(Almost) Answering the Problem of Evil

[quatona]

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.

Sort of the good old "God created a problem so that there could be a solution"?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Either that or evoluiton did it.

 

[quatona]

Either that or evoluiton did it.

Or God created evolution to do it.
Now, evolution isn´t considered an omnibenevolent entity (actually it isn´t even thought of as acting intentionally - thus "evolution did it so that there could be a solution" is an inaccurate statement), so I´m not sure how your remark is relevant for the topic at hand.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

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.

For the sake of argument, let's say God has already done this: a lot of the (seemingly) bizarre and brutal laws in the Old Testament are now thought to be related to hygiene. Pigs for example carry far more parasites and diseases than other livestock, which is probably why it was forbidden to eat them. Rather than waiting for centuries for scientists and doctors to figure out why people are more likely to die after eating pork rather than beef, God just comes straight out and says "Don't eat pigs." Chances are most people still wouldn't listen.

We could argue that we are more likely to listen to doctors and scientists rather than God because the scientists have studies and evidence to back up what they say, whereas we are expected to listen to God just because He says so. We could also argue that we should listen to God (or the Bible) because He is all-knowing, whereas doctors and scientists are fallible humans, and their studies can be wrong.

Even if God were to come down and explain WHY He has forbidden us to eat pork (using germ theory,parasite life cycles etc.) we probably still wouldn't listen - because we wouldn't accept it as the truth until we discovered it for ourselves. Not to mention 3,000 years ago none of these theories would have made the slightest bit of sense to the Hebrews.

Most of us don't refuse to do what we're told because we don't understand - we refuse because we don't want to. Free will, rather than ignorance, is the culprit.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I think part of the reason many of us (especially the non-religious users) find the idea that we can learn from evil and suffering abhorrent is because we are still clinging to the idea that "diabolical evil" is something that shouldn't exist and should be destroyed. If something that shouldn't exist can be useful - because we can learn from it - then it becomes hard to argue that we should get rid of it.

To use a random example: the Zika virus in Brazil causes severe birth defects in babies if their mothers catch it while pregnant. What could we possibly learn from this? ...Actually quite a lot:

• Biologically: we can see how viruses evolve, how they spread via mosquitoes, how it affects the development of the foetus etc.
• Society: in recent decades people have learned to be far more accepting of disabled people. If people are more accepting perhaps there will be fewer abortions.
• Personally: parents learn that having a disabled child is not in the end of the world and that they can still bring a lot of joy into their lives.
• Medically: if we can learn what causes the birth defects then perhaps we can also learn how to cure it.

But maybe that last part is debatable... if there are so many potential benefits to the virus, then why would we want to get rid of it?

Even if we do get rid of it - how? Do we destroy the virus? Destroy the mosquito that carries the virus? Destroy the forests the mosquitoes that carry the virus live in? That last part might sound a bit extreme, but keep in mind that building hospitals and day centres and special needs schools (all of which the affected babies and parents will need because of that damned virus) often destroys large parts of the environment.

So - the virus itself (potentially) has a lot of upsides whereas fighting the virus (again, potentially) has a lot of downsides. How then can we argue that the virus is evil e.g. shouldn't exist, and the only way to deal with evil is to get rid of it?

 

[The Cadet]

For the sake of argument, let's say God has already done this: a lot of the (seemingly) bizarre and brutal laws in the Old Testament are now thought to be related to hygiene. Pigs for example carry far more parasites and diseases than other livestock, which is probably why it was forbidden to eat them. Rather than waiting for centuries for scientists and doctors to figure out why people are more likely to die after eating pork rather than beef, God just comes straight out and says "Don't eat pigs." Chances are most people still wouldn't listen.

