And thank you for the reply.

Now comes the question: “why is moral good prefereable to the ontological good”? As an example: “consider a doctor, who will forego his very well deserved and necessary break (or vacation) to voluntarily stay on the job to help and cure more people”. It is a “minor” sacrifice, he does not give up his whole life, but it is a sacrifice nevertheless. Obviously this would be a morally good behavior, which brings forth ontological good. It would be an act of will, so by the usual definition it would be “love”.

Now compare this to a hypothetical “robot-doctor”, who never gets tired, who can perform the same help and deliver the same cure. This “robot-doctor” has no freedom to act otherwise, his actions are programmed. Why is this considered “inferior” to the actions of the human doctor? Do the parients care, who cured them? Do they appreciate the human doctor’s sacrifice? Should they care?

“Should they [the cured] care?” is a different moral proposition than “Should he/she [doctor] care?” I think the thread is at the point of discussing the latter.

All goods are ontological goods. In Catholic belief, all good comes from God. Moral goods, a subset of ontological goods, occur when a human facing a moral choice, acts on a proposal from God, and conforms his will to his Creator’s.

We don’t, I think, need to fanatcize about a “robot-doctor” to see the point. Moral goods, as a subset of all goods, are neither inferior nor superior to ontological goods as both goods have the same source. But in moral goods there is a second good which emanates: the submission of one’s will to the Almighty. This separate good, an act of will, shapes the character of the moral agents by conforming them to the image in which they were created.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Suffering, in itself, is not a virtue; it builds character only when it is offered up as expiation for our own sins or reparation for the sins of others. We believe that God’s blessings always precede His demands. While we can see the suffering of others vividly, we cannot easily see the graces that accompany these crosses making their burden light for Christ carries the burden with us.

Healing is God’s direct act of mercy to those who suffer a physical evil and have rejected His grace or have suffered with His grace successfully.

God stands behind good (healing) and evil (suffering) asymmetrically. As D. A. Carson points out in his book How Long O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil, even evil does not take place outside the bounds of His sovereignty, yet the evil is not morally chargeable to Him: it is always chargeable to secondary causes. On the other hand, God stands behind good in such a way that it not only takes place within the bounds of His sovereignty, but it is always chargeable to Him, and only derivatively to secondary agents (nurses and doctors).

 

[R_Daneel]

“Should they [the cured] care?” is a different moral proposition than “Should he/she [doctor] care?” I think the thread is at the point of discussing the latter.

I am not sure that the second proposition is the only point. Why should the patient’s view on the matter be considered less relevant? After all it, is his “skin” in the game.

All goods are ontological goods.

Absolutely! And the existence of ontological goods does not presuppose the existence of ontological evil, does it? That was the whole point of this “imbedded” sub-thread, where I wanted to refute the proposition, that all “goods” presuppose the existence of “evil”.

In Catholic belief, all good comes from God. Moral goods, a subset of ontological goods, occur when a human facing a moral choice, acts on a proposal from God, and conforms his will to his Creator’s.

I know that this is your position on moral goods, I simply disagree with it. However, this disagreement is not relevant. If there are are ontological goods, which are independent of ontological evil, then the existence of these goods invalidate the “defense” that the existence of “evil” is necessary for the existence of “good”.

 

[R_Daneel]

…yet the evil is not morally chargeable to Him: it is always chargeable to secondary causes…

That is not acceptable. The evil is known and permitted by God and the guilt by commission is exactly as serious as the guilt by omission. The sign of God’s desk reads: “The buck stops here!”. With infinite knowledge and infinite power comes infinite responsibility.

 

[Sheila77]

This thread is interesting. I am not a theology major and don’t claim to know much. Nevertheless, my understanding is that God gave us free will/choice so that we are not forced in any way to love Him or our brothers and sisters. He gave us His church to teach the way to love and give us His body and blood to strengthen us. We still have evil and sin in members of His church, though He gives us all the hope of rising through the sacraments. Particularly, the sacrament of reconciliation with sincere contrition. Yes, we are all born into a battleground, though we can trust that God is with us in our battles.

 

[ThomasToo]

That is not acceptable. The evil is known and permitted by God and the guilt by commission is exactly as serious as the guilt by omission. The sign of God’s desk reads: “The buck stops here!”. With infinite knowledge and infinite power comes infinite responsibility.

I’m stealing your version of this Spider-Man quote.

