Why God didn't desire a universe without evil?

[Vico]

Every honest believer says it.

That person that has difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation by which truth is known.

Belief is a matter of will, whereas faith pertains to an act of the mind. A person that has belief in the existence of God accepts that it is true that God exists. Because of revelation it is know to be true.

Modern Catholic Dictionary
BELIEF. The acceptance of something as true on a trustworthy person’s word. It differs from faith only in the stress on confidence in the one who is believed. Moreover, belief emphasizes the act of the will, which disposes one to believe, where faith is rather the act of the mind, which assents to what is believed.

Vatican I Council (April 24, 1870)

Denzinger 1786 The necessity of revelation].Indeed, it must be attributed to this divine revelation that those things, which in divine things are not impenetrable to human reason by itself, can, even in this present condition of the human race, be known readily by all with firm certitude and with no admixture of error.* Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that revelation is said to be absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite goodness has ordained man for a supernatural end, to participation, namely, in the divine goods which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind, since “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him” 1 Cor. 2:9 ; can. 2 and 3].

 

[reggieM]

Vatican I Council (April 24, 1870)

Denzinger 1786 The necessity of revelation].Indeed, it must be attributed to this divine revelation that those things, which in divine things are not impenetrable to human reason by itself, can, even in this present condition of the human race, be known readily by all with firm certitude and with no admixture of error.* Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that revelation is said to be absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite goodness has ordained man for a supernatural end, to participation, namely, in the divine goods which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind, since “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him” 1 Cor. 2:9 ; can. 2 and 3].

Good quote an insight. I had not thought of it that way.
I was thinking of the statement from Vatican I

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”

The Catechism then explains:

In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Then quotes from Humani Generis

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It might be good for you to read the lives of the saints, like Bernadette.

archive.org/details/bernadetteoflour00ralp
archive.org/details/BernadetteTheSequelToOurLadyOfLourdes

St. Maria Goretti was attacked by a rapist and murdered by him. She did not blaspheme God or show hatred. Nor did her parents. The same is true for Bl. Alexandrina de Costa who was attacked by a rapist and ended up paralyzed for the rest of her life. She did not curse against God, but forgave her attacker.
amazon.com/Alexandrina-Agony-Glory-Francis-Johnston/dp/0895551799/ref=pd_sim_74_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0895551799&pd_rd_r=4EPGNNBMEWZ93BYTJB7E&pd_rd_w=u7DUb&pd_rd_wg=BDZAj&psc=1&refRID=4EPGNNBMEWZ93BYTJB7E
There are many young children Catholic who were tortured among the Roman martyrs. St. Agnes was 16 yrs old, abused and tortured. St. Agatha was imprisoned in a brothel, abused and finally tortured and had her breasts cut off.
There are many child-martyrs through the ages, some even suffering under atheistic regimes.
None of these blasphemed God - they instead, praised Him and thanked Him for all of His gifts - including that of free will.

There is a saying: “Huge is the zoo of God and there are all sorts of strange creatures in it”. That there are a handful of people who praise God for the torture he “allowed” to happen to them (or to their children) is not surprising. If you collect a sufficient number of people, you will find some who will proclaim the most ridiculous things.

I was thinking of the statement from Vatican I

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”

This is one of my “favorite” passages. The quintessential empty claim. It assumes that the world is created, and then assumes that God created it. And you know what the word “assume” means?

 

[reggieM]

There is a saying: “Huge is the zoo of God and there are all sorts of strange creatures in it”. That there are a handful of people who praise God for the torture he “allowed” to happen to them (or to their children) is not surprising. If you collect a sufficient number of people, you will find some who will proclaim the most ridiculous things.

Well, I hope you’re not dismissing and calling ridiculous things you don’t know about or want to learn about or are open to understanding.
I can give you many references to the saints and their attitude towards suffering.
I’ve also referenced the teaching of Christ Himself - redemptive suffering is a core belief of Catholicism.

 

[reggieM]

It assumes that the world is created, and then assumes that God created it.

No, it doesn’t assume either of those things. It moves from observations through abductive reasoning to conclusions.

 

[Vico]

Good quote an insight. I had not thought of it that way.
I was thinking of the statement from Vatican I

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”

The Catechism then explains:

In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Then quotes from Humani Generis

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

Faith pertains to an act of the mind regarding which some “persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful”. Then the belief follows that doubt or denial so that there is no assent to what known from revelation.

