Understanding God

[Contarini]

adamlsp:

Edwin,

I agree and I’m sorry I wrote so generaly as to cause confusion. But you should also note that God is the cause of good things that happen not evil ones. Thus God is the cause of predestination but not reprobation.

Yes. I did implicitly say this in an earlier post but not clearly enough. And I see now that you had stated the traditional Catholic position earlier as well. My apologies for responding hastily to your later post.

Edwin

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

I have stopped answering your posts for quite some time (and will continue to do so)

I am trying to see if this last was meant to elicit some sort of sorrow?

Naturally, you would fail to read what was actually written and take from my comment the preposterous conclusion–nowhere supported by what I said–that you have been compared to a neo-Nazi.

Read it again, or, if, as I suspect, you really never read it all, do give it a try.

I said that your efforts in prolonging this thread are brought to bear with the same sincerity as those of the hypothetical neo-Nazi seeking an expansion of Mosaic law on a Jewish forum.

If you are unable to read between the lines, I will further sum it up for you; your interventions are hypocritical.

You are an atheist seeking information about an Entity whose existence you vehemently reject. I recall you beginning another thread asking people to disprove the existence of Santa Claus. It is a joke to you, a game. It is therefore not my analogy but your own (name removed by moderator)ut which is repugnant/offensive/absurd/corrosive/(insert deingrating adjective of choice). Attempting to make high comedy of questions regarding God and eternity merits only the fiercest repulsion, not any serious entertaining of your questions.

Should you be taken seriously when the general import of your question aligns in sincerity–according to your own beliefs, or lack thereof–with the title “Understanding the Easter Bunny” or “Understanding the Bavarian chimpanzee in my closet”?

Speaking of ridiculous statements that would otherwise pass under the radar:

since you believe that humanity starts are conception

Another problem that many atheists–or at least, one of them–have in these theoretical discussions is understanding what “belief” means. Without delving into questions of faith in God, let us only examine the question at hand here, which, humorously, involves the very issue of abortion you solemnly forswore not to bring up–before promptly bringing it up.

The “belief” that humanity begins with the conception of the human being is no more a “belief”–by which you imply some element of uncertainty–than is the “belief” that a physical force exists that drags the human being towards the Earth’s center at 9.8 m/second squared. We tend to call the latter “gravity.” There is no belief or theory involved. It is settled biological fact, semantics, definitions for you to dispute with fetologists who long ago settled the matter, but, as it appears from your continued hysterics regarding God’s justice, you do not back off settled issues, nor do you find the answers when the source of them has been provided.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

it simply makes God arbitrary and capricious.

I had a terrible vision. The vision of an atheistic world.
A world without truth, with only opinions. A world without right and wrong, but an evolutionary morality where right is wrong and wrong is right.
Where life is considered an electro chemical function, thus subjected to any kind of manipulation from eugenics to social engineering. Where unborn are considered as parasites. Where man decides who is disposable, who is valuable, who deserves life. And who does not.
A world without gothic cathedrals, without christian art, without saints, without Bach, without Dante. Without philosophers as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus.
A world void of sense, where nothing is sacred, where life is only a short time between two nothings.
I saw Hitleten’s world.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I have stopped answering your posts for quite some time (and will continue to do so), but this one needs a reply.

**I most emphatically reject your analogy. **
**I find it disgusting and repugnant. **

hitetlen, hitler, hitetlen, hitler, hitler, hitetlen, hitler hitetlen
well, we must recognize that hitler at least took his atheism to the end… i mean: real fireworks, not like those of hitetlen…

 

[Hitetlen]

Contarini:

As Adam said, Christians traditionally distinguish between what God chooses and what God permits. If God permits something that doesn’t mean that He wants it. This annoys people who want clear-cut either/ors (Calvin could never quite see the point of the distinction). But to traditional Christians it’s key to upholding the goodness of God. We don’t claim to know why God permits evil. But we believe that He does *permit *and not *cause *it. And to us that makes a huge difference. Apparently it doesn’t to you.

I see that there is some semantic difference. The question is, how significant is it? If you are in the position to allow something or prevent it, and allow it to happen, then indeed you did not cause it - in a literal sense, you just allowed it to happen. But what difference does it make? If you do not want something to happen and still allow it to happen, then at the very least you gave an implicit “approval” to it. For us, humans, there exists a “get-of-jail-card”: if we are unable to prevent something, even if we would like to prevent it, it is a sufficient reason to be absolved from the responsibility.

Contarini:

I should add that many Christians today have abandoned the classical picture of God. Process theology, “theology of the future,” and evangelical “openness” theology are all attempts to rethink our understanding of God in order to deal with the problems in the classical picture. Myself, I can’t abandon the classical view with all its problems. But as an atheist/agnostic, you should recognize that there are some very significant philosophers/theologians who would uphold a view of God in which God is not omnipotent as traditionally understood (they would say that God is still omnipotent in the sense that eventually God moves the universe to the end the He desires).

