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

[Peter_Plato]

Hi everyone! This discussion relates to the discussion we had in world philosophy today, so I wanted to join in. I have some questions and I do want genuine answers, I in no way ask these questions in defiance or in an argumentative way. I also realize that not everyone on the forum may not have theology or philosophy degrees (nor do I) so everyone may have a different answer.

Anyways, my philosophy professor was listing the theistic arguments for the existence of evil, basically the “How can an all-knowing, all good God permit evil?” question. She asked us to list the answers people gave us in our lives to the existence of evil and then she argued against each one, also with the intention of demonstrating how each theistic argument leads to the next during atheistic vs. theistic debate.

**Her question was basically (paraphrasing here) “Why is it that when I do something it is wrong, but if God does it it’s OK?” She used Exodus 12 and God’s smiting of the Egyptian children as an example. **

I personally love God and I am trying to trust in his decisions no matter what. I would like your thoughts/arguments especially from a Jewish perspective. Thank you!

The question asked by your professor covertly undermines a proper answer by a false dichotomy between doing “wrong” acts as opposed to doing “right” acts.

Here is what I mean. We could consistently hold that killing another human being is prima facie a “wrong” act. However, even with that admission we can conceive of circumstances where killing another human being would be permissible, for example for self-defense or protection of an innocent third party. Clearly, there are circumstances under which doing a “wrong” act is permissible for someone but that need not make the act of killing permissible for everyone under every circumstance.

In the case of God, there are features (omniscience, omnipotence, ability to create new human beings at will, knowing the inner motives of all beings, etc.) that make the circumstances under which God acts substantially different from the circumstances under which normal human beings lacking complete knowledge would choose to act.

Given that God’s purview is knowing with absolute certainty the outcomes of all events through all time, his ability to make judgements taking into account a veritable mountain of “circumstantial” considerations not available to us, would make his moral determinations substantively different than ours.

In other words, we cannot have access to the relevant information God has access to so we cannot assume a privileged position of judging the actions of God precisely because we do not know all of the circumstantial details that function to make God’s judgement the right one in each case.

It is our limitations in terms of knowledge and power that substantively limit our ability to make fully adequate moral judgements. It is that same inability that should make us pause when “judging” the rightness or wrongness of God’s actions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Anyways, my philosophy professor was listing the theistic arguments for the existence of evil, basically the “How can an all-knowing, all good God permit evil?” question.

The argument for God permitting evil has been addressed in philosophy numerous times.

A good overall resource on the philosophical debate is found here:

iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

An important premise in the argument from both sides is:

It is not morally permissible for God to allow evil and suffering to occur unless he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so.

So God could ONLY be faulted for permitting evil where a morally insufficient reason for allowing it existed. This would make that kind of evil ‘pointless’ or lacking sufficient justification.

So, properly understood, the argument ought to be expressed something like this:

If God exists he would not allow pointless evil.
There is much pointless evil.
Therefore God does not exist.

Essentially, the other side of the argument is that it would be permissible for God to allow evil if the allowance brought about a greater good than otherwise would have occurred. Therefore, only ‘pointless’ evil or evil where an insufficiently good reason for allowing it existed could that evil count against the existence of God.

The problem with using the argument against God’s existence, however, is that pointless or unjustifiable evil is based on a subjective determination. Merely because I - from a limited perspective - don’t see a point for the existence of any particular evil does not, logically, mean there is not or cannot be a point or sufficient justification for it.

Any apparently pointless evil is not necessarily 'pointless.’ If I break a leg, (an apparent ‘evil,’) end up in the hospital, and there meet my future spouse it may be that, even for me, the initially ‘pointless’ evil may have a point or reason for its occurrence.

The ’significance’ of any part of a sequential series of events cannot be fully determined until the final end of the sequence. Just because from within a temporal series, the ‘point’ or significance of each event cannot be ascertained does not mean that in the final analysis a sufficiently good reason cannot exist to justify every event in the chain.

This talk by Tim Keller addresses the issue quite well:

vimeo.com/9135547

I hope this helps.

 

[oldcelt]

The argument for God permitting evil has been addressed in philosophy numerous times.

A good overall resource on the philosophical debate is found here:

iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

An important premise in the argument from both sides is:

It is not morally permissible for God to allow evil and suffering to occur unless he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so.