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (on faith)
Q. 1164. How does a person sin against faith?
A. A person sins against faith:
(1) 1st. By not trying to know what God has taught;
(2) 2nd. By refusing to believe all that God has taught;
(3) 3rd. By neglecting to profess his belief in what God has taught.

 

[Vico]

No, it doesn’t assume either of those things. It moves from observations through abductive reasoning to conclusions.

Inference to the best explanation.

 

[reggieM]

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (on faith)
Q. 1164. How does a person sin against faith?
A. A person sins against faith:
(1) 1st. By not trying to know what God has taught;
(2) 2nd. By refusing to believe all that God has taught;
(3) 3rd. By neglecting to profess his belief in what God has taught.

Excellent. Clear, concise and just the truth.

 

[goout]

There is a saying: “Huge is the zoo of God and there are all sorts of strange creatures in it”. That there are a handful of people who praise God for the torture he “allowed” to happen to them (or to their children) is not surprising. If you collect a sufficient number of people, you will find some who will proclaim the most ridiculous things.

This is one of my “favorite” passages. The quintessential empty claim. It assumes that the world is created, and then assumes that God created it. And you know what the word “assume” means?

We don’t praise God “for torture”. That is not the Christian outlook.

Suggestion: take a look around you. Show us a person who does not suffer. Show us a person who will not die.
Go ahead. Look around. We’ll wait.

Ok, I will make an assumption that you will find no one who will not suffer, and no one who will not die. Everyone without exception will experience the fullness of life including suffering and death. It’s part of being fully human.

What you will find are people who can be thankful for ALL OF life, “good and bad”. It’s not easy, but that’s the point of life: to accept it all graciously and find meaning in it. Life is not meaningless or pointless, including suffering.

There is thread after thread trying to hold God accountable for bad things, but failing to account God for “good”. Who’s responsible for the good??
That strikes me as whining. (hey, we all do it, it’s ok).

 

[reggieM]

There are many threads and comments also about the materialist problem of evil.
From a strictly materialist perspective, there is no good and evil. Molecules do not care about such things.
Abiogenesis, supposedly, allowed life to emerge from unintelligent, non-living matter.

From there, Darwinism would have it that all behaviors emerged from mutations and were preserved in the population because they had survival or reproductive advantages.
These are “positive mutations”. Any human action that exists in our population today is one of those things that evolution created and preserved because it is “good”.

Rape and torture of children, to cite Vera’s favorite examples, would have been “good” for human survival at some point. They still exist today so they must contribute to the survival of the human species - and therefore they remain “good actions” in an evolutionary perspective. This is beyond the fact that good and evil are not categories that materialist evolution can establish. There is nothing “good” about the human species with regards to evolution. There is nothing “evil” about violence, murder, torture either since through those means, supposedly, species emerge or survive and reproduce.

So, all the huffing and puffing and outrage about evil has no foundation at all from the atheist-materialist worldview.

Some atheists openly admit it. Some have written in support of this very idea that rape exists because it has an evolutionary advantage.

In the Catholic view, rape is evil. Not so in the atheist-evolutionary view. That’s a major difference here.

nytimes.com/books/first/t/thornhill-rape.html

 

[JapaneseKappa]

There are many threads and comments also about the materialist problem of evil.
From a strictly materialist perspective, there is no good and evil. Molecules do not care about such things.
Abiogenesis, supposedly, allowed life to emerge from unintelligent, non-living matter.

And in many of those threads, when believers fail to rebut the criticism of the Christian God that the problem of evil represents, believers try to shift the conversation to some “problem of lack of evil” that they’ve made up.
Aside from being a dodge, it isn’t even the same category of “problem.” The problem of evil is a pathway to a potential logical disproof of the Christian God. The problem of evil is an attempt to show that two tenets of christian thought are contradictory (specifically that evil exists, and God is good.)

But the imagined “problem of lack of evil” is merely a statement of preference. Its an assertion that the believer would prefer it if there were an arbiter of good and evil out there. But that doesn’t even qualify as a philosophical argument. Reality doesn’t care what you would prefer.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

We don’t praise God “for torture”. That is not the Christian outlook.

Suggestion: take a look around you. Show us a person who does not suffer. Show us a person who will not die.
Go ahead. Look around. We’ll wait.