That is an interesting thought. I am not sure what is the difference between the two concepts of “omnipotence”.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

I see that there is some semantic difference. The question is, how significant is it? If you are in the position to allow something or prevent it, and allow it to happen, then indeed you did not cause it - in a literal sense, you just allowed it to happen. But what difference does it make? If you do not want something to happen and still allow it to happen, then at the very least you gave an implicit “approval” to it. For us, humans, there exists a “get-of-jail-card”: if we are unable to prevent something, even if we would like to prevent it, it is a sufficient reason to be absolved from the responsibility.

That is an interesting thought. I am not sure what is the difference between the two concepts of “omnipotence”.

Hitetlen,

It’s not “approval” that God gives. God tolerates evil. He has and infinite ability to endure the pain and suffering so caused. And it is not the ability that defines who we are but the choices we make. The same for God. If he had the ability to tolerate evil but never did he could not be considered tolerant. This world was made for the greater glory of himself. So the fact that there is evil in the world speaks to God’s greater glory. Of course God created a world less perfect than himself which means it is inherently lacking though not evil. It is a reflection of his glory. God would only be found guilty if there existed morally unjustified evil. But of course through many theodicies we see that there are various ways God can be justified. No one theodicy however completely explains evils but a combination of various explanations known and unknown does. Any questions?

Adam

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Yes, indeed, mercy is an appealing way to put it. You say that mercy is “beyond” justice, and in a sense it is - even though to me mercy is precisely as unjust as excessive punishment. What your wording insinuates is that God is sometimes “merciful” and sometimes “just” and it does not even contingent upon the person involved. This assumption “stains” both God’s alleged merciful and just nature - it simply makes God arbitrary and capricious.

This side of the sewn fabric, it does look arbitrary. But it is all done to a wonderful purpose when seen from the other side.

God did not make us in order to be subject to us, but to rule through us. He did not make us in order to obtain strength from us, but to show forth His strength in us. Etc. We are vessels of His glory, but in order to shine, we must reflect everything back to Him. His design was to leave it up to our choice as to whether we would serve Him - and an obvious reason is that we must give all of ourselves to be worthy of Him.

The other thing to consider is that He made us for His Son. Even though we fell and all deserve to be given justice in the trash heap, it is as if He wanted to still do something for His Son, and thus “arbitrarily” chose certain souls to be predestined to heaven, through whom He would make it possible for all to reach heaven and be part of this Kingdom under His Son. (Think of a single magnet picking up many paper clips, and magnetized clips attracting others).

His Son often refers to those “whom My Father has given me”. And His Son in turn is going to cleanse us and present us all to His Father, as if it were His gift back to Him. For they share with each other all they are and have.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Did we lose the grace? Many posters assert that we are given “enough” grace.

There are different kinds, levels, classifications, and aspects of grace. There is even a difference between created grace and divine grace.

Adam and Eve lost sanctifying grace, and all future babies are conceived with souls lacking the grace that makes us able to live in friendship with God and be holy unto Him. Unless there is some intervention, the soul will never have it.

When others say we are all given sufficient grace, they mean that we are given opportunities to be restored to sanctifying grace. These opportunities are themselves a kind of grace. And God even gives preliminary graces (without our deserving it) that prepare us to receive these graces of opportunity, which in turn will ultimately lead us to sanctifying grace if we follow its promptings. And we need additional grace to stay in the state of sanctifying grace. But once we are in the state of sanctifying grace, we ourselves can obtain more by our prayers, for we are then truly alive and like a body that repairs its own bruises (as long as they are not mortal) and generates its own heat, etc.

Hitetlen:

But that aside, it is not simply a loss of “grace” we talk about: it is an active “punishment” on someone, who has not committed any sin

It is true that a we are born in sin without having committed any sin ourselves. But God’s justice applies to us according to what we have done. Thus, an innocent person will not be tortured by God’s justice. It would be water off a duck’s back. It is possible to be denied access to heaven without being positively tortured. And you can’t suffer from a loss when you don’t understand what you’re missing, can you?

If God gives it grace to be admitted to heaven, it is out of mercy. As I stated before, this seemingly arbitrary distribution of mercy can be seen as the result of another purpose to which God is working - namely, the establishment of a Kingdom for His Son.

He indeed has a reason to save us all, because He did not make us in order to destroy us. As proof of that, He sent His Son to make good on everybody’s faults and sins. So every sin has been paid for by Christ Crucified, and God’s honor has been restored among men through Him. Every person without exception is invited to God’s Kingdom, under condition that we all turn from our sins and apply the remedy provided by Christ through faith in Him.

God will not force us, but to accomplish this redemption, there had to be at least some people given and abundance of grace to serve as a sort of red carpet ushering in the Redeemer. And it is as if God used these introductory people as a means for providing grace for the rest. It makes sense. A room is filled with light by using only a few lightbulbs.