So God could ONLY be faulted for permitting evil where a morally insufficient reason for allowing it existed. This would make that kind of evil ‘pointless’ or lacking sufficient justification.

So, properly understood, the argument ought to be expressed something like this:

If God exists he would not allow pointless evil.
There is much pointless evil.
Therefore God does not exist.

Essentially, the other side of the argument is that it would be permissible for God to allow evil if the allowance brought about a greater good than otherwise would have occurred. Therefore, only ‘pointless’ evil or evil where an insufficiently good reason for allowing it existed could that evil count against the existence of God.

The problem with using the argument against God’s existence, however, is that pointless or unjustifiable evil is based on a subjective determination. Merely because I - from a limited perspective - don’t see a point for the existence of any particular evil does not, logically, mean there is not or cannot be a point or sufficient justification for it.

Any apparently pointless evil is not necessarily 'pointless.’ If I break a leg, (an apparent ‘evil,’) end up in the hospital, and there meet my future spouse it may be that, even for me, the initially ‘pointless’ evil may have a point or reason for its occurrence.

The ’significance’ of any part of a sequential series of events cannot be fully determined until the final end of the sequence. Just because from within a temporal series, the ‘point’ or significance of each event cannot be ascertained does not mean that in the final analysis a sufficiently good reason cannot exist to justify every event in the chain.

This talk by Tim Keller addresses the issue quite well:

vimeo.com/9135547

I hope this helps.

Or maybe He’s not involved at all.

 

[TruthSeeker92]

Thank you for your answer, PeterPlato! It was truly helpful!! Thank you for your additional thoughts as well, oldcelt!

I wish that in my classroom there was someone who knew more Plato, and Socrates (other than my professor) and who would actually allow both theist and atheist philosophers to argue the existence of evil and an all good God. It is my opinion that she leans more toward the atheistic or agnostic side. I used to be agnostic, so I understand where she may be coming from. What frustrates me the most about explaining my beliefs to others is this: no matter what I say, everything makes sense coming from God’s “still, small voice” in my heart. To me it’s kind of like this: imagine that ever since you were old enough to remember your life, you were taught about the definition of a certain word. You thought you knew what the word meant. Then one day a different person said the word to you again, and you* finally *knew the meaning. That is how I feel when the Lord speaks to me in my heart! It can be compared to the “Aha!” moment, but even those moments are inadequate to compare to the Lord speaking to me… it’s truly inexpressible. And that can be frustrating to me, as well as the people I want to share God’s love with.

So, my point being is that no matter what I say to anyone in my class, the definitions, the words, the language I am using is so inadequate! I can only speak to people from the outside of their hearts, from my own perspective within my heart. Only the Lord can speak to their hearts from within. Please, offer prayers for my intention that the Lord will help my classmates and my professor to be open to truly hearing his voice. Can anyone relate to what I am saying??

 

[tonyrey]

In that case there is no reason to believe any form of plan exists. Or did they appear mysteriously out of chaos?

Does any reasonable person live on a day to day basis? It is impossible to survive very long if we make no plans for tomorrow.

You are implying we are superior to our Creator in practically every respect - which is absurd… The worst defect is being incapable of love which we regard as the most important aspect of life.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thank you for your answer, PeterPlato! It was truly helpful!! Thank you for your additional thoughts as well, oldcelt!

I wish that in my classroom there was someone who knew more Plato, and Socrates (other than my professor) and who would actually allow both theist and atheist philosophers to argue the existence of evil and an all good God. It is my opinion that she leans more toward the atheistic or agnostic side. I used to be agnostic, so I understand where she may be coming from. What frustrates me the most about explaining my beliefs to others is this: no matter what I say, everything makes sense coming from God’s “still, small voice” in my heart. To me it’s kind of like this: imagine that ever since you were old enough to remember your life, you were taught about the definition of a certain word. You thought you knew what the word meant. Then one day a different person said the word to you again, and you* finally *knew the meaning. That is how I feel when the Lord speaks to me in my heart! It can be compared to the “Aha!” moment, but even those moments are inadequate to compare to the Lord speaking to me… it’s truly inexpressible. And that can be frustrating to me, as well as the people I want to share God’s love with.

So, my point being is that no matter what I say to anyone in my class, the definitions, the words, the language I am using is so inadequate! I can only speak to people from the outside of their hearts, from my own perspective within my heart. Only the Lord can speak to their hearts from within. Please, offer prayers for my intention that the Lord will help my classmates and my professor to be open to truly hearing his voice. Can anyone relate to what I am saying??