Ok, I will make an assumption that you will find no one who will not suffer, and no one who will not die. Everyone without exception will experience the fullness of life including suffering and death. It’s part of being fully human.

What you will find are people who can be thankful for ALL OF life, “good and bad”. It’s not easy, but that’s the point of life: to accept it all graciously and find meaning in it. Life is not meaningless or pointless, including suffering.

There is thread after thread trying to hold God accountable for bad things, but failing to account God for “good”. Who’s responsible for the good??
That strikes me as whining. (hey, we all do it, it’s ok).

Yes, we know that Stockholm Syndrome is a thing. But the answer to the question “was it right for our captor to put us in this prison?” does not depend on whether or not we’ve fallen in love.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No, it doesn’t assume either of those things. It moves from observations through abductive reasoning to conclusions.

Where? In which part of the catechism?

 

[ANV]

I’m pretty sure if there is any gods, they would be evil. for creating such brutal nature to begin with, that’s for a start, and for doing nothing to stop the suffering, I don’t think the criminal’s free will is more important than the victim’s suffering, creating a prey and predator is enough proof that there is no all loving and/or all powerful gods. If you put a predator near a prey in a cage and watch one devour the other, one crying of pain and for mercy, you would be called a sadistic psycho or a mad scientist, yet how dare we call any God all loving?

 

[reggieM]

Where? In which part of the catechism?

Again, this statement does not assume that God exists. Or perhaps I’m missing something - could you explain where you found that assumption here?

“God the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”

 

[Vico]

I’m pretty sure if there is any gods, they would be evil. for creating such brutal nature to begin with, that’s for a start, and for doing nothing to stop the suffering, I don’t think the criminal’s free will is more important than the victim’s suffering, creating a prey and predator is enough proof that there is no all loving and/or all powerful gods. If you put a predator near a prey in a cage and watch one devour the other, one crying of pain and for mercy, you would be called a sadistic psycho or a mad scientist, yet how dare we call any God all loving?

There are three evils referred in your statement: physical, moral, and metaphysical.

Only that creature with free will could possibly be responsible for a morally evil act, so that leaves out all non-human animals, but includes the angels. Christianity attributes moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. St. Augustine thought that “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist”.

As taught by the Catholic Church humans are given gifts by God that make it possible to act without serious sin. Also suffering is the penal consequence of wilfull disobedience to the law of God.

 

[reggieM]

And in many of those threads, when believers fail to rebut the criticism of the Christian God that the problem of evil represents, believers try to shift the conversation to some “problem of lack of evil” that they’ve made up.

I don’t think that’s quite fair, at least in this thread. The conversation thus far has offered rebuttals. I only put that turn-around in late in the discussion and well-after I defended the problem of evil from a Christian standpoint (and I haven’t seen a very convincing atheist response to any of it, myself).

Aside from being a dodge, it isn’t even the same category of “problem.” The problem of evil is a pathway to a potential logical disproof of the Christian God. The problem of evil is an attempt to show that two tenets of christian thought are contradictory (specifically that evil exists, and God is good.)

It may seem that way, but in fact - it is the argument that should preceed the discussion of the ‘problem of evil in the Christian viewpoint’.
Because it’s a matter of definition and perspective.
How can a person, whose own worldview denies the existence of evil, be outraged about what is claimed to be evil?
I showed this is illogical. The correct argument from the atheist-materialist view is “there is no good or evil”.
But we see here frequently on CAF that atheists adopt a theistic metaphysic in their daily lives and actually use Christian concepts (unconsciously) to argue against theism. This is inconsistent and irrational.

If there is no free-will, then act and speak in a manner consistent with that belief.
If there is no good or evil, only the movements of molecules and survival/reproductive advantage for species - then act and speak in a manner consistent with that view.

To ask “why does evil exist?” would require some acceptance that evil actually does exist. As I showed, from the evolutionary-materialist view, evil does not exist.

Reality doesn’t care what you would prefer.

Well, here I think you’re on the right path. A monist-materialist reality not only does not care what you prefer - it does not care about anything. But we never see any atheists arguing from their own viewpoint (since their view is non-rational and cannot support any argumentation).
Material-reality is deterministic (and arguments can start there as to why anything exists, and why anything moves to an ordered-end even at a molecular level). It is blind, unguided, unintelligent. Why is there order and not all chaos as one would expect from a random dispersion of matter?
So yes, material-reality has no categories for good or evil.
It has no categories for true or false either (in itself). Things just exist. Molecules do not assign meaning or purpose to themselves or anything else.

