The problem of evil

fisgon

The problem of evil

The problem of evil is a classic problem in theology and philosophy and, though I am an unbeliever, I am interested in the area of religion and was curious about a Christian response to this question. Maybe someone can help me, as it seems insolvable.

The problem is quite simple. In Christianity God is seen as benevolent – all good -, omnipotent – all-powerful – and omniscient – all-knowing. Yet evil exists. Surely if god is all-powerful and all-good he can create a world without evil, without suffering, without pain. If he can’t, he’s not omnipotent, if he won’t he’s not benevolent. There is a problem here for believers.

The classic response, which is valid, is that god has given humanity free-will, and so this explains things like the Holocaust, 9/11, the inquisition, mass-murder,….etc. This is consistent, if you accept the whole Christian package, ie. it is humanity that causes suffering in these cases, not god.

This explains ‘moral evil’, ie the evil done by humans. It doesn’t explain natural evil, the suffering and pain caused by the natural world. There are any number of earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, epidemics etc on record, disasters that have no human element yet which kill innocent and guilty, children and adults, the weak and the strong. God has created the world, and it is the world itself that causes enormous suffering.

One example, among thousands of possible, is the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, which I have been reading about recently. It happened on a Sunday morning, when thousands of people were in church, in a very devout Catholic city. The estimates are that 15,000 people were killed, many of whom were crushed by collapsing churches, many others burned by subsequent fires, or drowned by the tsunami that followed. Most of the city was destroyed, there was starvation and disease after, it was the greatest natural disaster in Europe of the 1700s.

It caused lots of people to question their beliefs. How could a benevolent god allow this to happen? Some of the answers were the inevitable, the earthquake was a punishment from God for the sins of the populace, for not being truly religious and for thinking more about commerce than holiness. Others, Protestants, suggested that it was god’s punishment for idolaters, that it was the Portuguese Catholicism that was the great sin. For others like Voltaire, it called into question the whole Christian story.

So I am interested in a Christian perspective on this question, as this was one of the – admittedly many – factors that originally led me to realise that there was no way I could believe any more, and I can’t see how believers can reconcile the obvious contradictions that this throws up. The ‘natural disaster as punishment’ rationale we have heard in this century, after Hurricane Catrina, and the Tsunami, and it seems full of holes, I mean, where was god when the Nazis were gassing 6 million Jews, wouldn’t that have been a good time for a castigating earthquake? I’m interested to hear the thoughts of believing Christians on this topic.

Soul Winner

fisgon wrote: »

The problem of evil

The problem of evil is a classic problem in theology and philosophy and, though I am an unbeliever, I am interested in the area of religion and was curious about a Christian response to this question. Maybe someone can help me, as it seems insolvable.

The problem is quite simple. In Christianity God is seen as benevolent – all good -, omnipotent – all-powerful – and omniscient – all-knowing. Yet evil exists. Surely if god is all-powerful and all-good he can create a world without evil, without suffering, without pain. If he can’t, he’s not omnipotent, if he won’t he’s not benevolent. There is a problem here for believers.

The classic response, which is valid, is that god has given humanity free-will, and so this explains things like the Holocaust, 9/11, the inquisition, mass-murder,….etc. This is consistent, if you accept the whole Christian package, ie. it is humanity that causes suffering in these cases, not god.

This explains ‘moral evil’, ie the evil done by humans. It doesn’t explain natural evil, the suffering and pain caused by the natural world. There are any number of earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, epidemics etc on record, disasters that have no human element yet which kill innocent and guilty, children and adults, the weak and the strong. God has created the world, and it is the world itself that causes enormous suffering.

One example, among thousands of possible, is the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, which I have been reading about recently. It happened on a Sunday morning, when thousands of people were in church, in a very devout Catholic city. The estimates are that 15,000 people were killed, many of whom were crushed by collapsing churches, many others burned by subsequent fires, or drowned by the tsunami that followed. Most of the city was destroyed, there was starvation and disease after, it was the greatest natural disaster in Europe of the 1700s.

It caused lots of people to question their beliefs. How could a benevolent god allow this to happen? Some of the answers were the inevitable, the earthquake was a punishment from God for the sins of the populace, for not being truly religious and for thinking more about commerce than holiness. Others, Protestants, suggested that it was god’s punishment for idolaters, that it was the Portuguese Catholicism that was the great sin. For others like Voltaire, it called into question the whole Christian story.

