Why does God allow evil in the world?

[liberalcatholic]

Good post! G-d permits evil, one’s self-will which opposes his will, so that we can choose instead of being robots. Free will is real and though G-d knows that there will be some that deny him to the end, through his omnipitent knowledge, we are all free to choose one thing, the truth or a lie.

“Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.”

 

[crowonsnow]

But why allow the criminal to continue after the first sin has been committed? I apologize for continuing to ask the same question, but no one has answered it and it doesn’t make any sense to me.

It doesn’t make sense to you only because you have in mind a god more in line with that of Epicurus. For lack of a better phrase I’d say your imagined god is not a religious god, not something bound by creed and dogma. You don’t have to make apologies for it.

You are actually discussing two very different ideas of what constitutes a god.

 

[Fran65]

You are actually discussing two very different ideas of what constitutes a god.

Can you elaborate please?

 

[crowonsnow]

Can you elaborate please?

Yahweh could never be “God.” Zeus can never be “God.” “God” by definition does not slay infants or commit genocide. “God” has to be beyond such behaviors or it is clearly not “God.”

I’m atheist, but even atheist I can imagine an entity that does not do such things. It has no need to do such things. It is not threatened by anything.

So it always strikes me as strange that people have such low expectations of what a “God” can be. It’s like they just don’t get it. Why would I want to have faith in something that commits genocide? I might as well worship Hitler or Stalin, only supersized.

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

I’m atheist, but even atheist I can imagine an entity that does not do such things. It has no need to do such things. It is not threatened by anything.

Crowonsnow;

The handle is quite appropriate in that your thinking is very “Black and White”.

Your point is nothing that I have not wrestled with over decades and I am sure that any thinking Christian has thought this issue through. Your position is one of “I could run the universe better”. Again a position that most of us have held in one bull session or another. Some of us have taken the position seriously others as “Devil’s Advocate”.

I have to admit that I can not totally defend the position with an either-or argument. When you allow faith into the system things start to sort themselves out. When the universe gets shades of grey and even perhaps colours one does not compare the creator to persons who were probably certifiably insane but were great manipulators of people.

This is a question that will not be answered on this thread. It is one that will require the ultimate theology class and that will not occur in this world.

Since you are an atheist your world view has no room for God. Your measure is “Man”. Because you are on this forum I believe that you are seeking other answers because you find atheism wanting but have questions. Let go of the B&W world view and let the picture develop.

Harri

 

[crowonsnow]

Since you are an atheist your world view has no room for God. Your measure is “Man”. Because you are on this forum I believe that you are seeking other answers because you find atheism wanting but have questions. Let go of the B&W world view and let the picture develop.

Harri

Harri,

Allow me to slightly modify your response so that you might better understand our positions.

Since you are theist your world view has no room for “God.” Your measure is “Man”. Because you are on this forum I believe that you are seeking other answers because you find theism wanting but have questions. Let go of the B&W world view and let the picture develop.

There’s clearly a lot of loyalty and group-think in religious circles. People are expected to tow the religious line or are ostracized, which is why their gods suffer from what can be called theological or cultural inbreeding.

I have to admit that I can not totally defend the position with an either-or argument. When you allow faith into the system things start to sort themselves out.

I’m certainly a person of faith, which is why I could never confuse the “God” concept with a supersized version of some human tyrant. Yours doesn’t strike me as a position of faith but rather as a position of false faith or lost faith, or maybe misplaced faith.

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

Crowonsnow,

Interesting analysis of my position. Been there, done that.

I certainly do not believe that God is a supersized cosmic old man. I will also disagree with your position of “religious group-think”.

Group-think does exist, in every organization that has a common goal. The example of costly group-think used to teach its dangers was the Challenger launch disaster.

My personal position is more like faith regained. Like I have said, I have been around the “theological block” a few times and given the questions a pretty thorough look over a period of almost 50 years. Since I have come to a different conclusion than you have does not mean that I have succumbed to group-think or given up my position as a seeker for truth.

I am an information junkie. I keep up with the news much to the chagrin of many of my friends. I see the pain and injustice in the world and want to do more than apply bandages, as necessary as that is. I want to know who is “throwing these people off of the bridge and make him stop”.

We do not seem to have the power to do that as people; certainly not as individuals and not even collectively through agencies we have devised with that thought in mind, like the U.N. I don’t think we have the ability to do this by denying the existence of God. We need to let God be God. We can always second-guess and think we can do better but I know that I don’t trust myself with the job of governing the universe because I don’t see the whole picture.

Harri

 

[JDaniel]

Alright, I’ll play along and try to be as thorough as I can in this. I would contend that a child (let’s call it a she) does not wish to be raped, nor does she wish to be murdered. I also contend that she has the fundamental right to her own body and life. In raping her, the child-rapist is violating her express wish to not be raped, and in murdering her, he is directly violating her wish to continue living. In this, she is suffering.