Yes I can. That is precisely the reason I “do” philosophy - to help me formulate the words and reasoning I need to express the truth that I know.

Your philosophy class predicament sounds somewhat like that in the recently released movie God is Not Dead. You may want to see it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I wish that in my classroom there was someone who knew more Plato, and Socrates (other than my professor) and who would actually allow both theist and atheist philosophers to argue the existence of evil and an all good God. It is my opinion that she leans more toward the atheistic or agnostic side. I used to be agnostic, so I understand where she may be coming from. What frustrates me the most about explaining my beliefs to others is this: no matter what I say, everything makes sense coming from God’s “still, small voice” in my heart. To me it’s kind of like this: imagine that ever since you were old enough to remember your life, you were taught about the definition of a certain word. You thought you knew what the word meant. Then one day a different person said the word to you again, and you* finally *knew the meaning. That is how I feel when the Lord speaks to me in my heart! It can be compared to the “Aha!” moment, but even those moments are inadequate to compare to the Lord speaking to me… it’s truly inexpressible. And that can be frustrating to me, as well as the people I want to share God’s love with.

You may want to read the conversion story of John C. Wright, the highly acclaimed science fiction writer.

A couple of excellent blogs that give philosophical voice to your experience of God are…

thomism.wordpress.com

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca

 

[tonyrey]

The OP is applicable to Good Friday.

Jesus could have avoided torture and death on the Cross but He knew He would liberate us from evil by not descending to the level of His enemies. It was a case of choosing the lesser evil for our sake and demonstrating the power of love…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Or maybe He’s not involved at all.

Now classical theism, when worked out consistently, in fact should lead us to reject such a view. For classical theism entails that nothing – most certainly including dirt, hair, mud and filth – could continue in being even for an instant if God were not sustaining it. He can hardly be said not to know about these things, then. But the doctrine of the Incarnation goes far beyond that. It asserts that God not only knows about “dirt, hair, mud and filth,” but out of love for us took on human flesh – with its hair, and with its susceptibility to getting dirty, muddy, filthy.

Nor does even that entirely capture the depths of his love. For Christ did not take on human flesh only to get rid of it as soon as he could; nor did he even restore that flesh to perfect integrity as soon as he could. He retains the flesh with its wounds perpetually.

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/04/gods-wounds.html

 

[oldcelt]

It makes sense when you realize that God Himself became man and He Himself underwent extreme physical and mental duress. So in a way that we cannot understand (its probably beyond our comprehension) suffering is part of the plan.

That’s just another way of wording the “It’s a mystery” answer. Then someone came up with Redemptive Suffering to slow the drain of believers when they witnessed a loved one die a horrid death, Since a great many of the characteristics of the Abrahamic/Christian God stand in conflict with an all loving, etc. God I have chosen the deist model as the most likely.

I saw a thread on Job before I got here and that is a magnificent example of the A/C God allowing one of his most honorable people to suffer in order to make a point to Satan. That story alone has probably either kept people from joining or caused then to re-consider and leave Christianity.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s just another way of wording the “It’s a mystery” answer. Then someone came up with Redemptive Suffering to slow the drain of believers when they witnessed a loved one die a horrid death, Since a great many of the characteristics of the Abrahamic/Christian God stand in conflict with an all loving, etc. God I have chosen the deist model as the most likely.

I saw a thread on Job before I got here and that is a magnificent example of the A/C God allowing one of his most honorable people to suffer in order to make a point to Satan. That story alone has probably either kept people from joining or caused then to re-consider and leave Christianity.

Christianity should be interpreted in the light of the New rather than the Old Testament. Jesus told us that our Creator is a God of love not oppression. That is why you are mistaken in regarding people as isolated individuals who have no effect on the lives of others. It is the inevitable outcome of your belief in a selfish God who does nothing and does not care for anyone…

The power of sacrificial love is not a fantasy but a fact. The death of one priest in Poland led to the overthrow of Communism. The suffering and death of Jesus have transformed the history of humanity. For two thousand years men and women have followed His example of unselfish love by devoting their lives to the poor, sick, disabled, insane, orphans, widows and old people. They have sacrificed their lives to overcome injustice like slavery and persecution of minorities. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on our belief that we have a** loving** Father who has created us to live in universal harmony. Those rights and principles have no rational foundation in a world which exists for no reason or purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

… I find it incredibly difficult using the method on Christian forums. Because there are generally two things that the Christian has to consider. The theological answer, the one that she might class as the ‘right answer’, such as ‘we are all equal in the eyes of The Lord’ and ‘it’s not for us to decide on the individual’s worth - we cannot play God’.

