(Almost) Answering the Problem of Evil

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The entirety of human wellbeing is necessarily subjective. We feel. We experience. Everything about that process happens within our own heads. But the moment you stop talking about human wellbeing, you abandon any actual discussion of morality, at least by any definition I'm interested in.

Yup; that's why morality is necessarily subjective.

I'm interested, essentially, in how to form a positive, healthy human society, with the most good and happiness for all. And given that goal, there are objectively worse or better things to do.

Certainly, given some subjective moral goal, such as the utilitarian one of the greatest good & happiness to the greatest number (other moral philosophies are available), we can objectively compare means to determine how best to achieve this goal (this is what science is good at) - but that objective comparison isn't the morality. This is why moral philosophies (particularly utilitarianism) can produce awkward moral dilemmas; e.g. do the means justify the ends? - is it OK to do some intuitively horrible things if they objectively advance the goal of a positive, healthy human society, with the most good and happiness for all? according to your moral goal, it should be OK, but it feels wrong; so how do you deal with that?

 

[SkyWriting]

We have been debating for centuries why an all-powerful God who claims to love us would allow such terrible things to happen.

When man turned from God, He removed us from the Garden and set guards at the gate.
This is not The Garden.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

If a child has bone cancer is that reality or just a problem in our heads?

Saying that pain is subjective isn't the same as saying "It's all in your head, it's not real." It means the experience varies from person to person. Some people (including children) deal with cancer better than others.

If he wanted to teach us a lesson about evil and making the best out of the bad situation then why doesn't he just comes out and speak to us.

The suffering is unnecessary. It is akin to teaching a child not to touch a hot stove by holding its hand to the element yourself, rather then taking the time to simply explain it to the child.

Because many of us simply don't listen.

Rather than a child (who we could argue is too young to understand) a more apt example would be telling adults not to smoke: the effects of smoking have been known for decades, cigarettes are no longer advertised on TV or radio or billboards, smoking is increasingly censored from films, we promote anti-smoking ads and devices, buying cigarettes is getting more and more expensive, and there are fewer and fewer places smoking is allowed. Governments, scientists and doctors all encourage people not to smoke. Unlike overeating (also self-inflicted), smoking isn't necessary for us to live.

And of course every year perfectly intelligent, educated, reasonable adults still die from smoking-related illnesses. They know, and they still don't care. Telling people not to do something does not guarantee that they will listen.

Without God, there would still be hurricanes and earthquakes. You're right that from a naturalistic viewpoint, this poses no problem. The winds and the rocks obey mechanical laws, and there is no one to blame for the ills we suffer. But if you say there is a benevolent god, then the position is inconsistent. The PoE is not circular. It is pointing out that the set of assumptions that typically go with a benevolent 'omni' god are inconsistent.

That doesn't really seem logical: why would something be be evil in a theistic universe, but not evil in an atheistic universe? Presumably they would have the same effects - whether or not God exists, earthquakes and hurricanes would still kill thousands of people a year. They would also still be part of the natural part of Earth's weather system, and it would probably be devastating if they suddenly stopped.

And those people are wrong, and a great many members of their society suffer greatly as a result. These cultural abuses do not somehow become tolerable simply because these people accept them.

Is there any objective way to prove that? Many things we consider terrible today were commonplace a few centuries ago (and still are in some places today) - and yet their societies didn't suffer. The Aztecs sacrifices thousands and were the ruling tribe before the conquistadors came along. The Romans built arenas to watch people kill each other for fun, and their empire lasted 1,300 years. Slavery probably predates civilization.

While I personally believe in objective good and evil, but this is mostly due to my faith - actually proving it is extremely difficult.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That doesn't really seem logical: why would something be be evil in a theistic universe, but not evil in an atheistic universe?

You're the one who said "Without God there is no such thing as evil."

They would also still be part of the natural part of Earth's weather system, and it would probably be devastating if they suddenly stopped.

How would an earthquake not happening be devastating? A creator god could have created a tectonically stable planet without damaging earthquakes.

The problem of "natural evil" is a significant one for theists with a benevolent god.

 

[The Cadet]

Many things we consider terrible today were commonplace a few centuries ago (and still are in some places today) - and yet their societies didn't suffer.

A society is made up of individuals, and it is ultimately the wellbeing of each individual that matters. The wellbeing of that guy whose heart got ripped out on the altar was kind of null and void.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Why would you assume the bolded part? isn't it possible that the conscious entity could actually be malevolent?

If evil is defined as "something that should not exist" (as presented in PoE) the reason it should not exist is that it goes against the will of God, as SkyWriting mentioned. If it is against His will, then we would have to assume He does want us to be affected by evil - so He is not malevolent.

(Though that of course still presents us with the problem of WHY evil exists - which is something we'll probably be debating until the end of time.)

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

A society is made up of individuals, and it is ultimately the wellbeing of each individual that matters. The wellbeing of that guy whose heart got ripped out on the altar was kind of null and void.

