Why don't the ends justify the means but God can permit evil to draw out a greater good?

[VincentChristop]

Only God can completely grasp the outcome of your actions.

You can only go so many steps ahead and view the action you are about to do.

Every sin you commit domino effects suffering/temptation to sin.

Every time you don’t sin you avoid creating suffering/temptation.

You may see good coming out of a evil action, but if you fast forward through the domino effect afterwards you might notice that you have created more evil than good.

The commandments are life hacks for eternal happiness. If everyone followed them there wouldn’t be a problem on this earth.

Needless to say trying not to sin will cause you to suffer in the psychological sense(because of the morals Satan has bestowed upon us in this day and age), but God will lift you back up.

Pray to God to show you this instance of your actions unfolding, and meditate on it. You will be surprised to learn how intricate God made the whole universe.

 

[Bradski]

For that matter, if God exists he could in one great flash of insight reveal all knowledge and the explanation for every evil or good event ever to have occurred to both of us instantaneously. Any or all of these are possible if God exists.

On the other hand, if the universe is merely matter with no intentionality, no intelligence and events are merely brute facts, well, then, there is no knowledge to be had and evil won’t be explained because it has no explanation.

The first suggestion is just a get-out-of-jail card. 'No-one can know the mind of God! (well, unless He actually tells us. Or maybe my cat tells me). That’s a pretty lame argument. No, Pete. There are some things, as you said, that are impossible for the mortal mind. If we knew everything, then we would hardly be mortal.

And the second statement, apart from being totally irrelevant, is just stating that if God doesn’t exist, then there is no ultimate purpose. Well, that’s not going to come as much of a shock to anyone.

 

[Amandil]

And the second statement, apart from being totally irrelevant, is just stating that if God doesn’t exist, then there is no ultimate purpose. Well, that’s not going to come as much of a shock to anyone.

FINALLY! An honest atheist.

My friend you’d be surprised how many professed atheists come here who explicitly deny that their philosophy is ultimately nihilistic.

 

[TaurusRex]

I’m new to Catholicism and this is a genuine question. I heard in RCIA that we must never do an evil action even for good ends. So this question came up to me.

Take fornication for an example. Fornication is evil. But making another child is good—a greater good, as there can be a child born who is destined for the glory of the beatific vision.

Why isn’t fornication okay if there is a greater good (a child born destined for the glory of the beatific vision) brought out of it?

What’s the difference between this and God permitting evil “so as to draw out a greater good”, à la the response of Augustine and Aquinas (ST, I, q. 2, a. 3, ad 1)?

If God gets off the hook for permitting evil such as Auschwitz because there’s something good coming out of it, why is fornication wrong? Why can’t we just permit fornication if what is coming out of it is good?

Is this a false dichotomy?

Isn’t sex (Eve’s original sin) in the Garden of Eden and doesn’t the Sacrament of Baptism cleanse it from us?

rex

 

[Amandil]

Isn’t sex (Eve’s original sin) in the Garden of Eden and doesn’t the Sacrament of Baptism cleanse it from us?

rex

Where did you get that “sex” is “Eve’s original sin”?

 

[TaurusRex]

Isn’t sex (Eve’s original sin) in the Garden of Eden and doesn’t the Sacrament of Baptism cleanse it from us?

rex

PS:
Granted the story of Adam and Eve may be a sort of fable of reality, but the idea of the story is that they learned the knowledge of good and evil when they ate of the apple …
Norm Crosby told a cute joke about this back in the mid 60s …
maybe I’ll tell it someday;

But anyway, before they became aware that they were enjoying themselves messing around, they were supposed to be as innocent as two young puppies with no knowledge or guilt that their messing around was considered not nice to do beyond the purpose of pro-creation;

So in reality because man and woman are intelligent creations of God in His image, they were bound to realize they enjoyed messing around every chance they got whether or not for the purpose of pro-creation;

And therefore it became necessary for man and woman to learn how to take care of themselves with the help of God’s teachings starting with the Ten Commandments and later with His Son Jesus Christ with also His Apostles and then John the Baptist with the Sacrament of Baptism to cleanse away their nastiness.

rex

 

[TaurusRex]

Where did you get that “sex” is “Eve’s original sin”?

Well it was I guess Adam and Eve;
But Eve was first to eat the apple;
So I just tried to save some typing.
In the story isn’t covering their shame, shame one of the first things they do?