Then there’s the other answer. The one that deals with the practicalities of living in the here and now. Where things aren’t as black and white as we’d like them to be. Where things are messy and complicated and sometimes there really doesn’t seem to be a ‘right answer’. Or if there is, no-one can seem to agree just what it might be.

A false dilemma if we follow the principle of choosing the lesser evil.

You may be a doctor who has to decide where best to spend the money that’s been allocated to your hospital, knowing that the decison will literally mean life or death for some people.

You may decide to buy that new car when it is undeniable that if you donated the money to charity then lives would undoubtedly be saved that will otherwise be lost (saving a life could be as low as $3 - $4).

Does the doctor make a valuation when he decides to give the life saving treatment to the thirty year old father with 3 kids or the 80 year old widower? No doubt about it. Easy to answer that one.

Do you value your pleasure in buying the new car over the life of many children in dire circumstances. Mmm. Bit tougher that one. Might prefer to pass. Maybe someone else will chip in instead. After all, does the money really get to the people who need it? But you choose the car anyway.

Then you’re in a lifeboat which is sinking. You’re not going to throw your kids overboard, so it’s either this guy who has already put his life on the line helping people escape the sinking ship or someone else who tells you he needs to get home so he can continue medical experimentation on Jews before having them shot.

It’s one or the other or your family is going to drown. They’re all looking at you to make the decision. Yes, you are playing God. Yes, it’s not a position that you would want to be in. Yes, in the eyes of The Lord we are all sinners equal in worth. Yes, you are never going to forgive yourself for making the choice. Yes, you can consider yourself as bad as Mengele himself in decifding who shall live and who shall die. No, you cannot sacrifice yourself or conjur up a scenario where you don’t have to choose.

Splash.

Oh look. Mengele is in the water. So how did you come to that decision? Was it a toss of a coin? Did they play paper-scissors-rock? Or was it that Kolbe was a man worth saving and Mengele was not?

Does the existence of such problems outweigh the value of life? Is a problem-free life feasible? The Problem of Evil doesn’t arise if those questions are left unanswered - or answered unsatisfactorily…

 

[Thorns]

That’s just another way of wording the “It’s a mystery” answer. Then someone came up with Redemptive Suffering to slow the drain of believers when they witnessed a loved one die a horrid death, Since a great many of the characteristics of the Abrahamic/Christian God stand in conflict with an all loving, etc. God I have chosen the deist model as the most likely.

I saw a thread on Job before I got here and that is a magnificent example of the A/C God allowing one of his most honorable people to suffer in order to make a point to Satan. That story alone has probably either kept people from joining or caused then to re-consider and leave Christianity.

Jesus said all those who follow Him WILL suffer in this life. He asks us all to rise above our humanity and follow His example, accepting trials and hardships for His sake.

Personally for me, knowing that my suffering is for a greater cause is most comforting and even allows me to experience joy and happiness through it, despite being uncomfortable.

If I felt my suffering was pointless, Id no doubt be one depressed, self pitying individual. I feel sorry for those who cannot accept this and do not believe because their suffering serves no purpose.

 

[oldcelt]

Christianity should be interpreted in the light of the New rather than the Old Testament. Jesus told us that our Creator is a God of love not oppression. That is why you are mistaken in regarding people as isolated individuals who have no effect on the lives of others. It is the inevitable outcome of your belief in a selfish God who does nothing and does not care for anyone…

The power of sacrificial love is not a fantasy but a fact. The death of one priest in Poland led to the overthrow of Communism. The suffering and death of Jesus have transformed the history of humanity. For two thousand years men and women have followed His example of unselfish love by devoting their lives to the poor, sick, disabled, insane, orphans, widows and old people. They have sacrificed their lives to overcome injustice like slavery and persecution of minorities. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on our belief that we have a** loving** Father who has created us to live in universal harmony. Those rights and principles have no rational foundation in a world which exists for no reason or purpose.

