Contemplating the Existence of God in the Face of Evil

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, it seems to me that the issue doesn´t originate with the atheists - rather it originates with the Christian theological idea that God is all-good.

...mmmm.... I have difficulty seeing that this is the case. The atheists who are complaining that God isn't good do so based more on the atheist's conception of Good rather than on inconsistencies in Christian theology. Sure, atheists can try to pin the criticism on God that He doesn't live up to his own 'ideals,' but this isn't really why modern atheists complain—no they complain because God, and thereby Christians, aren't supposedly living up to the most current vision of human rights. Am I wrong here on this? In the video, atheist Peter Atkins didn't seem in the least concerned about whether God lived up to His own ideals, rather Atkins seems appalled at the whole theological enterprise and at most of the ethics he thinks comes out of it.

What do I know??

I'm sure you 'know' something …

I don´t speak ancient Hebrew nor Greek, but when I look at the various translations of this verse, I also get "good times", "calamities", "evil (!)", and even "preparing evil".
But, to be quite frank, the meaning seems to be quite universal, general and unqualified. "I create the positive and I create the negative", if you will. And, imo, it takes a lot of mental gymnastics in order to make it look like saying something else - driven by the will to have it support (or at least not clash with) your favourite theological idea of God.

Actually, I find that those who try to cite Biblical expositors for being guilty of doing “mental gymnastics” are the same ones who are not familiar with proper or full-bodied hermeneutical considerations, especially where complex contexts are key.

And in the case of Isaiah 45:7, context really is key. And when I interpret this verse in light of the entire book of Isaiah--which is what we should do--we find that “disaster” here implies God's bringing catastrophe upon those persons who rebel against Him, whoever they may be, and of whatever nation they may be, even if it be Israel. So, I have to disagree with you that this verse implies some kind of 'evil.' Punishment isn't evil---it's JUSTICE. We can see a parallel verse to this in Isaiah 31:2 and Isaiah chapter 47, etc., etc.

If God is the creator of the universe, it is downright absurd to try to say "but this is not God´s product".
(Note also how e.g. the theological defense claims "darkness is just the absence of light" or "evil is just the absence of good" are rejected here before they have been made: All of this is created by God.)

Whether the distinction "natural vs. moral evil" is relevant here at all, hinges on whether you define God as omnisicent or not. If going with the first, I doubt that you can come up with a definition of "moral good" that is compatible with creating or preparing even only natural disasters, calamities, evil or bad times.

For me, it's not difficult to see that moral good would entail those social proprieties that augment the function of the world that God has designed. So, for instance, if a husband wants a good marriage, he needs to make an effort to love his wife and not leave things up to social happenstance. Likewise, if we don't want Global Warming, we need to take seriously the imbalancing we introduce into the environment that bring dysfunction to the usual processes of nature.

I think the idea "God is all good" is downright unsustainable, even though it is theologically popular, and this gets pretty obvious when I look at the inconsistencies it creates that are only thinly veiled by desperate theological ad hoc rationalizations. I think both you and I should welcome Christianity to let go off this idea: 1. It would actually give space to a consistent theology, and 2. you wouldn´t have to put up with the PoE as an argument against the existence of Christian-god anymore.

In the OP video, I think Father Herbert McCabe [6:45 – 11:20] brings up some interesting points. How do you think Father McCabe would answer your objection that God can't be “All-good”?

 

[Moral Orel]

I do not agree fully with you here. While I agree that creating a problem in order to solve it and then praise the solution as though it were more than a solution to the created problem is somewhat obscene (and this is what some post theological post hoc and ad hoc rationalizations often do), it seems to me that conscious, aware life necessarily is change, and change comes with more or less pleasant states and sensations. On top of that, from my conscious, aware perspective this is exactly what I appreciate life for. The boredom of a constant state of unchanging contentness is an unbearable scenario, to me.
Creating problems in order to solve them and to create suffering in order to be able to enjoy the relief from it is what humans do all the time, and they do it for fun. Games, riddles, challenges, sports...
Thus, while suffering is of course not pleasant at the point where I encounter it, I have no reason to complain about being in the state of experiencing changes (which necessarily include suffering).
Thus, from where I stand, I´d neither have a ground for accusing an entity (assuming for a moment there existed such) that has created this opportunity for being alive, aware, conscious, experiencing, feeling,...
(Interestingly though, once you adopt this view, Heaven as the final solution doesn´t make any sense whatsoever anymore.)