So I am interested in a Christian perspective on this question, as this was one of the – admittedly many – factors that originally led me to realise that there was no way I could believe any more, and I can’t see how believers can reconcile the obvious contradictions that this throws up. The ‘natural disaster as punishment’ rationale we have heard in this century, after Hurricane Catrina, and the Tsunami, and it seems full of holes, I mean, where was god when the Nazis were gassing 6 million Jews, wouldn’t that have been a good time for a castigating earthquake? I’m interested to hear the thoughts of believing Christians on this topic.

We have had this before, heck I even started a thread on it myself some time back which I think deals with the so called "problem" of evil quite well. Let me summarize. If evil exists then God must exist. Reason: Evil can be defined as the way things should NOT be. If evil can be defined as the way things should NOT be then that presuppose that there is a way that things SHOULD be. Now how can there be a way that things SHOULD without God? So if evil does in fact exist then God exists also. So to stop believing in God because of the evil that is in the world is just being short sighted and illogical. Unless you want to call the so called evil that is in the world something else? Socially unacceptable behavior that is not conducive to our survival as a species perhaps?

lugha

Soul Winner wrote: »

Evil can be defined as the way things should NOT be.

A rather curious definition I say. This better defines untidy than evil. What evil do you see in the world that you feel can be accommodated by your definition?

Soul Winner

lugha wrote: »

A rather curious definition I say. This better defines untidy than evil. What evil do you see in the world that you feel can be accommodated by your definition?

Ask the OP he brought it up.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now how can there be a way that things SHOULD without God?

You are going to have to explain why God is required for there to be a way things should be. Is it simply lack of imagination?

fisgon

First of all, apologies for the repetition, I didn't realise that there was a previous thread on the same topic. Still, I don't see an answer to my question there, so .....

Soul Winner wrote: »

If evil exists then God must exist. Reason: Evil can be defined as the way things should NOT be. If evil can be defined as the way things should NOT be then that presuppose that there is a way that things SHOULD be. Now how can there be a way that things SHOULD without God?

I'm afraid I don't follow this logic at all. Humans have given the words 'good' and 'evil' to that which is desirable, and that which is not, to put it simply, and why this presupposes the existence of a god is beyond me. You don't need a god to know that dying a horrible, untimely death is bad, and living a long and happy life is good.

Also, I've actually read through the previous thread and found it interesting, but not very illuminating. My question is more, i suppose, about the nature of god in Christianity, and this simply wasn't answered in the previous thread. I repeat...how can you have a god who is supposedly benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, when there exists natural evil in the world? God can certainly exist, but he can't be all of these things, maybe he can't do anything about natural evil, then he is not omnipotent, or he doesn't want to, and so is not benevolent. How can you have an all-good, all-powerful god who allows needless suffering to take place? Sure you can have a supreme being, but why would you want to follow such a being that stands by while great pain and misery exist?

Soul Winner

fisgon wrote: »

First of all, apologies for the repetition, I didn't realise that there was a previous thread on the same topic. Still, I don't see an answer to my question there, so .....




I'm afraid I don't follow this logic at all. Humans have given the words 'good' and 'evil' to that which is desirable, and that which is not, to put it simply, and why this presupposes the existence of a god is beyond me. You don't need a god to know that dying a horrible, untimely death is bad, and living a long and happy life is good.

Also, I've actually read through the previous thread and found it interesting, but not very illuminating. My question is more, i suppose, about the nature of god in Christianity, and this simply wasn't answered in the previous thread. I repeat...how can you have a god who is supposedly benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, when there exists natural evil in the world? God can certainly exist, but he can't be all of these things, maybe he can't do anything about natural evil, then he is not omnipotent, or he doesn't want to, and so is not benevolent. How can you have an all-good, all-powerful god who allows needless suffering to take place? Sure you can have a supreme being, but why would you want to follow such a being that stands by while great pain and misery exist?