Okay, but let's just compare two different points:

A) The bible was written by man
B) The bible was written by God

In scenario A), we'd expect a simplistic, naive interpretation of the evidence. "Pig is unclean. Don't eat pig." No caveats, no talk of eventualities where pigs are perfectly fine to eat in the future (in Bavaria, we eat a lot of pig), no talk of how to cleanse the meat, just don't ever eat it. Those are all things we should expect in scenario B). If God is coming down to tell us how to best live life, why on earth would his last word on pigs be "They are unclean; do not eat them or touch their carcasses"? Why not some caveat, like "Pigs are unclean; should thou find a way to cleanse the pig, only then may thou eat it"? Heck, he could even explain how to cleanse the pig! The Hindus and Buddhists seem to have figured this one out; why couldn't God have explained it?
Instead, it's presented less as a "warning: if you do this you're gonna have a bad time" and more as a moral commandment - "This is unclean, thou shalt not eat it". That makes no sense.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

If God is coming down to tell us how to best live life, why on earth would his last word on pigs be "They are unclean; do not eat them or touch their carcasses"? Why not some caveat, like "Pigs are unclean; should thou find a way to cleanse the pig, only then may thou eat it"? Heck, he could even explain how to cleanse the pig! The Hindus and Buddhists seem to have figured this one out; why couldn't God have explained it?

Like I said earlier, instructions on how to make pigs edible probably would not have made sense to people living 3,000 years ago. Even if they were willing to follow what He said despite the fact that it didn't made sense (because He is God and we should do as He says), they simply didn't have the technology required to make it safe to eat - they couldn't manufacture antibiotics, for example. Another reason why pork (rather than lamb, beef, chicken etc.) is more hazardous to eat is because, for whatever reason, pigs seems far more prone to parasites and diseases than other animals. It is more difficult to make pig meat sanitary enough to eat than it does other livestock.

For people living in the desert 3,000 years ago, with no means of technology to make an "unclean" animal clean and with plenty of other meat options available, simply telling them not to eat it makes more sense.

As for whether it should be a moral or a hygiene law, I'd look at the smoking debate again: it is simply unhealthy to smoke, or is it morally wrong (given that we now know most of the consequences and choose to smoke anyway)?

 

[The Cadet]

Like I said earlier, instructions on how to make pigs edible probably would not have made sense to people living 3,000 years ago. Even if they were willing to follow what He said despite the fact that it didn't made sense (because He is God and we should do as He says), they simply didn't have the technology required to make it safe to eat - they couldn't manufacture antibiotics, for example. Another reason why pork (rather than lamb, beef, chicken etc.) is more hazardous to eat is because, for whatever reason, pigs seems far more prone to parasites and diseases than other animals. It is more difficult to make pig meat sanitary enough to eat than it does other livestock.

For people living in the desert 3,000 years ago, with no means of technology to make an "unclean" animal clean and with plenty of other meat options available, simply telling them not to eat it makes more sense.

As for whether it should be a moral or a hygiene law, I'd look at the smoking debate again: it is simply unhealthy to smoke, or is it morally wrong (given that we now know most of the consequences and choose to smoke anyway)?

You act like people 3000 years ago weren't, y'know, people. Like they were animals, when in fact the difference between them and us has almost exclusively to do with level of education, level of technology, and upbringing. All things that an active God (and let's not pretend that God wasn't active in those days, at least according to the bible) could easily change, even without violating anyone's free will. He could send a prophet, impress the people with some magic tricks, and have that prophet teach them about... Well, anything. "There are these little demons, too small for us to see, that come out when you poop. They can multiply within your body and make you very sick. If you take lye and ash and wash your hands carefully with them after you're done, it will kill many of these tiny demons and help keep you healthy." Is that any more absurd or hard for an ancient civilization to follow than "kill and burn these particular animals in this particular way"? (Not that such offerings have any demonstrable advantage to a person's health... Or would you like to have the old testament cure for Leprosy?)

And it's not like pigs are this hugely dangerous, toxic animal. They don't need to be prepped like a puffer fish. People have been keeping pigs as livestock since 10,000 BCE. Indeed, it seems that the Abrahamic aversion to pork is far more a cultural thing, not a disease thing. This makes the idea that it's simply about disease even more untenable.

 

[Chany]

I think part of the reason many of us (especially the non-religious users) find the idea that we can learn from evil and suffering abhorrent is because we are still clinging to the idea that "diabolical evil" is something that shouldn't exist and should be destroyed. If something that shouldn't exist can be useful - because we can learn from it - then it becomes hard to argue that we should get rid of it.