OK, good. Now, let’s pick an age; let’s say 6 years old. At 6 years old, did you hold thoughts about being raped? When you heard the word on the news, did the hearing of the word have any significance to you at all? Did you think about being murdered? Did hearing the word murder on the news hold any significance for you at all? Or, did you just want to get done with your homework so you could play with friends?

My answer to these questions is NO, except for the last question. It is interesting how children are “protected”. The process of being raped and/or murdered, for a child, is essentially meaningless and is not anywhere near as terrifying as it is for an adult. In fact a young child may see it as a “game” until her precious life is snuffed out.

We have a tendency to take thoughts, words and feelings that we hold, as adults, and “project” them into children (dogs, cats, etc.). So, while there is “evil”, it is evil in some other way.

Once we understand that we must define our terms properly, we can begin to form a philosophy of “evil”.

He is also probably causing her considerable pain, which adds to her suffering but is not the only component.

Possibly, but again, this is not “evil”. My son got hit on the bottom of his chin a bit a hole through his tongue. I held his tongue out while the doctor put stitches in it. I can’t imagine more pain than that. But, was it evil?

If it were, then if the murder was painless, it would not be evil, but I we all know in our hearts that this is not the case (At least, I certainly hope we all do).

I pray for little children who have undergone such an ordeal.

To a point, you are correct. I do advocate doing what feels good to the point of not directly causing suffering in others, in the capacity that I just talked about. It’s true, atheists believe that we do not have to answer to God for our evils. But this does not necessarily lead to the belief that we are free to commit evils.

No question about it; atheism does not necessarily “lead to the belief that we are free to commit evils.” But, I think it has been the impetus for far more people to commit bad overt acts than the belief in God, especially if none of either group observed is aberrated. I think this is beyond obvious.

This is a purist, optimistic, and no doubt unrealistic view I hold – but I truly believe that humanity can choose not to do evil simply because it is evil.

Not at all, much of humanity does choose NOT to do evil. Most of humanity can resist the wiles of satan.

Respectfully,
JD

 

[joandarc2008]

Yes, JD but while most of humanity can resist the powers of Satan and not do evil - here is the question that I think Harri brings up in his early explanation. Does much of humanity resist the power of God and choose not to do good?

God bless,

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, JD but while most of humanity can resist the powers of Satan and not do evil - here is the question that I think Harri brings up in his early explanation. Does much of humanity resist the power of God and choose not to do good?

God bless,

That’s a good albeit impossible question to answer. I have no way of knowing the numbers. That said, from a cursory look at society, it does appear that much of humanity does resist the power of God and choose not to do good.

However, that is not to say that what is chosen is “evil” - but, of course, you knew that. I support an older view of “evil”; a view that is absolutist in nature. I view it as the absolute privation of any kind of good (God) whatsoever. I believe evil is evil, period, and that there are no gradations to it. It reaches, so to speak, into the moral and the metaphysical.

There is what appears to be a gradation; it is called “bad”. But, bad includes, under its umbrella, all sorts of things that are not-good. Things such as poverty, necessary and unnecessary pain, necessary and unnecessary hunger, disease, unconscionable legal acts, and others of this overall category.

I believe that evil exists when and where good is usurped by satan. A good slate of purely evil acts is the Ten acts we are Commanded not to do. "Evil, i.e., the intrusion of satan in human doings, can only be defeated in one way.

JD

 

[joandarc2008]

However, that is not to say that what is chosen is “evil” - but, of course, you knew that. I support an older view of “evil”; a view that is absolutist in nature. I view it as the absolute privation of any kind of good (God) whatsoever. I believe evil is evil, period, and that there are no gradations to it. It reaches, so to speak, into the moral and the metaphysical.

There is what appears to be a gradation; it is called “bad”. But, bad includes, under its umbrella, all sorts of things that are not-good. Things such as poverty, necessary and unnecessary pain, necessary and unnecessary hunger, disease, unconscionable legal acts, and others of this overall category.

I believe that evil exists when and where good is usurped by satan. A good slate of purely evil acts is the Ten acts we are Commanded not to do. "Evil, i.e., the intrusion of satan in human doings, can only be defeated in one way.

OK, JD, I will bite since it is 1030 at night and I am stuck on sweet tea since I do not imbibe. If mortal sin is mortal sin and there are no gradations of mortal sin - meaning that one mortal sin is not better or worse than another according to the CC and we can commit mortal sin through both acts of comission or omission than failing to do good therefore an act of omission which you have deemed a gradation of bad is still mortal sin and therefore could be constituted as evil if evil is just mortal sin. However if the need is to define evil as the mere good being usurped by Satan than any relative change in good would be evil. Meaning if I am good and I have a chance to be better and I am not than I am evil. This also would solve the problem of “moral” atheists. They may “live well” but since they could live better if they allowed God in instead of worshipping the false idol, Science (there’s one of your 10) they could live better than they are relatively evil in their Godless state.