Let us assume for a second that you are right and that there is no God. And that we are still living in a world which still has these things going on. If you are going to call these things evil then you must first define what evil is. So please define what evil is and then we can proceed into the discussion of whether your definition of evil is incompatible with the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. If God doesn’t exist then all that does exist is nature, in which all events which happen therein are just natural events including all your aforementioned. So now you must define what evil means in such a naturalistic universe. Let me help you, you can only define evil as stuff you don’t like very much in such a universe. Which means that your question should read: How can a good all powerful being exist in a universe where stuff I don’t like very much happens all the time? If such a being did exist then why should His allowing of such things that you don’t like very much suggest to your mind that He mustn’t exist? Do you see what appealing to the problem of evil as a proof that there is no God does? We go around in circles; it is not a good argument.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let us assume for a second that you are right and that there is no God. And that we are still living in a world which still has these things going on. If you are going to call these things evil then you must first define what evil is. So please define what evil is and then we can proceed into the discussion of whether your definition of evil is incompatible with the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. If God doesn’t exist then all that does exist is nature in which all events which happen therein are just natural events including all your aforementioned. So now you must define what evil means in such a naturalistic universe. Let me help you, you can only define evil as stuff you don’t like very much in such a universe. Which means that your question should read: How can an good all powerful being exist in a universe where things I don’t like very much happen all the time? If such a being did exist then why should His allowing of such things that you don’t like very mush suggest to your mind that He mustn’t exist? Do you see what appealing to the problem of evil as a proof that there is no God does? We go around in circles; it is not a good argument.

What on earth is going on here, it is a very simple question:

Why do unwanted natural disasters happens?
Why are you skirting the question?

Anyways, If I may ::)

One has actually to ask first whether earthquakes serve a secondary purpose..for example lightning is believed to be destructive - yet scientific evidence suggests that it is a vital process to survival of life as we know it on this planet.

NOAA wrote:

The earth benefits from lightning in several ways. First, lightning helps the Earth maintain electrical balance. ... Lightning helps plants. The air in our atmosphere is about 78% nitrogen, but it is in a form that plants cannot use. Lightning helps dissolve the nitrogen into the water to create a natural fertilizer so plants can absorb it through their roots..... Lightning also produces ozone, a gas that helps protect the Earth from the dangerous rays of the sun.

Such intricacies of this planet are hard to understand. Before saying that God is negligent one must show beyond doubt that so called natural disasters are really disasters not necessities.
Obviously, if one believes the earth was designed then the question still remains valid as to why the design is so darned quirky -> take that ID!

Morbert

The problem of evil isn't really an accurate term for the philosophical conundrum. It should really be called the problem of malevolence. God is described as benevolent, yet He acts malevolently by inflicting harm on people and animals. This seems to be a contradiction.

There have been attempts to solve the problem (e.g. It's really our fault that bad things happen) but the only answer that really stands up is the argument "God moves in mysterious ways". In otherwords, we can't justify what God does, so we should assume that He knows what He's doing.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

The problem of evil isn't really an accurate term for the philosophical conundrum. It should really be called the problem of malevolence. God is described as benevolent, yet He acts malevolently by inflicting harm on people and animals. This seems to be a contradiction.

There have been attempts to solve the problem (e.g. It's really our fault that bad things happen) but the only answer that really stands up is the argument "God moves in mysterious ways". In otherwords, we can't justify what God does, so we should assume that He knows what He's doing.

The God of the Old Testament did some pretty terrible things to people and did some pretty good things too, so if He exists then He is not bound by any methods in which He must act. His actions although bad for some and good for others are always done in accordance with His Word of promise. So the best thing to do in order to deal with such a being is to take Him at His Word and live accordingly. He has promised blessings for those who live this way and curses on those who don't, if He exists then He knows who is living in accordance with this principle and who are not.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

The God of the Old Testament did some pretty terrible things to people and did some pretty good things too, so if He exists then He is not bound by any methods in which He must act. His actions although bad for some and good for others are always done in accordance with His Word of promise. So the best thing to do in order to deal with such a being is to take Him at His Word and live accordingly. He has promised blessings for those who live this way and curses on those who don't, if He exists then He knows who is living in accordance with this principle and who are not.

To be honest, I prefer eschatological outlooks which suggest that suffering is ultimately temporary, and that everyone will be saved. It seems more consistent with modern Christianity. A curse of eternal suffering does not sound like something a loving God would implement, even if He regards free will highly.

Fanny Cradock

OK, seems as it's a big question, I'm sure we can accommodate another thread.

I don't imagine I will be doing anything other than repeating, in less sufficient words, the ideas originally produced by considerably better thinkers than myself. But I'll bite, nevertheless.

The problems of evil and suffering are perhaps the greatest challenges to face the Christian's assertion that there is a God and he possesses qualities like omnipotence etc. Rather than answer your question in philosophical terms - I would heartily recommend listening to talks by Os Guinness or Peter Kreeft for some contemporary attempts to square the circle, so to speak - I think that a theological perspective might prove more useful. Of course, for this exercise, I would think that you will have to put yourself in the mind of the believer.