To use a random example: the Zika virus in Brazil causes severe birth defects in babies if their mothers catch it while pregnant. What could we possibly learn from this? ...Actually quite a lot:

• Biologically: we can see how viruses evolve, how they spread via mosquitoes, how it affects the development of the foetus etc.
• Society: in recent decades people have learned to be far more accepting of disabled people. If people are more accepting perhaps there will be fewer abortions.
• Personally: parents learn that having a disabled child is not in the end of the world and that they can still bring a lot of joy into their lives.
• Medically: if we can learn what causes the birth defects then perhaps we can also learn how to cure it.

But maybe that last part is debatable... if there are so many potential benefits to the virus, then why would we want to get rid of it?

Even if we do get rid of it - how? Do we destroy the virus? Destroy the mosquito that carries the virus? Destroy the forests the mosquitoes that carry the virus live in? That last part might sound a bit extreme, but keep in mind that building hospitals and day centres and special needs schools (all of which the affected babies and parents will need because of that damned virus) often destroys large parts of the environment.

So - the virus itself (potentially) has a lot of upsides whereas fighting the virus (again, potentially) has a lot of downsides. How then can we argue that the virus is evil e.g. shouldn't exist, and the only way to deal with evil is to get rid of it?

You are saying "evils exists to teach us about other evils so we can eliminate evils." None of this would be a problem if evil didn't exist.

It is next to impossible to accept the notion that all current natural evil is absolutely necessary for mankind to understand evil. How does having another disease somehow make our understanding of evil any better? We've already dealt with thousands of diseases before. Do we really need another? Again, the only reason we would have to know about evil is to deal with evil. You would have to show how knowledge of the concept of pain and suffering is logically impossible to transmit by a method other than the current level of suffering. If it is logically possible to transmit such knowledge without suffering, then it is hard to justify why we should have to experience any pain, let alone the amount we currently experience in the world, if there is a being who can do all things logically possible who only want the best for us.

Also, this is a very "ends justify the means" way of approaching the topic. It seems to imply that the only reason I cannot perform evil actions to teach people lessons is that I do not possess knowledge of all the possible outcomes. It seems wrong to claim the only reason I cannot murder is because I am not knowledgeable enough; killing should be wrong within the notion of killing itself, not some consequentialist argument of the "greater good".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Or God created evolution to do it.
Now, evolution isn´t considered an omnibenevolent entity (actually it isn´t even thought of as acting intentionally - thus "evolution did it so that there could be a solution" is an inaccurate statement), so I´m not sure how your remark is relevant for the topic at hand.

Replace "so" with "such"?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Have you heard of St Augustines theodicy? Evil is the absence of good. Thats apologetics gone "____"!!!

 

[Cuddles333]

Considering that the scriptures are the result of preaching to audiences with very little or no education at all, it is apparent (at least it is to me) that God expects a much deeper understanding of how things have come to be, of us today.

It is very obvious from debates from leading Apologists against the best from secular academia, that God is the source of the universe. After we know this, we find that He communicated to a very primitive people, and this communication was later written down. Now, we can backtrack to find that the result of all the aberrations in the universe are because of an intentional mishandling of the power and elements given to the light-bearing being. We learn from the scriptures that when the Godhead came into space and time and found things as they were, one of the Godhead was prepared to destroy it and condemn all humans to eternal divine punishment-where the former Morning Star is now. However, another of the Godhead took pity on us and offered Himself to give a chance at redemption to any who would accept the offer.......for a time. Then after the duration of the event, the entire Godhead Itself would destroy what is now, and create a place that was originally intended, for those who chose this still valid offer. Their memories of the terrible past being erased, they will live in absolute acceptance, belonging, and euphoric-love.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Or God created everything just the way it is because He has a purpose for everything being just the way it is.

He wanted the context.

 

[Shempster]

Or God created everything just the way it is because He has a purpose for everything being just the way it is.

He wanted the context.

^This

To me it seems obvious that the presence of evil is there because He wants it there. Think about it. If we are believers then we are believers and children of light. But, we MUST be attached to the flesh during this life. The flesh (and evil) is there for us to war against and overcome.
I believe in the thousand year reign of Christ and the entire kingdom will have a heirarchy. The degree to which you resisted evil and overcame the flesh and the world will determine your rank in the kingdom.