PS:
You have to learn to read between the lines Amandil in the story of Genesis …
did you know there are about three versions of Genesis?

rex

 

[Peter_Plato]

The first suggestion is just a get-out-of-jail card. 'No-one can know the mind of God! (well, unless He actually tells us. Or maybe my cat tells me). That’s a pretty lame argument. No, Pete. There are some things, as you said, that are impossible for the mortal mind. If we knew everything, then we would hardly be mortal.

Your conclusion of immortality is a non sequitur. It might be true that omnipotence combined with omniscience would equate to “immortal,” and it might also be true that omniscience presupposes existence in an eternal or non-temporal state, but it doesn’t follow that simply “knowing everything” requires immortality.

In any case, “knowing everything” is not what this thread is about. What is being asked is a reason that explains and justifies the existence of evil, or, at least, why God permits it. That explanation need not require omniscience on our part, although omniscience may be part of the explanation.

The point is that merely because you (or I) do not know the reason God permits evil, does not mean that the reason is a difficult one to grasp or even that it is unknown. It may be one that is not permitted to even mildly evil beings because it functions as a kind of trade “secret.” Thus, anyone with even a mild tendency towards evil might not be “let in” on it. Thus, also, my cat may know the secret but has been duly warned not to divulge it. This means the reason may, in fact, be widely known amongst those who need to know but completely hidden from those who ought not.

From living inside my head, I have come to the conclusion that God has every reason, in the interests of Heavenly security, to not entrust me with sensitive information. I think the Scriptural warrant is “Cast not your pearls before swine.” Thus, you see, I have every reason for thinking that my cat could be more properly disposed to being entrusted with this kind of knowledge than I, and I only have myself to blame for my lacking this knowledge. God is good and I trust him. Myself, on the other hand, am a work in progress.

Until I hear otherwise, I am content with taking care of the trash, cleaning up after myself and not creating more of a mash-up. Why God has allowed me to carry on despite my proclivity towards a “messy” existence I can only accept as an act of mercy and great kindness because I certainly see no warrant for being allowed to continue on from any merit on my part.

As Socrates exhorted, “Know thyself.” I agree with him, but the following question is, “Who to trust?” when you do know thyself, especially when thy “self” is in great need of repair.

 

[Usagi]

As a loving parent, sometimes it is required for a parent to step in and stop their child from committing such acts, I dont know ANY parent that would do nothing if they knew for a fact what their child was going to do in the future! ANY parent would do all they could to prevent such things from happening, but when it comes to humans, we dont have the luxury of knowing things before they happen…ONLY God has this ability.

But if God truly knows what WILL happen, then those things WILL HAPPEN. If He could then turn around and stop them from happening, they would only be things that MIGHT happen.

God has both types of future knowledge, but His knowledge of all the things that MIGHT happen is predictive, based on His perfect intellect. His knowledge of what DOES happen is based on actually experiencing those things as they happen, at which point even an omnipotent being can’t logically make them UNhappen.

It took me many years to come to this conclusion, but I also deny that foreknowledge necessarily equates to predestination. It is possible to know exactly what a person is going to do without exerting any control over the person’s decision.

Usagi

 

[Amandil]

Well it was I guess Adam and Eve;
But Eve was first to eat the apple;
So I just tried to save some typing.
In the story isn’t covering their shame, shame one of the first things they do?

The original sin was pride, not sex. They believed the lie of “the serpent” that by eating the fruit from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” that they would be "like gods who know good and evil.

Before the commission of the sin their perception of their sexuality, of all of creation, was that of original justice. They understood and saw all things as “good**”(“good” properly defined as “that which God intends to be”**, not what is “good” according to our subjective opinion, or society, etc.).

Despite their state of nudity they understood love as God intended it, they did not perceive themselves as objects but as persons, their hearts and minds were free from concupiscence.

The Original Sin shattered that harmony. They “covered” themselves because their view of themselves and the other became distorted, as well as their view of God.

PS:
You have to learn to read between the lines Amandil in the story of Genesis …
did you know there are about three versions of Genesis?

rex

There’s a difference between “reading between the lines” and committing eisegesis.

And yes I’m quite aware. What’s your point?

 

[Bradski]

FINALLY! An honest atheist.

My friend you’d be surprised how many professed atheists come here who explicitly deny that their philosophy is ultimately nihilistic.

‘Professed’ is a funny word. It can mean to openly confess to something, but it can also carry the implication that the confession is false. I’ll assume you mean the first.

Likewise ‘nihilism’. It can mean different things to different people. Which is not unreasonable as it can be used in different contexts. I’ll assume that you mean that it implies a belief that there is no ultimate purpose to the universe as that was what I said earlier.

In which case, having been here for a reasonable time, I would indeed be surprised at finding any number of atheists at all who would deny that.