Also, Christ rose again, but promised to return. Also in this it can be said He is granting abundance of grace to the few in order to ensure His promises are fulfilled until then, and through whom the rest of us may be enlightened and find salvation from the darkness we are born into. God thus uses the sin of Adam to show forth His glory as our Saviour.

But woe to those of us who reject His smaller graces, for they prepare us to receive larger ones, so if we reject the smaller ones, we may not ever receive the more important sanctifying grace for salvation.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

(since you believe that humanity starts are conception) being only a one-cell organism, without brain, without anything this being is already “sinful” enough not to deserve heaven.

It has no personal sin, but it is born without grace. Does an animal deserve to sit in a discussion with us? It has no capability to converse with us on matters pertaining to our affairs. No one seems traumatized by that - it is just a fact of nature. Likewise, the natural soul has no faculty for being in heaven. It must be made capable of it by supernatural grace - an ability to live by faith in the Spirit of God instead of according to our fleshly instinct.

Even the military understands the urgency of preparing for battle and facing the reality of a situation. No one seems to be sitting around questioning why they have to do it in the first place! If they do that, they are sitting ducks and will be killed. They fight because they are put in that situation.

Likewise, our souls are put in a fighting situation. We must fight for our supernatural life. Extensive debates questioning existence of evil is like a subtle avoidance of fighting that evil. Instead, we should be doing all in our power to obtain salvation for ourselves and others. This is what Catholics are called to do. This is why we are called the Church Militant on earth. And the prayers of the Church help those poor innocents born without grace, to receive grace. It helps those who lose grace to regain it. It is a call to the lazy to wake up and get to work. This is not our world, not our lives. We are paid for and are called to serve God and neighbor. This is the spiritual life. It will be what we do for eternity, except that in the next life, God will have given us a greater share in His power and glory, as a reward for what we have done while He was hidden from us.

hurst

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

It’s not “approval” that God gives. God tolerates evil.

Very good, let’s use your word: “tolerate”. It is a more neutral term than “approve”, and therefore probably also more precise.

adamlsp:

If he had the ability to tolerate evil but never did he could not be considered tolerant.

That is not necessarily true. Even in the absence of evil he could tolerate it in principle, though he would not have to tolerate it in practice. To be tolerant is a valuable trait, indeed. For example to be tolerant toward other people’s views is admirable, though it probably would be better if there were no need for tolerance. (This is just my personal view, of course).

adamlsp:

This world was made for the greater glory of himself. So the fact that there is evil in the world speaks to God’s greater glory.

You pretty much lose me here. In my eyes, not having evil is a much higher level of “goodness”, then simply tolerating it. Of course I only have my frame of reference, but is says that being healthy in the first place is preferable to being sick first and then getting better.

adamlsp:

Of course God created a world less perfect than himself which means it is inherently lacking though not evil. It is a reflection of his glory.

Well, there are levels of “less perfect”. There could be a state of affairs where there is no good at all, only evil. And there could be another one, where humans are not perfect, but loving and caring on their own right, though not perfectly so. Maybe they would make mistakes due to their imperfections, but never try to do intentional harm to others. In our value system the intentional harm carries a lot more weight, than causing harm due to lack of judgment or a natural catastrophy. (Consider the outrage caused by 9/11 compared to the reaction to the tsunami in Asia, which was comparatively much more devastating.)

adamlsp:

God would only be found guilty if there existed morally unjustified evil. But of course through many theodicies we see that there are various ways God can be justified. No one theodicy however completely explains evils but a combination of various explanations known and unknown does. Any questions?

Now we are at the heart of the matter. How do we define “morally justifyable”? My suggested definition: “if the good resulting from tolerating evil is greater than the harm caused by the evil, and the amount of harm caused by the evil cannot be lessened my any other means” - then the evil was a “necessary evil” or “morally justifyable evil”. Do you agree with this definition?

It is just a tentative definition, there are some more details ironed out before we can use it. For example: “how can we decide whether the good resulting from evil is big enough to compensate for the harm caused by evil”? Since we are not omniscient, that is a major stumbling block in my path, but I will try to explain it. Let me know if this tentative definition is acceptable or not, and if not, please offer a different one.

 

[Hitetlen]

Correcing a possibly misleading typo:

“if the good resulting from tolerating evil is greater than the harm caused by the evil, and the amount of harm caused by the evil cannot be lessened BY any other means” - then the evil was a “necessary evil” or “morally justifyable evil”.

Stupid fingers, they blindly type whatever key I press, not the one I intend to press. Sorry.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

That is not necessarily true. Even in the absence of evil he could tolerate it in principle, though he would not have to tolerate it in practice. For example to be tolerant toward other people’s views is admirable, though it probably would be better if there were no need for tolerance. (This is just my personal view, of course).

In my eyes, not having evil is a much higher level of “goodness”, then simply tolerating it.

Well, there are levels of “less perfect”. There could be a state of affairs where there is no good at all, only evil. And there could be another one, where humans are not perfect, but loving and caring on their own right, though not perfectly so. Maybe they would make mistakes due to their imperfections, but never try to do intentional harm to others. In our value system the intentional harm carries a lot more weight, than causing harm due to lack of judgment or a natural catastrophy.