First let me note that it isn't merely an issue of creating a problem for yourself as in the case of a game or challenge. And it isn't a case of creating a problem for others who agree to challenge you, as in the case of riddles or sports. This is a case of creating a problem for someone else so that you or others can solve it. That's the munchausen by proxy reference. Like a mother poisoning her son so that she can nurse him back to health. Nursing him back to health is meaningless, true, but it is obscene to poison your own son!

As to the rest, it seems as though you are saying suffering is an inevitable byproduct of being a changing being. Maybe true, maybe not. That doesn't really address Swineburn's argument that suffering is built in by design for the sake of creating opportunities to do good because that would be somehow better than an existence without us having such problems to solve. I don't think he agrees with you that it is inevitable, but that instead it was a decision against the alternate "no suffering" universe.

But you've also created a conundrum for yourself. If your existence was unchanging contentedness, then how could it possibly ever feel unbearable? It seems as though you're saying we need suffering to not suffer, and that's a bit of a contradiction.

I think I also have to disagree with your broad and loose definition of suffering. If we enjoy challenging ourselves, then we aren't suffering. Suffering is subjective and relative, but if you enjoy solving puzzles, you can't really say you're suffering by solving puzzles.

 

[Moral Orel]

I can see your point, Nick, but only on a practical level. If we are going to assume that God is a Transcendent being, above and beyond the consideration of basic human practicality, and above even the constructs of Creation (i.e. our universe and everything in it), can you think of some ways in which the "Munchausen by Proxy" refutation may break down and Swinburne's arguments might gain some relevance?

No. I can think of some ways that people might argue that suffering is an inevitable byproduct, like I believe quatona has done, and I can think of the obvious "God works in mysterious ways" defeater if I specifically consider His transcendence over creation. But I do not see a defeater for my munchausen by proxy charge. If I had, you would have likely seen me write, "Well now you might say...".

By the way, thanks for taking the time to at least watch the Swinburne bit in the OP video.

I almost finished it. I cut Armstrong off at the very end, but the conversation in the middle was interesting. I mentioned Swineburn because I felt that was the most pertinent idea raised for your idea that suffering might be evidence of a good god. I doubt you agree with the rabbi who said that maybe God just isn't omnipotent, for instance.

 

[quatona]

First let me note that it isn't merely an issue of creating a problem for yourself as in the case of a game or challenge. And it isn't a case of creating a problem for others who agree to challenge you, as in the case of riddles or sports. This is a case of creating a problem for someone else so that you or others can solve it. That's the munchausen by proxy reference. Like a mother poisoning her son so that she can nurse him back to health. Nursing him back to health is meaningless, true, but it is obscene to poison your own son!

As to the rest, it seems as though you are saying suffering is an inevitable byproduct of being a changing being. Maybe true, maybe not. That doesn't really address Swineburn's argument that suffering is built in by design for the sake of creating opportunities to do good because that would be somehow better than an existence without us having such problems to solve. I don't think he agrees with you that it is inevitable, but that instead it was a decision against the alternate "no suffering" universe.

But you've also created a conundrum for yourself. If your existence was unchanging contentedness, then how could it possibly ever feel unbearable? It seems as though you're saying we need suffering to not suffer, and that's a bit of a contradiction.

I think I also have to disagree with your broad and loose definition of suffering. If we enjoy challenging ourselves, then we aren't suffering. Suffering is subjective and relative, but if you enjoy solving puzzles, you can't really say you're suffering by solving puzzles.