Do the ones you know say what they believe the ultimate purpose is?

 

[Bradski]

Your conclusion of immortality is a non sequitur.

I think that you probably realised that I used the word ‘mortal’ as opposed to ‘divine’. If not, then the error is mine in not being clear enough…

From living inside my head, I have come to the conclusion that God has every reason, in the interests of Heavenly security, to not entrust me with sensitive information.

As Socrates exhorted, “Know thyself.” I agree with him, but the following question is, “Who to trust?” when you do know thyself, especially when thy “self” is in great need of repair.

Your humility is an example to us all. But it doesn’t seem to extend to allowing you you to agree with a simple proposition to which any given Christian would readily concur.

Pete: Did you see what Bradski wrote? He said I couldn’t know the mind of God!
Pete’s mate: Well, he’s right. You can’t.
Pete: Yeah, OK, but he’s an atheist. I’m supposed to tell him that. He’s not supposed to tell me.
Pete’s mate: So what did you tell him?
Pete: Well, I said…umm…I said my cat might know…
Pete’s mate: Your cat?
Pete: Well, yeah. I thought that might shut him up.
Pete’s mate: And did it?
Pete: Not exactly. He thought it was pretty lame.
Pete’s mate: So what happened then?
Pete: Well, I told him that I personally could not know it.
Pete’s mate: So you basically agreed with him. How come it took you half a dozen posts?
Pete: II dunno. Just because is all.
Pete’s mate: What he say to that?
Pete: Ah, he just wrote this stupid conversation thing that you and I were supposed to have had where it looks like he was right all along.

 

[Amandil]

‘Professed’ is a funny word. It can mean to openly confess to something, but it can also carry the implication that the confession is false. I’ll assume you mean the first.

Both. Atheism cannot be proven. One can argue that it takes more volitional faith to be an atheist than to be a theist, given the fact of existence itself, that is if you agree that existence “is”, objectively speaking(independent of our experience of it).

Likewise ‘nihilism’. It can mean different things to different people. Which is not unreasonable as it can be used in different contexts. I’ll assume that you mean that it implies a belief that there is no ultimate purpose to the universe as that was what I said earlier.

When I say “nihilism” I’m using in the broadest sense of existential nihilism. So yes, that’s what I mean.

In which case, having been here for a reasonable time, I would indeed be surprised at finding any number of atheists at all who would deny that.

“Oreoracle” for one. He seems to posit a moral nihilism without following it to its logical conclusion.

Him, and another I can’t recall off the top of my head, seem to certainly suggest that certain moral limits, limits which are based on their ideas of morality but which may or may not be relative depending on whatever they decide to limit themselves to, are for “the public good” yet on the basis not of an objective moral system applied to all but based on moral subjectivism, in which they apparently reserve the right to impose this system(in violation of the principle of subjectivism) onto those who hold different subjective moralities than their own.

And they insist that this is not contradictory.

Do the ones you know say what they believe the ultimate purpose is?

Generally speaking they think that the purpose to life is rather utilitarian, things exist merely so that they can get the most amount of pleasure out of them while at the same time avoiding the maximum possible amount of pain.

 

[Bradski]

Both. Atheism cannot be proven.

Both? You mean that people who say that they don’t believe in the supernatural are not telling the truth? And if you take atheism to be a position that states there is no supernatural, then the non-existence of said supernatural cannot be proven.

If, on the other hand, and as in my case, atheism is the position where you say that you don’t believe in the supernatural, then there is nothing to prove. Other than the truth of my statement: ‘I don’t believe in the supernatural’. You’ll just have to accept that I mean what I say.

“Oreoracle” for one. He seems to posit a moral nihilism without following it to its logical conclusion.

That’s different to the nihilism you said you meant. Which was ‘no ultimate purpose to the universe’. I’m pretty certain that Oreoracle doesn’t think that something is morally good or bad because God decrees it because you say he’s an atheist. But not accepting acts as being intrinsically right or wrong has nothing at all to do with a purposeless universe.

Him, and another I can’t recall off the top of my head, seem to certainly suggest that certain moral limits etc etc

Morality is not the question. You can still accept moral precepts even if there is no ultimate purpose. And I’m pretty certain that the people you mention would not argue that there is simply no difference between right or wrong. That there is no morality. Quite probably their concept of it is different to yours.

Generally speaking they think that the purpose to life is rather utilitarian, things exist merely so that they can get the most amount of pleasure out of them while at the same time avoiding the maximum possible amount of pain.

Well, we all think there’s a purpose to life, even atheists. But that’s utterly different to an ultimate purpose for the whole shebang.