If you look back to the beliefs of the earliest Christians, you will notice they thought that the cosmos was a incomplete project. In other words, the universe and everything in it (both prior and post "Fall") was never going to be the end of creation. Rather, it was still at the beginning. The early Christians believed that the culmination of God's plan was to be an amalgamation of heaven and earth. So, for example, Revelation Ch 21 talks about "a new heaven and a new earth".

After the Fall, and I think it is important to stress that Christians have subscribed to a literal and metaphorical understanding of Genesis going back far before Darwin, the whole project was knocked off kilter by sin. Evil had entered the world and things began to go wrong. (At this point there are some philosophical questions raised about the nature of evil and if "freewill" is a sufficient explanation to explain evil entering into the world, but the links I provided might cover those.) I think it important to point out that I believe death and decay were always part of this world but after the Fall they were somehow linked to evil and perpetuated by it. I'll admit that my thinking is quite fuzzy on this matter.

So the claim is that there is evil in the world and that God:

1) Couldn't do anything about it;

2) Or he is unwilling to do anything.

The first premise is tricky and is probably best answered by a philosophical argument that hinges on the freewill argument. Again, I wont go into that.

The second premise is of more interest to me at the moment. I believe that this accusation can be met head on by what Christians believe the resurrection of Jesus heralded for everything and everyone.

Above I outlined the hope of the earliest Christians. They were focused, not on a platonic influenced belief in an afterlife involving disembodied "souls" floating around heaven.Rather, they firmly believed that life after death would ultimately involve a new and transformed physical existence here on a new type of earth. (Stay with me! I'm getting to the point!) They saw the resurrection of Jesus meant that the tyranny of evil and death had been overthrown and new creation, which is free of these things, was ushered in through him. In other words, the resurrected Jesus was alpha of all new creation. Indeed, this is why Christians speak of being "born again". And even though Christians still wait for "Kingdom come" all these many years later, the death and resurrection of Jesus is proof to us that God has done something about evil, death and suffering. With the ultimate promise being that these things will be expunged from new creation.

Of course, one might retort that such a thing might be fine in principal, but what about the suffering happening now. To this, I guess, I would say two things. Firstly, I would point you towards people who believe that God does help them through moments of suffering and evil. Secondly, and somewhat controversially, I would suggest that it is possible that God - for whatever reason - isn't primarily occupied with ending evil and human suffering (much of which is caused by or own (in)direct (in)actions) - at least not in accordance with our time schedule. I realise that I'm slipping into conjecture here, but I wonder if there are a certain set of circumstances that must arise before the creation project that the earliest Christians had a much clearer understanding of becomes apparent to all.

Finally, I would suggest that if evil is a problem for the Christian, belief in an objective thing call "good" is as much of a problem for the non-believer. After all, where is it that good comes from? Even a rebuttal from a morally relativistic position seems to me to open some deep and troubling questions about the fundamentals of all morality.

Helix

fisgon wrote: »

One example, among thousands of possible, is the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, which I have been reading about recently. It happened on a Sunday morning, when thousands of people were in church, in a very devout Catholic city. The estimates are that 15,000 people were killed, many of whom were crushed by collapsing churches, many others burned by subsequent fires, or drowned by the tsunami that followed. Most of the city was destroyed, there was starvation and disease after, it was the greatest natural disaster in Europe of the 1700s.

It caused lots of people to question their beliefs. How could a benevolent god allow this to happen?

whether or not theres a god, surely anyone can see that this happened because of inevitable tectonic plate movement?

why look to blame or priase god for every single thing that happens? im an athiest, but seriously, if there IS a god im sure the odds of him actually orchestrating every single thing in the universe are slim. IF hes there, surely its more likely that he just set things in motion here, and then moved off somewhere else to do the same?

Fanny Cradock

This is the Christianity forum, not the Deism forum. Still, I don't believe that God is playing shuffleboard with the Earth's tectonic plates, either.

PDN

I see two approaches here.

One is that Creation itself necessitates the existence of what we call evil. Evil itself has no objective existence. It is simply an absence of good. The more good that is missing, the more evil we see. Just as darkness is a lack of light, cold is a lack of heat, so evil is a lack of good.