This is all my opinion but this theory fits well when you must explain evil.

 

[brinny]

The idea that evil must exist in order for good to exist is found in Eastern mystic religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism. That evil is something bad which needs to be destroyed, however, is found in the Abrahamic religions. So from a Christian POV no, there will not be evil in Heaven.


Were God to simply give us whatever wisdom comes from facing evil, there's no guarantee we would actually listen to it. If however we were to actually face a problem ourselves we'd probably understand how to deal with it far better. Or to put it another way - knowledge earned is a lot more useful than knowledge given.

It's also worth pointing out that the idea that evil can be useful (because it helps us gain wisdom) is a philosophical concept which is meant to bring together the idea that evil is simply the opposite of good [nondualistic evil] with the idea that evil is something to be destroyed because it shouldn't exist [diabolical evil]. It's focuses more on how we should react to evil rather than where evil comes from.

As i was reading your post, what came to mind for me is:

Heaven:

is it a Christian place/concept? Or do all religions claim there is a place called heaven?

 

[Paterfamilia]

^This

To me it seems obvious that the presence of evil is there because He wants it there. Think about it. If we are believers then we are believers and children of light. But, we MUST be attached to the flesh during this life. The flesh (and evil) is there for us to war against and overcome.
I believe in the thousand year reign of Christ and the entire kingdom will have a heirarchy. The degree to which you resisted evil and overcame the flesh and the world will determine your rank in the kingdom.

This is all my opinion but this theory fits well when you must explain evil.

I agree with this. Lots of biblical evidence. Also warnings (last, first - first, last). I think we are going to see a lot of surprises.

 

[Locutus]

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.

the point here is that if you don't KNOW what the answer is, it could as easily be 'because he's evil, and actually hates us'

 

[Locutus]

For whatever. But it answers the question.

it answers nothing, because intent is key.

 

[Locutus]

For the sake of argument, let's say God has already done this: a lot of the (seemingly) bizarre and brutal laws in the Old Testament are now thought to be related to hygiene. Pigs for example carry far more parasites and diseases than other livestock, which is probably why it was forbidden to eat them. Rather than waiting for centuries for scientists and doctors to figure out why people are more likely to die after eating pork rather than beef, God just comes straight out and says "Don't eat pigs." Chances are most people still wouldn't listen.

We could argue that we are more likely to listen to doctors and scientists rather than God because the scientists have studies and evidence to back up what they say, whereas we are expected to listen to God just because He says so. We could also argue that we should listen to God (or the Bible) because He is all-knowing, whereas doctors and scientists are fallible humans, and their studies can be wrong.

Even if God were to come down and explain WHY He has forbidden us to eat pork (using germ theory,parasite life cycles etc.) we probably still wouldn't listen - because we wouldn't accept it as the truth until we discovered it for ourselves. Not to mention 3,000 years ago none of these theories would have made the slightest bit of sense to the Hebrews.

Most of us don't refuse to do what we're told because we don't understand - we refuse because we don't want to. Free will, rather than ignorance, is the culprit.

Nope. Chickens carry as many or more parasites as pigs, yet no mention. Also, your biblical germ detectors thought the earth was flat, didn't know where the sun went at night, and wiped their behinds with their hands.

We refuse because 'we don't want to'? This is a most infantile perspective on adulthood.

 

[Cuddles333]

^This

To me it seems obvious that the presence of evil is there because He wants it there. Think about it. If we are believers then we are believers and children of light. But, we MUST be attached to the flesh during this life. The flesh (and evil) is there for us to war against and overcome.
I believe in the thousand year reign of Christ and the entire kingdom will have a heirarchy. The degree to which you resisted evil and overcame the flesh and the world will determine your rank in the kingdom.

This is all my opinion but this theory fits well when you must explain evil.

We know that evil, whether it be Natural or Moral, is directly against God's nature. Therefore, the Godhead definitely would not want evil here. The Godhead does not want cancer or any other disease afflicting people (especially little children) nor little children being raped and tortured. The ghastly survivor methods of animals and reptiles. What we know is, that God is using the aberrations in people (1Cor. 1:18-31) and in our Eco-System(caused by the former Morning Star) to cause people to turn to Him.