 

[Amandil]

I’m pretty certain that Oreoracle doesn’t think that something is morally good or bad because God decrees it because you say he’s an atheist.

No knowledgeable theist says that “something is morally good or bad because God decrees it.”

Something is morally good because that is how God created it to be. The positive decree follows from the end for which it was created. Not vice-versa.

The same goes for the morally illicit. Immoral acts are directly contrary to the ends for which we were created, not because God “decreed” arbitrarily that they are immoral.

But not accepting acts as being intrinsically right or wrong has nothing at all to do with a purposeless universe.

That just doesn’t add up/

If the universe has no intrinsic value or purpose, then neither does life, because life is necessarily part of that universe. If life has no intrinsic value, then neither does morality, which imposes meaningless rules upon a meaningless existence.

Morality is not the question. You can still accept moral precepts even if there is no ultimate purpose.

In which such precepts are utterly subjective and relative, and thus are also as meaningless as the life which decided what precepts he/she choses to abide by.

Limiting one’s self to such precepts are, I guess, commendable, provided that the morality they choose corresponds with the truth. But that’s like giving a prisoner the key to his own cell. There’s no serious obligation for any atheist to abide to any moral precept or any reason. For an atheist there is really no reason to abide by any moral precepts at all.

And I’m pretty certain that the people you mention would not argue that there is simply no difference between right or wrong. That there is no morality. Quite probably their concept of it is different to yours.

Oh, most assuredly. But the problem is that they have no objective criteria for making such a determination.

Well, we all think there’s a purpose to life, even atheists. But that’s utterly different to an ultimate purpose for the whole shebang.

Now is that something you’re saying is objectively true, or just something that you believe to be true?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think that you probably realised that I used the word ‘mortal’ as opposed to ‘divine’. If not, then the error is mine in not being clear enough…

Your humility is an example to us all. But it doesn’t seem to extend to allowing you you to agree with a simple proposition to which any given Christian would readily concur.

Pete: Did you see what Bradski wrote? He said I couldn’t know the mind of God!
Pete’s mate: Well, he’s right. You can’t.
Pete: Yeah, OK, but he’s an atheist. I’m supposed to tell him that. He’s not supposed to tell me.
Pete’s mate: So what did you tell him?
Pete: Well, I said…umm…I said my cat might know…
Pete’s mate: Your cat?
Pete: Well, yeah. I thought that might shut him up.
Pete’s mate: And did it?
Pete: Not exactly. He thought it was pretty lame.
Pete’s mate: So what happened then?
Pete: Well, I told him that I personally could not know it.
Pete’s mate: So you basically agreed with him. How come it took you half a dozen posts?
Pete: II dunno. Just because is all.
Pete’s mate: What he say to that?
Pete: Ah, he just wrote this stupid conversation thing that you and I were supposed to have had where it looks like he was right all along.

Ranks right up there with Abbot and Costello’s Who’s on First.

 

[Bradski]

If the universe has no intrinsic value or purpose, then neither does life, because life is necessarily part of that universe. If life has no intrinsic value, then neither does morality, which imposes meaningless rules upon a meaningless existence.

Who said that the universe has no value? Why did you put that in? The terms ‘value’ and ‘purpose’ are not synonyms. Who said life has no value? Who said that morality has no value? Who says that morality is meaningless?

I think you’re reading what you want to see, not what I’m actually writing.

In which such precepts are utterly subjective and relative, and thus are also as meaningless as the life which decided what precepts he/she choses to abide by.

But you know the funniest thing? My morality, apart from maybe a few examples like fiddling with your genitals and rumpy pumpy outside of marriage, is pretty much exactly the same as yours. And you say they are meaningless.

For an atheist there is really no reason to abide by any moral precepts at all.

[sarcasm ON] Gosh. You may be right. So you’re saying there’s nothing to stop me doing anything I like. How come no-one has pointed that out before? [/sarcasm OFF]

Now is that something you’re saying is objectively true, or just something that you believe to be true?

I don’t want to be rude, but have you been doing this for long?

We all think there’s a purpose to life. It wouldn’t disappear if we all suddenly found out that there was no God. You can try this if you like. Tell your wife that if there wasn’t a God then there wouldn’t be any purpose in staying together. There wouldn’t be a purpose in loving her and the children. There would be no reason not to hop into bed with that cute girl down the supermarket who seems to like you. Tell her that your life would become utterly meaningless.

Make sure the bed in the spare room is made up before you do. You’ll be spending a lot of time in there.