How do we define “morally justifyable”? My suggested definition: “if the good resulting from tolerating evil is greater than the harm caused by the evil, and the amount of harm caused by the evil cannot be lessened my any other means” - then the evil was a “necessary evil” or “morally justifyable evil”.

It is just a tentative definition, there are some more details ironed out before we can use it. For example: “how can we decide whether the good resulting from evil is big enough to compensate for the harm caused by evil”? Since we are not omniscient, that is a major stumbling block in my path, but I will try to explain it. Let me know if this tentative definition is acceptable or not, and if not, please offer a different one.

Hitetlen,

It is our choices that define us not our abilities. This is of course inherently different for God, being that he is outside of time and unchanging. God’s foreknowledge of our future mistakes could not have affected his will. If it did his will would not be eternal. The ultimate reason God has for anything is himself. He is his own ultimate purpose. This world would somehow be less perfect without evil. Evil was necessary for this world’s existence. Also without evil we humans would not be allowed into heaven. If there was no evil we would simply live here on Earth. The existence of evil allowed for Christ’s death on the cross. I know this is just mytholgy to you but it is a real explanation that can be put forth based on justified belief. You may feel yours is more justified but who are we to say one knows more than the other (though we’ll argue for our own side).

Yes there are levels of less perfect but I do not believe you nor I are in any position to judge what those levels truely are.

Intentional evil versus accidental evil. Both are evil but one is a moral evil and the other is an intellectual evil. When we do something but do not know it is bad that is a wrong, that is ignorance. When we do something wrong we know is wrong that is sin. To actually sin is to be less loving by diverging from God’s will. Thus God cannot sin since he is perfectly loving and always in accordance with his own will. On another note God can also do know wrong since his omniscience conforms to his will.

“A moral being is justified in bringing about evil if that evil is necessary to prevent some greater evil, that evil is necessary for a good greater than the evil to be done, or the allowance or action of bringing about this evil is in itself necessary for some greater good or prevention of a greater evil.” This is my defintion. Is it better? Also the lack of complete knowledge of humans is noted thus we could never truely know if the good outweighed the bad. We may make our best estimates howeve flawed they may be. This utilitarian idea is the basis behind economic choice and should be the basis of our moral choices. Deontological value must also be considered. If someone accidentally does an evil it is not a moral wrong in their case. However we have already established God could do no such thing.

On my own note, have you heard the quote “May God, if there is one, save my soul, if I have one.”? I wish you would take the more positive agnostic outlook on life an admit that it is impossible for you ever really to know that there is no God. As in the deist God, he could have simply left the universe to itself after creation making it only possibly to be familiar with him through intellect. And it can be noted that there is no argument to prove God’s existence merely to offer probability. If you would like starting a thread on Pascal’s Wager would be interesting. I know you don’t like it, but maybe in the thread you could explain why.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

This side of the sewn fabric, it does look arbitrary. But it is all done to a wonderful purpose when seen from the other side.

I see your point, but I have to remain skeptical. Indeed if you presuppose that God is always benevolent, then there is no other explanation. Even though it seems arbitrary to us, it cannot be arbitrary to him. No problem, except, that it presupposes what I would like to decide. I will try to emphasise later in the post to Adam. Of course we can always agree to disagree.

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

It is our choices that define us not our abilities.

I agree, but let’s not forget that our abilities act as a constraint upon what we can choose. No matter how much I would like to get rid of the pain, hunger and disease in the world, I am not able to eliminate them.

adamlsp:

This world would somehow be less perfect without evil.

I have a very serious problem accepting this. How can the perfection of “good” be dependent on its opposite? Sometimes people say that the existence of poverty makes us more appreciative of our good fortune. In German there is a word for this concept: “Schadenfreude”, which can approximately translated as “the happiness one feels at someone else’s misfortune”. To me this is a despicable concept, and I find it interesting that it does not even exist in many languages.

adamlsp:

Yes there are levels of less perfect but I do not believe you nor I are in any position to judge what those levels truely are.

Why not? These are so simple concepts. A world without aggression is definitely preferable to one which has aggression. A world filled with love is better than a world filled with hate.

“A moral being is justified in bringing about evil if that evil is necessary to prevent some greater evil, that evil is necessary for a good greater than the evil to be done, or the allowance or action of bringing about this evil is in itself necessary for some greater good or prevention of a greater evil.” This is my defintion. Is it better?

I think our definitions are almost identical. You emphasised that to prevent greater evil it may be necessary to allow or tolerate a smaller one. I agree. However, I would insist to put in the last part of my definition: “when preventing a greater evil, or forwarding a greater good, the necessary evil must be minimized”.