If I were to argue that we shouldn't do bad things because the have bad effects, I would be very hard-pressed to prove it: terrible things happen all the time and the world doesn't fall apart. It carries on. Human sacrifice is bad, of course, for the people who died on the alter of the Aztecs or in the Colosseum, but society as a whole didn't suffer - if anything it probably bonded them.

In the utilitarian philosophy that FrumiousBandersnatch mentioned, allowing one person to suffer if it makes others happier is perfectly justifiable.

You're the one who said "Without God there is no such thing as evil."

I mean that it's difficult (if not impossible) to justify the concept of "objective evil" without the existence of God. It wouldn't mean that things have a reason to be suddenly become evil.

Earthquakes for example are the result of the plates of the Earth rising and tearing apart. If that didn't happen erosion would leave the land totally flat: rivers wouldn't flow, rain wouldn't build (no mountains) and without the pressure beneath the plates being released by either earthquakes or volcanoes, there would probably be a lot of violent explosions.

Personally I've always found the phrase "natural evil" to be a contradiction in terms, as we can't say that natural disasters shouldn't happen.

 

[jayem]

If evil is defined as "something that should not exist" (as presented in PoE) the reason it should not exist is that it goes against the will of God, as SkyWriting mentioned. If it is against His will, then we would have to assume He does want us to be affected by evil - so He is not malevolent.

(Though that of course still presents us with the problem of WHY evil exists - which is something we'll probably be debating until the end of time.)

I don't see that the PoE defines evil as something that shouldn't exist. To me, it does as you stated--it questions why evil exists if there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.

 

[juvenissun]

Anyone who actually bother reading my slightly-overlong post will probably have notice that my argument doesn't actually answer the problem of evil at all: why DOESN'T God take away evil?

My only answer is the same answer that's been given hundreds of times: man has free will, and (as Lactantius suggests) problems can bring us closer to God.

There is no solution between God and evil. It is a logical either/or situation.
But if we consider three parameters: God, human and evil. Then there are A LOT investigations can be done.
God -- Human: A lot can be said.
Human -- Evil: A lot can be said.
God -- Evil: A lot can be said now, with human sits in between.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't see that the PoE defines evil as something that shouldn't exist. To me, it does as you stated--it questions why evil exists if there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.

Here is an example: Evil is a tool used by God to train human.
Agreed or not, this is certainly one of the solution to the problem.

 

[quatona]

Here is an example: Evil is a tool used by God to train human.

For what?

 

[juvenissun]

For what?

For whatever. But it answers the question.

 

[jayem]

For whatever. But it answers the question.

So? "Green cheese" answers the question of what is the moon made. Your answer is equally informative.

 

[timewerx]

The saints will be purified by fire, that is all there is to it.

 

[juvenissun]

So? "Green cheese" answers the question of what is the moon made. Your answer is equally informative.

No. It is different.

 

[quatona]

For whatever. But it answers the question.

"Evil is used by God to torture humans for fun" is also an answer to the question.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Saying that pain is subjective isn't the same as saying "It's all in your head, it's not real." It means the experience varies from person to person. Some people (including children) deal with cancer better than others.

But why have child cancer at all? Why does a god who is claimed to love us unconditionally allow these things?

Because many of us simply don't listen.

Rather than a child (who we could argue is too young to understand) a more apt example would be telling adults not to smoke: the effects of smoking have been known for decades, cigarettes are no longer advertised on TV or radio or billboards, smoking is increasingly censored from films, we promote anti-smoking ads and devices, buying cigarettes is getting more and more expensive, and there are fewer and fewer places smoking is allowed. Governments, scientists and doctors all encourage people not to smoke. Unlike overeating (also self-inflicted), smoking isn't necessary for us to live.

And of course every year perfectly intelligent, educated, reasonable adults still die from smoking-related illnesses. They know, and they still don't care. Telling people not to do something does not guarantee that they will listen.

The fundamental problem with this reasoning is that governments, scientists and doctors are comprised of fallible men, and therefore cannot be compared with a god who is omniscient and all powerful.

God could end human suffering or teach us about evil he could at any time and would take no effort from him to devise a perfect plan to enable humans to live in harmony with each other. If I was in his boots I would. I don't see the point in creating something then doing nothing while it suffers needlessly.

 

[juvenissun]

"Evil is used by God to torture humans for fun" is also an answer to the question.

Sure. These kind of answers still need to be evaluated.
But it is one step forward.

What else can be filled in?

Evil is a tool used by God to _____ human.
Obviously, this should be related to the relationship between God and human.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It depends on your axioms or assumptions. In some versions of the PoE, God can exist, in others he cant.

As shown above, for some evil is consistent with divinity, for others it isnt.

Like playing chess, but with two slighly diofferent rules. In one version God is in check, in another he wins every time.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For purposes of a Christian theological discussion I would define "evil" as that which God rather wouldn´t exist (or cannot be in the presence of, or however you would describe that which is reported as being dispproved of by God).

Yes rather wouldnt exist, not absolutely, but relatively to human good. If God is for mankind, he is against evil. He's like big brother giving tips on playing chess with the cosmos. No cosmos, no chess, no problem.