 

[Bradski]

Ranks right up there with Abbot and Costello’s Who’s on First.

Thanks for not taking offence. I don’t think that we have to be too serious all the time…

 

[Amandil]

Who said that the universe has no value? Why did you put that in? The terms ‘value’ and ‘purpose’ are not synonyms. Who said life has no value? Who said that morality has no value? Who says that morality is meaningless?

I never said that they were synonymous.

But, and I’d love to see this, if the universe has no objective purpose, what precisely is its objective value?

If life has no objective purpose, what precisely is its objective value?

Of course you can ascribe your own subjective value to life, to morality, etc., but that doesn’t even amount to a philosophy or an ethic, its not “I know”, its merely “I itch”. A feeling, not anything real.

Robertanthony:

But you know the funniest thing? My morality, apart from maybe a few examples like fiddling with your genitals and rumpy pumpy outside of marriage, is pretty much exactly the same as yours.

“Exactly”, I highly doubt it.

Robertanthony:

We all think there’s a purpose to life. It wouldn’t disappear if we all suddenly found out that there was no God.

This is circular logic because you’re presupposing your atheism

Even if everyone believed that there was no God it wouldn’t negate God’s objective existence for God is not subject to popular opinion. Further it only proves that God is greater than your subjective beliefs about God.

Robertanthony:

You can try this if you like. Tell your wife that if there wasn’t a God then there wouldn’t be any purpose in staying together. There wouldn’t be a purpose in loving her and the children. There would be no reason not to hop into bed with that cute girl down the supermarket who seems to like you. Tell her that your life would become utterly meaningless.

Make sure the bed in the spare room is made up before you do. You’ll be spending a lot of time in there.

There is absolutely no reason for me to do this. I’m a Catholic, not an atheist.

If I was an atheist, which would mean that atheism would need to be most certainly true, then I would have no reason not to do it. So neither would I bother with a “spare room”, I’d just leave.

Again, it’s always funny about how atheists always talk abstractly about morality using such terms like “conventions” and “social constructs” and how religion limits people’s freedom. About how “freedom” means that they “should be able to act and live independent of outside influence” and such.

Yet when you show them the real concrete and objective consequences of such abstracts, its always interesting how they bind themselves to these same “conventions” and “social constructs”, which they claim are utterly dependent on individuals and individual decision, and rather refrain from, than truly exercising, that absolute and autonomous “freedom” they claim religion stifles.

 

[Bradski]

I never said that they were synonymous.

Then don’t ask questions about something i haven’t said.

But, and I’d love to see this, if the universe has no objective purpose, what precisely is its objective value?

You are definitely not reading what I’m writing. The term is ‘ultimate purpose’, not ‘objective purpose’. The universe has no ‘ultimate purpose’. There is no reason for it to exist. It doesn’t care about us. We are not all moving towards some ultimate purpose. It’s not part of a grand plan.

Of course you can ascribe your own subjective value to life, to morality, etc., but that doesn’t even amount to a philosophy or an ethic, its not “I know”, its merely “I itch”. A feeling, not anything real.

We all place subjective values on life. It would be impossible to get through the day if we didn’t. If you have a child and I asked you if you place more value on his or her life than you do for a complete stranger, then you would (obviously) say yes. If you really intend saying no, then keep your wife away from the computer or it’s off to the spare room again.

We shouldn’t steal unless (blank). We shouldn’t kill unless (blank). If you can find any reason at all to fill in the blanks, then you are exhibiting a relative morality. If you can’t think of a reason why it wouldn’t be right to kill or steal to protect your kids, then, again, don’t tell the missus.

“Exactly”, I highly doubt it.

I said ‘pretty much exactly’. Not ‘exactly’. And I gave some trite examples of where we might differ. But please feel free to give some more. We can see how different we are in our moral outlook. Let’s start with the basic ones. Stealing, lying, killing, cheating. Where do you think we differ?

If I was an atheist, which would mean that atheism would need to be most certainly true, then I would have no reason not to do it. So neither would I bother with a “spare room”, I’d just leave.

Then point proven, I guess. If you were an atheist you would personally think there was nothing wrong in walking out on the wife and kids. The point is, which you appear to not understand, is that you are saying quite a lot about yourself but squat about atheism.

Again, it’s always funny about how atheists always talk abstractly about morality using such terms like “conventions” and “social constructs” and how religion limits people’s freedom. About how “freedom” means that they “should be able to act and live independent of outside influence” and such.

Mmm. I know. And I’m sure I could come up with a lot of dumb things that Christians talk about. But I’m going to try to restrict myself to what we’re actually talking about. How about you do the same.