Also, you have 666 posts as of my reading of the above. Seems apropos.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m stealing your version of this Spider-Man quote.

You are most welcome. Though I think Harry S. Truman used it, too. phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-buck-stops-here.html

Also, you have 666 posts as of my reading of the above. Seems apropos.

Indeed. Too bad it is already gone. Would be nice if the posts would retain their number and not change as new ones are made…

 

[I_Fortuna]

OP I think if you look carefully at the senarios that you have proposed that some of these can be avoided by common sense and taking responsibility for our decisions.

In the case of the child being molested, my first question is “Where is the parent or guardian?” , “How did this child be left alone in a vulnerable situation?” These are questions that apply to a person’s failure to protect a child. It was their choice to leave open the opportunity for evil to come in.

If you look at many problems and difficulties of people in the world, many of these problems could be avoided if they made the correct choices. Children are left vulnerable due to distractions, inattentiveness, drugs, alcohol, inexperience, and sometimes because they are not valued or loved.

As for birth defects, sometimes it is genetics and sometimes it is something ingested by the father or mother. A choice.

Disease happens because of varioius reasons, uncleanliness, lifestyle, etc.

Most of what happens to us is because of bad choices and everyone wants to blame God when they have made the bad choice.

Sometimes things just happen because we are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Still a matter of choice and sometimes not. Sometimes stuff seems to happen for no good reason. Sometimes good comes out of evil. We grow, we learn, we develop compassion, character, love and forgiveness. This helps our souls grow and learn too IMHO.

Tell people to get off God’s back and take responsibilty for their choices and sometimes things are just a mystery that only God knows the answer to. It is a matter of faith.

 

[jinminn]

I had to just skim these posts as I got behind…

1. There have been a lot of posts pinning ‘evil’ on human actions. I do not deny that we often choose our own pains. This breaks down, however, when using an analogy of human-to-human interaction.

• Would I be culpable if I knew the future, could be at all places at all times, and had the power to prevent my spouse from getting into a car accident I knew she was going to be involved in? Why or why not?
• What if I knew she would attempt to commit suicide? Should I seek to comfort her tangibly? Should I remove potential weapons from her immediate access to prevent her from doing something rash? Would I tell her reassuring messages about her worth and my love for her?

We are supposedly made in the image and likeness of god. He has bestowed upon us the powers of reason, understanding, and moral values. Yet, whenever we take a thought experiment down ‘what-would-I-do-if-all-powerful-and-all-knowing-and-all-loving’ lane… we end up with radically different conclusions about how we would care for our loved ones. Is my preventing my wife from killing herself permissible even though I’m removing a component of her ‘free-will’? Sure! Our legal systems allow for compulsory time in a safe place (mental hospital or other facility) if a relative or friend legitimately believes that they will harm themselves or others. We value the safety of each human being enough to take action, even if it thwarts their immediate actions.

Are we completely wrong to do this? Is our utilitarian-esque action in these situations considered a ‘lesser’ good since a greater good would be to turn our backs in supreme homage to the possession of free will?

1. Most responses seem also to fall back on ‘stuff just happens’, embrace love and faith and ‘redeem’ the bad stuff.

• This fails to take into account that god created the world with ALL foreknowledge. His omniscience and omnipotence were somehow in conflict, for he knew we would go astray, knew we would balk at his attempt at a coherent holy book, knew many would doubt Jesus’ resurrection, and relevant to me (being an engineer), has a strong bias against scientifically minded individuals [1].
• To put it another way, imagine a biosphere container you created just like our earth. It is wrought with dangers, natural predators, uninhabitable climates, etc. You made it like this. Then you opened up the top and dropped your created, sentient beings inside it and did not protect them or inform them about how to protect themselves. Natural disasters aren’t moral evils… unless you created them!
• Someone brought up disease and sought to put the blame on human choice. Hardly, fellow (or lady, whichever it was). Am I seriously to blame for air currents carrying over pick-your-choice-virus from pick-your-place-not-my-country? Driving drunk is one thing… going to a grocery store for food for my family and getting sick from someone else who touched my shopping cart is another thing.