Its an assertion that the believer would prefer it if there were an arbiter of good and evil out there. But that doesn’t even qualify as a philosophical argument.

It’s not just the believer that is preferring this - my point is, the atheist is preferring an arbiter of good and evil somewhere in the universe. To arbitrate or judge - one would have to be able to distinguish good and evil. As I said, materialist-atheism cannot do this.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It may seem that way, but in fact - it is the argument that should preceed the discussion of the ‘problem of evil in the Christian viewpoint’.
Because it’s a matter of definition and perspective.
How can a person, whose own worldview denies the existence of evil, be outraged about what is claimed to be evil?

The problem of good and evil is a criticism of the theistic viewpoint, so it always proceeds according to theistic definitions of good and evil. Now maybe you’ll say something like “but the atheists cited natural disasters and diseases and stuff” and I’ll say that I don’t see what the problem is. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists. Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc.

This confusion over whose definition of evil is being used only comes up in my experience when the believers start to feel the force of the problem of evil objection, and would like to stop talking about it. To do this, they try to say something like “haha atheists have no grounds for making this objection aren’t they silly.”

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It’s not just the believer that is preferring this - my point is, the atheist is preferring an arbiter of good and evil somewhere in the universe. To arbitrate or judge - one would have to be able to distinguish good and evil. As I said, materialist-atheism cannot do this.

I’ve provided a video which defends our ability to judge from an a-theistic viewpoint against common objections.

youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

 

[reggieM]

The problem of good and evil is a criticism of the theistic viewpoint, so it always proceeds according to theistic definitions of good and evil.

If the conversations proceeded like that, then yes that would be reasonable and we could look at the inner logic of the Catholic view of good and evil, for example. However, my concern was with the kind of outrage that we see offered against God for creating evil.
But I go far beyond that. In the atheistic view, we have no origin even for the values of true and false. Rational argumentation cannot proceed at all. This is not just a snide turn-around but it’s in the nature of atheistic-materialism.

This confusion over whose definition of evil is being used only comes up in my experience when the believers start to feel the force of the problem of evil objection, and would like to stop talking about it. To do this, they try to say something like “haha atheists have no grounds for making this objection aren’t they silly.”

That could be the case, but it’s actually easier and better for believers to start with this argument rather than try to talk about theism first and then remind their opponents that atheists cannot ground values of good and evil, true and false.

The problem is that atheists adopt theistic thinking, in part, but not consistently.

Material reality just exists. There are no values to be found there.

The Encyclopedia article you cited is good and here’s the general definition of evil from the Catholic viewpoint:

It is evident again that all evil is essentially negative and not positive; i.e. it consists not in the acquisition of anything, but in the loss or deprivation of something necessary for perfection.

This is a good summary:

Christian philosophy has, like the Hebrew, uniformly attributed moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. Man has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God, on obedience to which his happiness depended. Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing per se : and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own well-being, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. Augustine, City of God XII). The evil from which man suffers is, however, the condition of good, for the sake of which it is permitted. Thus, “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist” (St. Aug., Enchirid., xxvii). Evil contributes to the perfection of the universe, as shadows to the perfection of a picture, or harmony to that of music (City of God 11). Again, the excellence of God’s works in nature is insisted on as evidence of the Divine wisdom, power, and goodness, by which no evil can be directly caused. (Greg. Nyss., De. opif. hom.) Thus Boethius asks (De Consol. Phil., I, iv) Who can be the author of good, if God is the author of evil? As darkness is nothing but the absence of light, and is not produced by creation, so evil is merely the defect of goodness. (St. Aug., In Gen. as lit.) St. Basil (Hexaem., Hom. ii) points out the educative purposes served by evil; and St. Augustine, holding evil to be permitted for the punishment of the wicked and the trial of the good, shows that it has, under this aspect, the nature of good, and is pleasing to God, not because of what it is, but because of where it is; i.e. as the penal and just consequence of sin (City of God XI.12, De Vera Relig. xliv). Lactantius uses similar arguments to oppose the dilemma, as to the omnipotence and goodness of God, which he puts into the mouth of Epicurus (De Ira Dei, xiii). St. Anselm (Monologium) connects evil with the partial manifestation of good by creation; its fullness being in God alone.