According to Christian belief God is the only entity that is infinitely good. We also believe, as monotheists, that there is only one God. Therefore, God would not create other infinitely good entities, for that would be polytheism. Nor would he create the universe as simply part of Himself - for that would be pantheism. So, for a creation to exist distinct from the Creator does in itself necessitate the existence of things that are less than infinitely good. That means that evil, or the lack of good, is inevitable in any creation.

So the problem is not really the existence of evil, but why there is so much of it!

I like Malty_T's ideas about lightning etc, and I've referred to this in similar threads before. Everything that we call 'natural disaster' actually has a part to play in this wonderfully complex biosphere on which we live. They only become a natural disaster because we are in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.

For example, if you choose to lie face down in a dry river bed even a moderate shower of rain will become a natural disaster in that it will create the necessary few inches of water necessary to go in your nostrils and to drown you.

The Christian doctrine of the Fall posits that we were originally created to share close communion with God but we cut ourselves off by our sin. It could well be that in our original state we had sufficient communication with God to ensure that we were unharmed by 'natural disasters' but lived in harmony with them as beneficial natural forces. In that case it all comes down to a free will defence which, as the OP admits, is valid and consistent if you accept the whole Christian package.

fisgon

I posed the original question, and finally i think we are getting somewhere with some possible explanations, after a rocky start.

One Christian perspective seems to be that of the idea of the Fall, and how this has soured man's relationship with god, which has brought evil into the world. This is interesting, but presupposes an acceptance of the whole doctrine of original sin, which to me as a non-christian seems bizarre and actually quite damaging. It gives a picture of humanity as fundamentally contemptible and shameful, because of some supposed sin by Adam and Eve. I know that even many Christians don't give much attention to the Fall.

Another approach seems to be that natural evil is necessary so that good can exist too, and that god couldn't build a perfect world because he himself is perfect and didn't want to make an extension of himself. This too is an interesting perspective, i think.

A third view, coming from a number of posts, is that which believers seem to ultimately rely on with this question, that is, we trust in God, we believe he knows what he's doing, even if we don't understand it. In the end, I think that that is the only way for Christians to resolve this problem, to not question, to accept and trust. Of course I am a contrary person and find it hard to accept something that seems to me blatantly absurd.

I am an unbeliever, but am interested in religious points of view and rationales, and have heard some interesting stuff here.

The contradiction still remains.....I have had as much religious education in my childhood and teens as anyone else in this country, and have heard all of the assertions that 'God is love', to 'trust in god', that 'God will look after you', that 'god loves all his creation equally'. Yet this is blatantly not true. Religious people pray for intervention from god in the everyday, and so obviously believe that he does have the power to change what happens here on earth. Yet children in China are still crushed by schools collapsing during earthquakes, pandemics arise and infect and kill many of the weak and vulnerable in the world - those who we are asked to believe god protects - and even in the example i mentioned thousands of people were crushed in churches, while praying, while trusting in god to look after them, during the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. Sure the problem of natural evil doesn't stop god existing, but it certainly does give the lie to the idea of a loving god that looks after all of us equally, that takes care of us individually, that is interested in our welfare. What we are left with is a capricious god that helps some people and leaves others to suffer and die. Believers tend to thank god for the good things that they have, and yet absolve him of blame for the terrors, which i suppose is a necessary approach so as one can maintain faith. That kind of thinking I would find very difficult.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Finally, I would suggest that if evil is a problem for the Christian, belief in an objective thing call "good" is as much of a problem for the non-believer. After all, where is it that good comes from? Even a rebuttal from a morally relativistic position seems to me to open some deep and troubling questions about the fundamentals of all morality.

The position that's called "moral relativism", at least in the form that it appears to be known and understood by religious people, is really quite nonsensical and I'm certainly not aware of anybody who holds it, though I am certainly aware of plenty of religious people who think it's common or universal amongst the non-religious. Don't any religious people find that misapprehension interesting?

Most non-religious people believe that societal concepts of "good" and "bad" and the operation of what's referred to as "morality" in general are culturally defined, and differ enormously from society to society, and change over time within societies. The idea that there exists an objective thing called "good" is disproved by the very simple observation that -- outside of a few basics like don't lie, don't cheat, don't hurt -- few societies agree on who can do what to (or with) whom, and under which circumstances. Even within religions and denominations within religions, people are known disagree fundamentally about what's good and bad (say something like abortion, of which, AFAIR, around 50% of US catholics appear to be in favour). For a book-length exploration of a society whose rules most of us would find alien, check out Dan Everett's excellent Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes, in which he documents his time living with a tiny Amazonian tribe.