1. As has been pointed out, pointless suffering (animals/babies) does not matter in the least with respect to character/soul building.
2. To prove that evils are completely the result of human choice, theists should have a reasonable explanation to how the world existed at some point in the past such that it was perfect, man was free from harm and in perfect union with god, and then chose with sufficient knowledge and will as to warrant eternal damnation such that the physical world and man’s relationship to it literally changed dramatically. Without displaying how the garden existed literally or figuratively-in-some-physical-manner, there is no reason to suppose that human choice has ever affected our existence in this world with respect to ‘evil’, but that it has always been like this: one species among many in a world governed by natural laws, some of which produce effects that harm life.
3. Let’s reexamine the actual PoE since it is being misunderstood:

Assumption (1): God exists.
Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.
Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.
Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving.
Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.
Premise (2): Evil exists.
Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.
Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.
Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.
Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))
Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))
Conclusion (7): There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving. (from (2),(3),(4),(5))
Conclusion (8): God does not exist. (from (7),(1d))

The only way to refute this is by denying a premise. This has mostly been attempted by a ‘free-will’ defense, stating that all premises are true, but god fails to act because he values free-will more than fixing everything. This actually just a subset of the ‘morally sufficient reason’ theodicy.

In other words: god does exist in the form described above, but has a morally sufficient reason to permit evils in our world. Valuing free-will supremely is one of these morally-sufficient hypotheses. Most other hypotheses are included in this statement: 'There is one… but we don’t know what it is.

For those interested in some responses to typical theodicies, have a read HERE.

Other discussions found at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy can be found HERE.

[1] Sam Harris. See point #5.

 

[Chiral]

Section II of this essay discusses the Cartesian and Behaviourist views on animal pain.
humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html

Just dropping a note to let you know I am reading the essay and will watch the video before I respond properly to the previous post I promised to respond to
It’s a busy day in the lab, so I may not get to a response until tomorrow. My apologies!

One quick recommendation I would make is to refrain from quoting an author (Lewis) presenting a perceived problem unless you also make note of that same authors conclusion (i.e. Lewis does not consider non-human suffering to hold any real bearing on the PoE). By omitting his conclusion, you have used his words out of context and so misrepresented his position. But when I am able, I can summarize Lewis’ view as well as my own understanding.

Both of course are just opinions. Mine mainly wonders, “Is physical pain ‘evil’ In what way?” Perhaps, if you have the time and do not mind, you can explain that to me…

Thank you for your patience!

 

[Chiral]

Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.

False. This premise implies “at any cost, including the elimination of its antithesis” which contradicts the notion of ‘perfectly loving’. Can you demonstrate why you assume that a ‘perfectly loving’ being would desire the elimination of all ‘evil’?

 

[jinminn]

False. This premise implies “at any cost, including the elimination of its antithesis” which contradicts the notion of ‘perfectly loving’.

This is within the bucket ‘morally sufficient reasons.’

I’m assuming that by ‘antithesis’ you mean love, implying that removing evil would entail removing either love or free-will, which would remove the ability to love, correct?

What about heaven? Will our love be genuine? Or do we lack free will? If we lack free will but this endeavor is still acceptable to god (namely, worship and love without free will), why not bypass the misery and ‘groaning of the flesh’ and be able to go straight to heaven.

Ah, yes, accepting the sacrifice. The fall. Human inability to be in the presence of divine justice… right?

Isn’t this all somewhat circular and more contrived as we go? I find it strikingly easier to drop all of the unprovable hypotheses required to answer this massive question by positing the existence of no supernatural being.

 

[jinminn]

False. This premise implies “at any cost, including the elimination of its antithesis” which contradicts the notion of ‘perfectly loving’. Can you demonstrate why you assume that a ‘perfectly loving’ being would desire the elimination of all ‘evil’?

Hmmm. Been thinking about this more. I misread initially. You are relying on the fact that without evil, we would not know good. I could debate this, but let’s let it play out. This means that god permits evil such that we can enjoy love more.

This does not apply in situations where individuals are born into immediate lack of food, shelter, parental care, etc. They never knew good in a full sense – do they know that what they are experiencing is bad/evil? What about a baby who dies from complications which result in a brief but painful existence? How are we or the child benefitting from that?

What about animals? Do they need to know good to know if me torturing them is good or not?

Lastly, would you argue also that good needs to exist in order to know evil exists? If you were hit with a bat that it was wrong only in light of the fact that previously you had not been hit with a bat?

Could we not conceive of a hypothetical world where only various goods/pleasures resided? Would we not be able to compare greater goods without needing to compare them to evils?

I don’t see how negative numbers need to exist in order to comprehend the idea of infinity.