An example to clarify what I mean: suppose a doctor is available to treat someone with a snake bite. Without some treatment the person would die. If the only way to save his life is to perform an amputation, we have a morally justifyable act. The greater good is saving the person’s life, the means used cause a smaller harm (or evil). No problem. However, if the doctor has an antidote, which would save the patient’s life, without resorting to amputation, and does not use it, the picture changes! Even if the final result is the same as in the previous setup, the amputation in this case is not necessary, therefore it is “evil”.

To put it bluntly: “the end - in and by itself - never justifies the means”. However, the “end and the means together” may or may not form a justifyable sequence.

adamlsp:

Also the lack of complete knowledge of humans is noted thus we could never truely know if the good outweighed the bad. We may make our best estimates howeve flawed they may be.

That may be so, but the lack of omniscience is not that serious. We are not completely without knowledge and understanding. We can make “educated guesses”. How acceptable they are, we can examine them on a case by case basis.

adamlsp:

On my own note, have you heard the quote “May God, if there is one, save my soul, if I have one.”? I wish you would take the more positive agnostic outlook on life an admit that it is impossible for you ever really to know that there is no God.

Absolutely correct. I don’t say that I know that there is no God, I merely say that I see no evidence for God’s existence, so I don’t believe in God. That is not agnosticism. (Actually the word “agnostic” is an incorrectly used term: it refers to a different part of philosophy, namely to epistemology.)

adamlsp:

As in the deist God, he could have simply left the universe to itself after creation making it only possibly to be familiar with him through intellect. And it can be noted that there is no argument to prove God’s existence merely to offer probability.

It is certainly possible.

adamlsp:

If you would like starting a thread on Pascal’s Wager would be interesting. I know you don’t like it, but maybe in the thread you could explain why.

Adam

Maybe later, but let’s finish this conversation first.

Summary: An act is morally justifyable if

• it prevents a greater evil to happen
• it promotes a greater good
• the greater good exceeds the harm caused
• the harm which is necessary is kept at a minimum.

It is possible that we disgree on how to apply this definition to specific cases, but at least we can have a common ground.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen,

Throughout your last post it would seem you took the ambivously approach.

Hitetlen:

I agree, but let’s not forget that our abilities act as a constraint upon what we can choose. No matter how much I would like to get rid of the pain, hunger and disease in the world, I am not able to eliminate them.

I will not derail the thread by trying to get in a last word on this. It is sufficient to say this view is an oversimplication not truely applicable to explain choice any way.

Hitetlen:

I have a very serious problem accepting this. How can the perfection of “good” be dependent on its opposite? Sometimes people say that the existence of poverty makes us more appreciative of our good fortune. In German there is a word for this concept: “Schadenfreude”, which can approximately translated as “the happiness one feels at someone else’s misfortune”. To me this is a despicable concept, and I find it interesting that it does not even exist in many languages.

First of all evil does not perfect goodness. Good is a concept and evil is its antithesis. It is clear to see that evil can be used for the furthering of good. To be absolutley perfect this world would have to be God. Suffice to say this world perfectly employs the purpose set to it by the creator. Without evil there would be less good in this world. I’ve already explained this. It relies on mythology and that is the Catholic’s answer. There is a word in English derived from its German form which holds the meaning of your word, just fyi. If you are trying to equate this to the cherishing of goods you are surely mistaken as it means the cherishing of evils.

Hitetlen:

Why not? These are so simple concepts. A world without aggression is definitely preferable to one which has aggression. A world filled with love is better than a world filled with hate.

You are stating ideal states of what yet maybe in the future. Any other world than that which is somehow is less perfect. You cannot judge what you do not know. You’re mind is infinitely small compared to this universe and you have no idea what may be going on right next to you. How do you expect to judge? Because of our finite minds we are left with the impossible task of making the best judgement we can with the infinitely little knowledge we have. If you would prefer a world other than this that is fine. You cannot say this world does not fulfill its purpose the utmost perfectly however. This is beyong your judement. Remember CS Lewis’s little allegory. If there was no light in the world there would be no creatures with eyes and therefore no one would know it was dark. Like wise if there was no purpose in the universe there would be no cretures with the abilty to determine purpose and therefore none that could say there is none.

Hitetlen:

I think our definitions are almost identical. You emphasised that to prevent greater evil it may be necessary to allow or tolerate a smaller one. I agree. However, I would insist to put in the last part of my definition: “when preventing a greater evil, or forwarding a greater good, the necessary evil must be minimized”.

If the evil necessary was not minimal it would not therefore be necessary and thus your addition is redundant, a tautology.

Hitetlen:

An example to clarify what I mean: suppose a doctor is available to treat someone with a snake bite. Without some treatment the person would die. If the only way to save his life is to perform an amputation, we have a morally justifyable act. The greater good is saving the person’s life, the means used cause a smaller harm (or evil). No problem. However, if the doctor has an antidote, which would save the patient’s life, without resorting to amputation, and does not use it, the picture changes! Even if the final result is the same as in the previous setup, the amputation in this case is not necessary, therefore it is “evil”.