And with respect to the fundamentals of honesty, co-operation and prohibition on dangerous violence and so on, there are excellent and well-understood reasons why these rules exist in all societies. There are no "deep or troubling questions" about them at all and comprehensive descriptions of why they exist can be found in any introductory text on evolutionary psychology.

Zombrex

You had a good article (possibly Wikipedia) about some guys stages of moral understanding, that moved from a more primiative concept of morality from authority (do this because our god/king/leader says you have to) to a more modern view of morality as a contract between the members of society

what was that called (it was named after someone) and do you still have that link?

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

what was that called (it was named after someone) and do you still have that link?

Was it Kohlberg's stages of moral development?

Kohlberg's description isn't perfect by any means, and it certainly works in variously different ways in different cultures, but it's certainly useful as a basic framework upon which to pin observations about how people see their own rule-following behaviour, and how they see other people's rule-following behaviour.

Without wishing to offend any religious people, it often appears to me that much of what's referred to as religious morality -- while claiming to operate at something akin to level three -- actually operates largely at level one in Kohlberg's scheme.

.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

The position that's called "moral relativism", at least in the form that it appears to be known and understood by religious people, is really quite nonsensical and I'm certainly not aware of anybody who holds it, though I am certainly aware of plenty of religious people who think it's common or universal amongst the non-religious. Don't any religious people find that misapprehension interesting?

Actually, my experience has taught me that most Christians would fit into the morally relativistic bracket, too. I don't suppose that I hold anything other than a minority opinion, and, therefore, this "us and them" divide you put up is rather unnecessary. Indeed, your factoid about the 50:50 split between US Catholics over the moral hot potato that is abortion suggests that Christians are as prone to disagreement over moral issues as the rest of mankind.

robindch wrote: »

Most non-religious people believe that societal concepts of "good" and "bad" and the operation of what's referred to as "morality" in general are culturally defined, and differ enormously from society to society, and change over time within societies. The idea that there exists an objective thing called "good" is disproved by the very simple observation that -- outside of a few basics like don't lie, don't cheat, don't hurt -- few societies agree on who can do what to (or with) whom, and under which circumstances.

OK, there are no moral absolutes between societies. I guess I'll just ignore the exceptions you gave.

Also, as I haven't actually claimed that there was consensus on moral issues, I don't actually give it any weight. For this matter, I have never denied that culture shifts the moral Zeitgeist. You seem to have hopped on a rather off the cuff sentence at the end of my post and inferred a little too much.

robindch wrote: »

And with respect to the fundamentals of honesty, co-operation and prohibition on dangerous violence and so on, there are excellent and well-understood reasons why these rules exist in all societies. There are no "deep or troubling questions" about them at all and comprehensive descriptions of why they exist can be found in any introductory text on evolutionary psychology.

Yes, very good. But, again, leaving aside the snotty undertones of your post, I never actually claimed that good explanations aren't available for these cross cultural rules you mention. I did not claim that they magically just so happen to exist.


Anyway, the problem of evil ...

JimiTime

Here's a waking thought I had this morning. Is 'Evil' and 'Badness' the same thing? A few examples. The account of Elisha and the she-bears, it says that Elisha called down 'evil' from God. Is this a mistranslation? Or does the word 'Evil' originate from a meaning we don't associate it with today?

Also, in the account of Adam and Eve, there were two tree's, one of life the other of 'knowledge of good and bad'. Now, if we say that evil entered the world through Satan and the fall, then how was there a tree of knowledge of Good and Bad, before the fall?


Woah, this is heavy..

PDN

robindch wrote: »

The idea that there exists an objective thing called "good" is disproved by the very simple observation that -- outside of a few basics like don't lie, don't cheat, don't hurt -- few societies agree on who can do what to (or with) whom, and under which circumstances.

Dear me. Do you really think that disproves anything? This is most worrying considering how often you have debated in other threads about proof and evidence. This rather causes me to treat with a pinch of salt anything that you claim to have been disproved or demonstrated by evidence.

The fact that different societies disagree on what is good simply demonstrates that they cannot all be correct in their ideas of goodness. Logically it certainly does not disprove the existence of an objective thing called "good". It is logically possible that one society is correct and the rest are all wrong, and it is also possible that all the societies are wrong but that an objective thing called "good" exists nonetheless.