As I have pointed out before, the God I believe exists is more loving than one who uses his created, sentient children as tools. I would far rather be left to my own devices than never know when God might decide that I need to be the one suffering for some obscure good.

I also believe that our existence has a purpose that I have stated before. We have a responsibility to build a better world for US. God does just fine on His own as He proved in the billions of years before we finally evolved from His creation.

 

[tonyrey]

Christianity should be interpreted in the light of the New rather than the Old Testament. Jesus told us that our Creator is a God of love not oppression. That is why you are mistaken in regarding people as isolated individuals who have no effect on the lives of others. It is the inevitable outcome of your belief in a selfish God who does nothing and does not care for anyone…

Tools for what purpose? Sadistic entertainment? If men and women totally ignore the needs of their children do you regard them as loving? Why is God an exception?

I would far rather be left to my own devices than never know when God might decide that I need to be the one suffering for some obscure good.

What makes you think Catholics believe God deliberately inflicts suffering on specific individuals? Can you cite a text to that effect?

I also believe that our existence has a purpose that I have stated before. We have a responsibility to build a better world for US.

I may be mistaken but I think you stated that the universe exists for no reason or purpose. Did God create us to build a better world or is it an accident that we have such power and responsibility?

God does just fine on His own as He proved in the billions of years before we finally evolved from His creation.

Then why did He create us? For no reason? To torment us? Or didn’t He know what He was doing? If you have no answer your idea of God is incoherent. It purports to be a solution to the Problem of Evil but it leads to confusion for believers and ridicule by sceptics. An absent God is not worth having… It’s like betting on a horse that hasn’t even turned up! You stand to gain precisely nothing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As I have pointed out before, the God I believe exists is more loving than one who uses his created, sentient children as tools. I would far rather be left to my own devices than never know when God might decide that I need to be the one suffering for some obscure good.

To reconcile oneself with anything as deeply personal as the subjective implications of suffering, God would have to engage with the person at a deeply subjective level. No objective or evidential event could possibly carry the level of intensely personal meaning that would serve to “un-obscure” suffering. For certain, some sort of personal assent or, at least, openness to the possibility would be fundamental. If the person is simply hardened against the possibility that their own suffering COULD be for a greater good, then it would seem impossible for any external event to convince the person otherwise.

 

[TruthSeeker92]

That’s just another way of wording the “It’s a mystery” answer. Then someone came up with Redemptive Suffering to slow the drain of believers when they witnessed a loved one die a horrid death, Since a great many of the characteristics of the Abrahamic/Christian God stand in conflict with an all loving, etc. God I have chosen the deist model as the most likely.

I saw a thread on Job before I got here and that is a magnificent example of the A/C God allowing one of his most honorable people to suffer in order to make a point to Satan. That story alone has probably either kept people from joining or caused then to re-consider and leave Christianity.

Hi, oldcelt

I understand your feelings about Job. The Bible is filled with all types of literature. Some is poetry, history, myth, and even fiction. Job is an example of a book which is considered by some to be a parable, not an actual event.

 

[TruthSeeker92]

PeterPlato,

Thank you for all your advice and the websites you shared. I will definitely be reading what you recommended!

It’s not a coincidence you mentioned “God’s Not Dead” because I saw the trailer a week or so ago and I was like “That’s me! That’s my Philosophy class! OH MY GOSH! I have to see this movie!”

I think it’s awesome that you use Philosophy to express your faith! You should become a professor of Philosophy (unless you already are!)

 

[oldcelt]

Tools for what purpose? Sadistic entertainment? If men and women totally ignore the needs of their children do you regard them as loving? Why is God an exception?

Because he is not our father.

What makes you think Catholics believe God deliberately inflicts suffering on specific individuals? Can you cite a text to that effect?

As I said before, He didn’t create us and I don’t expect to gain anything. Those who do are in for a sad realization. I have never heard a Deist say that their belief system is the solution to anything. We believe based on observation and experience.
Confusion for what believers? If it is confusion among Christians, Deists certainly aren’t the source. Just look at the name of this thread…who are they asking about?

 

[oldcelt]

Hi, oldcelt

I understand your feelings about Job. The Bible is filled with all types of literature. Some is poetry, history, myth, and even fiction. Job is an example of a book which is considered by some to be a parable, not an actual event.

Then it was not a wise choice to include it in the canon. If it is a parable, what is the lesson? Or is it reasonable to expect people to take away distinctly different views of the meaning.