This is a nice story. Did you make it up all by yourself? The final result is not he same. Even if the amputation was necessary it would still be evil just justified evil which still does not equal good even if it brings good about. You seem to comprehend the basis of the concept though

Hitetlen:

To put it bluntly: “the end - in and by itself - never justifies the means”. However, the “end and the means together” may or may not form a justifyable sequence.

Very good. Catholics would agree completely.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

That may be so, but the lack of omniscience is not that serious. We are not completely without knowledge and understanding. We can make “educated guesses”. How acceptable they are, we can examine them on a case by case basis.

We can make educated guesses. But reliability of evidence can never be justified externally by us. We must choose when the evidence is sufficient for us. It is inherently subjective. Lack of omniscience is very serious when make utilitarian decisions. Any economist or intelligent person or philosopher can tell you that.

Hitetlen:

Absolutely correct. I don’t say that I know that there is no God, I merely say that I see no evidence for God’s existence, so I don’t believe in God. That is not agnosticism. (Actually the word “agnostic” is an incorrectly used term: it refers to a different part of philosophy, namely to epistemology.)

Correction, you see insufficient evidence not that you see none at all. And thank you for that cute little trivia.

Hitetlen:

Summary: An act is morally justifyable if

• it prevents a greater evil to happen
• it promotes a greater good
• the greater good exceeds the harm caused
• the harm which is necessary is kept at a minimum.

It is possible that we disgree on how to apply this definition to specific cases, but at least we can have a common ground.

Well at least now we may have a basis. We can use this in our day to day lives to determine our choices. Yay! To determine whether actions past are justifiable is more difficult. Omniscience would be nice. Our judgement is fundamentally limited. There is a problem: anytime we come to a disagreement one of us could just claim the evidence is just not known to support one our opinions. It is then impossible to satify everyone. They must freely choose to believe. So the application of this principle is fundamentaly on the individual level and cannot be objectified by us. So what purpose has it other than probabilistic interpretation of data to fit a specified outcome. Opting for its use makes not believing in the possibility of God difficult then. But that is only one application.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

Good is a concept and evil is its antithesis. It is clear to see that evil can be used for the furthering of good.

Isn’t precisely this that we try to establish? But even if there are cases when “necessary evil” must used to further “good”, that is not the same that “every evil” must further “some good”. That would be an unwarranted generalization.

adamlsp:

To be absolutley perfect this world would have to be God. Suffice to say this world perfectly employs the purpose set to it by the creator. Without evil there would be less good in this world. I’ve already explained this. It relies on mythology and that is the Catholic’s answer.

I cannot argue with mythology. If this would be the only argument, we should just as well stop talking, shouldn’t we? But the theodicies for evil employ another path. They use totally rational arguments for God’s toleration of some evil. There is no mythology employed there. We should concentrate on these types of arguments.

adamlsp:

Correction, you see insufficient evidence not that you see none at all.

I don’t think we should argue about this. I say “none”, you say “insufficient”. Ok, let it be insufficient. To me it “borders” on none, or it is infinitesimally small.

adamlsp:

There is a word in English derived from its German form which holds the meaning of your word, just fyi.

What is the word you talk about? I am curious. (Out of topic remark: I am fascinated by languages, and since English is not my mother tongue, I always want to learn more. A little puzzle: “what is the only English word the pronounciation of which is different when spelled with lower case letters and when capitalized?”)

adamlsp:

If you are trying to equate this to the cherishing of goods you are surely mistaken as it means the cherishing of evils.

No, I don’t equate them. It was an error on my part to bring it up. I apologize for creating confusion.

adamlsp:

Well at least now we may have a basis. We can use this in our day to day lives to determine our choices. Yay! To determine whether actions past are justifiable is more difficult. Omniscience would be nice. Our judgement is fundamentally limited. There is a problem: anytime we come to a disagreement one of us could just claim the evidence is just not known to support one our opinions. It is then impossible to satify everyone. They must freely choose to believe. So the application of this principle is fundamentaly on the individual level and cannot be objectified by us. So what purpose has it other than probabilistic interpretation of data to fit a specified outcome. Opting for its use makes not believing in the possibility of God difficult then. But that is only one application.

Adam

Well, we achieved a lot just by agreeing on a mutually acceptable definition of necessary evil. So the next step is trying to decide if God’s inaction or toleration of evil is necessary, or action would be a better alternative. In other words let’s examine the theodicies of evil.

There are quite a few of these, and I think that two of them are most important: the one depending on free will and the other one citing insuffiicient knowledge on our part.

The free will argument says: “God values free will so much that he tolerates the existence of evil, because elimination of evil would negate the existence of free will. Furthermore, it is more valuable to have humans to worship him freely (even if some fail to do so), rather than to create ‘robots’, who have no choice in the matter”.

The argument from insufficient knowledge says: “Since we lack omniscience, we can never comprehend the final causes for God’s inaction (or toleration of evil), but we must trust that any other path would bring even greater evil”.