Soul Winner

fisgon wrote: »

...after a rocky start...

That was no rocky start, that was a reality check. You must first define evil before pontificating that what you call evil is something that is incompatible with the concept of the Judeo-Christian God. Please define what evil is first, and do it in the frame of reference that there is no Judeo-Christian God.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, in the account of Adam and Eve, there were two tree's, one of life the other of 'knowledge of good and bad'. Now, if we say that evil entered the world through Satan and the fall, then how was there a tree of knowledge of Good and Bad, before the fall?


Woah, this is heavy..

Woah, indeed!

I suspect that evil (or the potential for it) existed before we came along. But that is not to say that it will forever be like this. I'm not sure we have enough info to go on to produce an "answer" that is anything other than conjecture. But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and there exist some intellectually satisfying explanations out there!

*Slumps over keyboard exausted by mental effort*

fisgon

Soul Winner wrote: »

That was no rocky start, that was a reality check. You must first define evil before pontificating that what you call evil is something that is incompatible with the concept of the Judeo-Christian God. Please define what evil is first, and do it in the frame of reference that there is no Judeo-Christian God.

I'm really not sure what your confusion is, and what your obsession with defining evil is either. Other posters seem to have grasped the very simple question that I have put forward, and have made honest attempts to answer what is quite a profound dilemma for believers and non-believers. If you read the whole post of mine that you quoted you will see I have laid out the issue very simply, with a number of examples. If you need me to repeat it, i will.

Christians believe that god is benevolent, is interested in human beings' welfare, is looking after all his creation. God will help, say believers, trust in god, he will look after us. Yet natural evil exists....floods, earthquakes, disease, tsunamis, drought, famine, and in fact ususally affect the poorest and most vulnerable of people. Presumably god is able to intervene and stop the enormous suffering that these cause, yet does nothing. How do you reconcile a caring, loving god with the being that stands by and does nothing, or else only seems to help and save some people, on a basis that seems random? The question really doesn't need to be complicated any further.

wolfsbane

fisgon wrote: »

The contradiction still remains.....I have had as much religious education in my childhood and teens as anyone else in this country, and have heard all of the assertions that 'God is love', to 'trust in god', that 'God will look after you', that 'god loves all his creation equally'. Yet this is blatantly not true. Religious people pray for intervention from god in the everyday, and so obviously believe that he does have the power to change what happens here on earth. Yet children in China are still crushed by schools collapsing during earthquakes, pandemics arise and infect and kill many of the weak and vulnerable in the world - those who we are asked to believe god protects - and even in the example i mentioned thousands of people were crushed in churches, while praying, while trusting in god to look after them, during the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. Sure the problem of natural evil doesn't stop god existing, but it certainly does give the lie to the idea of a loving god that looks after all of us equally, that takes care of us individually, that is interested in our welfare. What we are left with is a capricious god that helps some people and leaves others to suffer and die. Believers tend to thank god for the good things that they have, and yet absolve him of blame for the terrors, which i suppose is a necessary approach so as one can maintain faith. That kind of thinking I would find very difficult.

It is no reflection on you, but the platitudes you heard about God are not Biblical. They are a mix of human reasoning and God's truth.

They contain some of His truth - God is love, for example - but on its own that is easily misunderstood. God is also holy, just, etc. When we get a fuller picture of His character, then the reality we see in the world makes more sense.

The initial conditions of the world were perfect: no death, sorrow or suffering. That is how it was meant to be - man and animal in perfect relationship to God and one another.

Man sinned and he and all his dominion became subject to suffering and death, and the sorrow that brings. I know you have a problem about the sinful nature passing down to all mankind, but that is the Biblical message.

Yes, God cares for His people and will bring them safely home to Himself. But that does not mean they will not suffer in this life. The consequences of sin - suffering and death - are not removed until the Last Day.

Nor does it mean that all mankind are going to be saved. Many are going to continue in their sin and unbelief and end up in hell.

The 'problem of evil' is no problem for God, only for sinful men. God could have chosen not to create angels or men, and so sin would not have arisen. But He chose to express His love and power in creating angels and men (both moral beings). How can we say He was wrong to do so? What do we know?

The sin was ours, and the consequences also. God in His goodness and mercy chose to save many sinners, and to do so had to atone for their sins Himself. This is the supreme manifestation of His love and righteousness - that He suffered the due penalty for our sins, that we might become His children again.