Yes, and that´s the point. I am not suffering from being alive, and I am not suffering from the fact that life is a permanent sequence of ups and downs. I don´t want it any other way. So I´d see no reason to complain to an entity (if such existed) that has provided me with the opportunity to experience it.
If I don´t like this state of existence there´s always the possibility of ending it. But I don´t.
If I´d prefer a stabile, unaltering state of contentness, I´m sure there are pills that could help me with that. But I don´t take them.
Go figure.
(And of course I didn´t and don´t mean to say that I am suffering from solving puzzles. I am suffering from a puzzle being unsolved. And once I have solved it, I might suffer from the fact that there´s nothin to solve anymore. )

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. I can think of some ways that people might argue that suffering is an inevitable byproduct, like I believe quatona has done, and I can think of the obvious "God works in mysterious ways" defeater if I specifically consider His transcendence over creation. But I do not see a defeater for my munchausen by proxy charge. If I had, you would have likely seen me write, "Well now you might say...".

I think you're going to have to explain this Munchausen thing to me in detail. It's the first time I've ever heard this problem used in relation to God and Evil, and for the life of me, I can't see how it applies or as to how it can be parallel to God's position in relation to the presence of Evil in the world. In fact, I'm betting that if I can understand the specific nuances of the Munchausen by Proxy charge, we can find some ways in which it breaks down.

I almost finished it. I cut Armstrong off at the very end, but the conversation in the middle was interesting. I mentioned Swineburn because I felt that was the most pertinent idea raised for your idea that suffering might be evidence of a good god. I doubt you agree with the rabbi who said that maybe God just isn't omnipotent, for instance.

If you've watched the entire OP video, then I take my hat off to you, good sir! Kudos!

As to agreeing with Rabbi Brichto, I might be persuaded that philosophical categories used to describe God are a bit too Grecian in the first place, and since it is the Biblical God we are talking about, we might need categories that are more approximate to those befitting a more Jewish concept of God. Why should we have to accept the concepts and parlance given by the Greeks? I don't think we do. Although, this isn't to say that Rabbi Brichto has it right, and there are other Jewish views to consider since there is more than one sect of Judaism at the present time.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think you're going to have to explain this Munchausen thing to me in detail. It's the first time I've ever heard this problem used in relation to God and Evil, and for the life of me, I can't see how it applies or as to how it can be parallel to God's position in relation to the presence of Evil in the world. In fact, I'm betting that if I can understand the specific nuances of the Munchausen by Proxy charge, we can find some ways in which it breaks down.

The charge is only there for people like Swineburn who say that evil is there for the purpose of letting us overcome it. I don't use the analogy for any sort of general PoE argument. If evil is a byproduct of some other purpose or reasoning, then the analogy doesn't apply.

Imagine a mother sees her toddler daughter about to touch a hot stove top. She says and does nothing while the child hurts herself. Now, if the reason was to teach the toddler not to touch hot things, that's one thing (not okay, but a whole other argument). If the reason is because the mother wants to tend to the child's wounds, that's the Munchausen by Proxy charge.

 

[anonymous person]

The problem of evil and suffering is not something that has to be addressed just by Christians. It is something that everybody has to address.

Why not let quatona tell us how he addresses the issue?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The charge is only there for people like Swineburn who say that evil is there for the purpose of letting us overcome it. I don't use the analogy for any sort of general PoE argument. If evil is a byproduct of some other purpose or reasoning, then the analogy doesn't apply.

Ok. That sounds fair. And there is also the view of Christian philosopher Peter Vardy in the OP video who offers a refutation to Swinburne, on the one hand, and a limited adoption of Rabbi Brichto's "non-omniscience" view of God, on the other. Does Vardy escape this charge?

However, with all of that said, we still have passages like Hebrews 12:1-11 (which is contextually connected to the application and goal it is supposed to achieve in verses 12-24). It is apparent to the writer of Hebrews that God intends for us to experience "challenges" as a form of spiritual practice, challenges which will supposedly provide discipline in the development and maintenance of our faith. Do you think this equates to Munchausen by proxy, Nick?

Imagine a mother sees her toddler daughter about to touch a hot stove top. She says and does nothing while the child hurts herself. Now, if the reason was to teach the toddler not to touch hot things, that's one thing (not okay, but a whole other argument). If the reason is because the mother wants to tend to the child's wounds, that's the Munchausen by Proxy charge.

Ok. I can understand that. It would be obscene if the situation involves a hot stove or other high risk to the child's bodily safety, like the child running aimlessly into the street while a parent silently looks on.