I hope I summarized these arguments sufficiently well. If you agree, we can continue. Also, if you wish to talk about other arguments, just bring them up.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen,

Everything Sounds pretty good.

Hitetlen:

Isn’t precisely this that we try to establish? But even if there are cases when “necessary evil” must used to further “good”, that is not the same that “every evil” must further “some good”. That would be an unwarranted generalization.

This “unwarranted generalization” is necessary for the theist’s argument. Every evil in this world ultimately traces itself to God’s creation of us. Thus the good brought about by our creation ust somehow outweigh the evil allowed. Or the evil in this world is preventing a greater evil which is the same as promoting goodness.

Hitetlen:

I cannot argue with mythology. If this would be the only argument, we should just as well stop talking, shouldn’t we? But the theodicies for evil employ another path. They use totally rational arguments for God’s toleration of some evil. There is no mythology employed there. We should concentrate on these types of arguments.

This belief is why Christians look for theodicies. This world had to be the best possible. God could not create one that was not.

Hitetlen:

I don’t think we should argue about this. I say “none”, you say “insufficient”. Ok, let it be insufficient. To me it “borders” on none, or it is infinitesimally small.

OK. As Lucy Pevensie said to her brother Edmund after entering Narnia, “Some little children just don’t know when to stop pretending.” I’m not trying to start anything, it’s just a nice quote for the situation. And I’m sure you’d like to sy the sae of me (just like Edmund did to Lucy). This is in the movie not the book.

Hitetlen:

What is the word you talk about? I am curious. (Out of topic remark: I am fascinated by languages, and since English is not my mother tongue, I always want to learn more. A little puzzle: “what is the only English word the pronounciation of which is different when spelled with lower case letters and when capitalized?”)

It’s the exact same word but in English. What is the answer to your riddle?

Hitetlen:

No, I don’t equate them. It was an error on my part to bring it up. I apologize for creating confusion.

OK.

Hitetlen:

Well, we achieved a lot just by agreeing on a mutually acceptable definition of necessary evil. So the next step is trying to decide if God’s inaction or toleration of evil is necessary, or action would be a better alternative. In other words let’s examine the theodicies of evil.

Of course God’s tolerenace of evil is necessary. What else could a theist say? My hands are tied on this one.

Hitetlen:

There are quite a few of these, and I think that two of them are most important: the one depending on free will and the other one citing insuffiicient knowledge on our part.

OK.

Hitetlen:

The free will argument says: “God values free will so much that he tolerates the existence of evil, because elimination of evil would negate the existence of free will. Furthermore, it is more valuable to have humans to worship him freely (even if some fail to do so), rather than to create ‘robots’, who have no choice in the matter”.

Good enough. I’m sure we’ll have to refine it at some point if necessary.

Hitetlen:

The argument from insufficient knowledge says: “Since we lack omniscience, we can never comprehend the final causes for God’s inaction (or toleration of evil), but we must trust that any other path would bring even greater evil”.

Same.

Hitetlen:

I hope I summarized these arguments sufficiently well. If you agree, we can continue. Also, if you wish to talk about other arguments, just bring them up.

There is the argument of soul “building” and of punishment. We can talk about yours first though. If you wish I can further explain mine later.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

Everything Sounds pretty good.

This “unwarranted generalization” is necessary for the theist’s argument.

This belief is why Christians look for theodicies. This world had to be the best possible. God could not create one that was not.

Yes, I understand that this is your basic belief. No problem there. Where I see a problem is that the arguments against the question of evil are not directed toward fellow believers (who do not question God’s benevolence in the first place), they are constructed to convince non-believers, who are reluctant to accept this premise, since it presupposes the answer. I am sure you see my point. Moreover the arguments are constructed to be totally rational and are supposed to be convincing to the unbelievers.

adamlsp:

OK. As Lucy Pevensie said to her brother Edmund after entering Narnia, “Some little children just don’t know when to stop pretending.” This is in the movie not the book.

Unfortunately I have no idea what you are talking about. The book or movie you refer to are unknown to me.

adamlsp:

What is the answer to your riddle?

The answer is “Polish” or “polish”, with two different pronounciations.

---

Now let’s get down to the meat.

First: the argument from free will. As we agreed, the basis for the argument is that God values free will, and is unwilling to limit it. Without free will there would be only robots.

The basic problem with this argument is that it presupposes that the mere existence of free will must always and under any circumstances lead to choosing evil over good, at least some of the time. How can this be substantiated? I see no way to prove this assertion.

Here is the reason for it: Obviously there are exceptional people, who never desire to commit evil, people who are sometimes called “saints”. I don’t think that anyone would call them “robots”, who blindly follow some built-in commands. On the contrary, they are sometimes tempted, but they are able to resist all the temptations. If you agree that these people are not robots, then you must agree that the assertion that free will must always lead to evil: is incorrect. If everyone would have been created with the same attitude as these “saints”, then there would be no evil, but there would still be free will.