God bless

 

[Dan86]

I think that evil is the result of free will.

 

[JDaniel]

OK, JD, I will bite since it is 1030 at night and I am stuck on sweet tea since I do not imbibe. If mortal sin is mortal sin and there are no gradations of mortal sin - meaning that one mortal sin is not better or worse than another according to the CC and we can commit mortal sin through both acts of comission or omission than failing to do good therefore an act of omission which you have deemed a gradation of bad is still mortal sin and therefore could be constituted as evil if evil is just mortal sin. However if the need is to define evil as the mere good being usurped by Satan than any relative change in good would be evil. Meaning if I am good and I have a chance to be better and I am not than I am evil. This also would solve the problem of “moral” atheists. They may “live well” but since they could live better if they allowed God in instead of worshipping the false idol, Science (there’s one of your 10) they could live better than they are relatively evil in their Godless state.

God bless

Hmmm. I’ve not looked at it that way, but, I think you are correct. If you are, then, this is a powerful argument for belief in God.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

I think that evil is the result of free will.

So, when satan/lucifer disconnected from God, that was the commission of the first act of evil. This is very helpful. It is a further proof of the existence of God and the existence of that which we call natural law.

JD

 

[crowonsnow]

I think that evil is the result of free will.

Why couldn’t free will be the result of evil?

 

[crowonsnow]

My personal position is more like faith regained.

I can understand that. But I will deny that this awareness has occurred in a person who by practicing same has not yet realized that there is a fundamental incompatibility with a “God” that kills and drowns babies. I would say such a person is suffering from a cognitive dysfunction or is simply just not very smart.

From an evolutionary standpoint, clinging to an abusive guardian is a proven survival strategy, and probably explains this incompatibility best. Both the abusive guardian and the abusee survive because of this bond. It’s primitive, but it’s proven. I don’t think such a relationship is a matter of choice but rather of blind necessity. It may appear as a choice but only from outside the group.

 

[Fran65]

You know what I’m going to say don’t you Crow?

Free will is not the result of evil because God created free will and what God creates is good.

BTW, we are demonstrating on this thread as well as others, that we (Catholics) are not involved in groupthink. One of the major characteristsics is a lack of discussion, an unwillingness to engage with others with differing points of view and a very narrow point of view. Critically it is a suppression of dissenting information.

I don’t think that you can characterise many of the posters here of that.

 

[Fran65]

there is a fundamental incompatibility with a “God” that kills and drowns babies. I would say such a person is suffering from a cognitive dysfunction or is simply just not very smart.

Ouch.

Crow, I think you go too far here.

God does not kill, drown or any other way murder babies or anyone else for that matter.

I agree however that anyone who thinks God does that needs help…and fast.

 

[crowonsnow]

You know what I’m going to say don’t you Crow?

Free will is not the result of evil because God created free will and what God creates is good.

BTW, we are demonstrating on this thread as well as others, that we (Catholics) are not involved in groupthink. One of the major characteristsics is a lack of discussion, an unwillingness to engage with others with differing points of view and a very narrow point of view. Critically it is a suppression of dissenting information.

I don’t think that you can characterise many of the posters here of that.

Historically and culturally speaking, however, free will was invented because evil was recognized to exist. This “evil” had to be explained. “Free will” is that attempt, or one attempt. So I’m simply stating that to say that free will came first is to commit the most egregious of anachronisms.

And I think this is a decent enough place. The only yardstick I presently use to exclude discussion from another forum-mate concerns that fundamental incompatibility I mentioned earlier. A conversation with a group of inebriated persons can be entertaining, but we do not in good conscience leave them in charge of our children.

Fran65:

Ouch.

Crow, I think you go too far here.

God does not kill, drown or any other way murder babies or anyone else for that matter.

I agree however that anyone who thinks God does that needs help…and fast.

And we literally need to protect ourselves, our values, and our children from such behaviors.

 

[joandarc2008]

Why couldn’t free will be the result of evil?

OK, let me try. If free will was a result of evil than our decisions could not be good if evil is as eloquently defined by Father Harri before an absence or later described relative absence of good. So therefore, human beings could not use free will to make good decisions. However, Mary used free will to accept the gift of the Holy Spirit and become the Mother of Christ. She had that option. Our free will is rightly used when we align it with the will of God. Personally, I believe when the Bible states that man is created in God’s image that it is very contextual. I believe this relates to the gift of free will that we have been given. Granted it is also a curse as well.

God bless,