Another way to put this argument: free will is not “guilty of creating evil” if the person who has the free will does not feel any desire to get off the “narrow path” and succumb to temptations.

But of course my argument does not stop here, there is another reason why the “free will” defense is faulty.

The existence of free will does not allow us to do everything we want to do. There are certain limitations which will curtail our ability to perform some acts. These limitations do not affect the existence of our free will, but they affect our ability to carry out what we wish to do. If the free will is not affected by our possible inability to carry out our wishes, then the amount of evil could be lessened or even totally eliminated if some natural law would prevent us from putting evil thoughts into practice.

So even with complete free will there would be no evil, if the laws of nature would not allow to carry out “evil” desires.

Next counter-argument, which would only lessen the evil, though would not eliminate it. I see no problem with having a limited free will. Suppose that a person in a drunken rage picks up a knife and tries to kill or mutilate his infant child. If God would intervene and stop him by - for example - putting shame into his mind, the amount of evil would be lessened.

And finally: the existence of free will does not explain the so-called “natural evils” or disasters. To say that those are the results of the original sin is neither logical nor reasonable. A simple lack of obedience cannot cause hurricanes or wildfires thousands of years later. However, accoring to Bible, God made fundamental changes in how the world operates, because he became angry when the original sin was commited. Thus the existence of “natural evils” is directly attributed to God’s anger, and not the existence of free will.

To sum it up: the existence of free will cannot be blamed for the existence of evil. This theodicy simply fails. I will stop here, once we exchange our ideas about this, we can look at the defense of “limited knowledge”.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

The basic problem with this argument is that it presupposes that the mere existence of free will must always and under any circumstances lead to choosing evil over good, at least some of the time. How can this be substantiated? I see no way to prove this assertion.

Here is the reason for it: Obviously there are exceptional people, who never desire to commit evil, people who are sometimes called “saints”. I don’t think that anyone would call them “robots”, who blindly follow some built-in commands. On the contrary, they are sometimes tempted, but they are able to resist all the temptations. If you agree that these people are not robots, then you must agree that the assertion that free will must always lead to evil: is incorrect. If everyone would have been created with the same attitude as these “saints”, then there would be no evil, but there would still be free will.

But of course my argument does not stop here, there is another reason why the “free will” defense is faulty.

The existence of free will does not allow us to do everything we want to do. There are certain limitations which will curtail our ability to perform some acts. These limitations do not affect the existence of our free will, but they affect our ability to carry out what we wish to do. If the free will is not affected by our possible inability to carry out our wishes, then the amount of evil could be lessened or even totally eliminated if some natural law would prevent us from putting evil thoughts into practice.

So even with complete free will there would be no evil, if the laws of nature would not allow to carry out “evil” desires.

Next counter-argument, which would only lessen the evil, though would not eliminate it. I see no problem with having a limited free will. Suppose that a person in a drunken rage picks up a knife and tries to kill or mutilate his infant child. If God would intervene and stop him by - for example - putting shame into his mind, the amount of evil would be lessened.

And finally: the existence of free will does not explain the so-called “natural evils” or disasters. To say that those are the results of the original sin is neither logical nor reasonable. A simple lack of obedience cannot cause hurricanes or wildfires thousands of years later. However, accoring to Bible, God made fundamental changes in how the world operates, because he became angry when the original sin was commited. Thus the existence of “natural evils” is directly attributed to God’s anger, and not the existence of free will.

To sum it up: the existence of free will cannot be blamed for the existence of evil. This theodicy simply fails. I will stop here, once we exchange our ideas about this, we can look at the defense of “limited knowledge”.

Hitetlen,

Freewilled creatures can freely do good as well as evil. Freedom can build vitue. We must be left to do evil as well as good. If we were prevented from doing wrong we would then not freely do good. We would then become beings capable of only good because we could not do evil. Puppets stopped by God from acting freely. It is not necessary that we have unlimtied power to have some power. You could not commit a mass murder right now not because God is stopping you but because it is you who has not acheived the means of doing it. Evil is not necessary of freewill but its possibility is. God cannot control its actuality without taking our freedom.

Natural disasters need not always be seen as evil. They are just a rearranging of things in nature and only become a disaster when humans get in their way.

Few men are sufficiently discerning to appreciate all the evil they do. - La Rouchefoucauld

I would be careful trying to tell people what the Bible says because it doesn’t seem you’ve actually read it or remeber it all too well. You are not the most apt philosopher either so I would suggest a little more humility in your “theories.” Also your idea of what a saint is is wrong. Do you know all the evil you have done? All men have done evil at some point in their life. Saints are people who choose to do evil no longer and only do good. Very few people are like this. You are not one, I am not one.

Also, no theodicy stands alone and any idiot would know this. Freewill combined with the others reaches a more complete conclusion. Of course encompassing all theodies would be difficult but when put they work. It is clear that freewill is responsible for some of the evil today maybe even most of it. If you find this theodicy sufficient to include some freewilled decision cause evil well then the theodict has done its job.

Adam