 

[quatona]

The problem of evil and suffering is not something that has to be addressed just by Christians. It is something that everybody has to address.

Why not let quatona tell us how he addresses the issue?

I think I did. Do you have any particular questions?

 

[anonymous person]

I think I did. Do you have any particular questions?

What is evil? What is suffering?

Why do we have a concept of evil, of suffering?

Who determines what is evil, and suffering?

This will suffice for starters.

 

[quatona]

What is evil?

Personally, I don´t operate with that term, and I don´t seem to have use for such a concept.
Anyway, as far as I understand it, people most of the time mean something like "malevolence", but there are other definitions in the dictionary, too.
LMGTFY
I think that since it was you who asked me to "address the problem of evil", it would be best if you defined your concept of "evil" for purposes of this talk, and then tell me what problems you have with this concept of yours.

What is suffering?

I use "suffering" as a description for a person´s negative perception of their current state and the resulting feeling. One might think of it as physical or/and mental pain.

Why do we have a concept of evil, of suffering?

I can only guess, but in general concepts are formed because they help making distinctions that appear useful to the person who formes the concept.
Personally, I find "suffering" useful as an expression of a subjective feeling. What people get out of their concept "evil" you would have to ask THEM.

Who determines what is evil, and suffering?

The same guy who determines what´s bad taste, poor music and bad weather.

This will suffice for starters.

Always glad to help.
I feel honoured by the fact that you´ve picked me of all for an expert on the matter.

 

[anonymous person]

Personally, I don´t operate with that term, and I don´t seem to have use for such a concept.
Anyway, as far as I understand it, people most of the time mean something like "malevolence", but there are other definitions in the dictionary, too.
LMGTFY
I think that since it was you who asked me to "address the problem of evil", it would be best if you defined your concept of "evil" for purposes of this talk, and then tell me what problems you have with this concept of yours.

I use "suffering" as a description for a person´s negative perception of their current state and the resulting feeling. One might think of it as physical or/and mental pain.


I can only guess, but in general concepts are formed because they help making distinctions that appear useful to the person who formes the concept.
Personally, I find "suffering" useful as an expression of a subjective feeling. What people get out of their concept "evil" you would have to ask THEM.


The same guy who determines what´s bad taste, poor music and bad weather.


Always glad to help.
I feel honoured by the fact that you´ve picked me of all for an expert on the matter.

What word would you use to describe the Holocaust?

What word would you use to describe a paedophile raping a child for fun?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

What word would you use to describe the Holocaust?

What word would you use to describe a paedophile raping a child for fun?

"Terrible" seems like a word I would use, if you're not just asking Quatona...

 

[quatona]

What word would you use to describe the Holocaust?

"Genocide".

What word would you use to describe a paedophile raping a child for fun?

"Child rape."

 

[anonymous person]

"Genocide".

Is there a moral aspect to genocide? If not, why not?

"Child rape"

Is there a moral aspect to the rape of a child? If not, why not?

 

[quatona]

Is there a moral aspect to genocide? If not, why not?
Is there a moral aspect to the rape of a child? If not, why not?

Could you please tell me what exactly you mean when saying "moral" for purposes of your question, so that we make sure we don´t talk past each other?
But maybe we would get quicker to the point if you simply explained why there is a "moral aspect" to genocide and child rape?

 

[Skreeper]

Is there a moral aspect to genocide? If not, why not?

Since genocide tends to negatively affect the well being of the vicims of course it has a moral aspect.

Is there a moral aspect to the rape of a child? If not, why not?

Since raping a child tends to negatively affect the well being of the child of course it has a moral aspect.

 

[anonymous person]

Could you please tell me what exactly you mean when saying "moral" for purposes of your question, so that we make sure we don´t talk past each other?
But maybe we would get quicker to the point if you simply explained why there is a "moral aspect" to genocide and child rape?

Well, when I speak of morality, I envision concepts such as "obligation" and "value".

For example, "Men should not rape children for fun". The word should implies obligation. Or, "Raping children for fun is bad". The word bad implies the value of an act.

So I guess what I am asking you is, on your view, is the act of raping a child for fun a bad act or a good act, or an act that is neither good or bad?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, when I speak of morality, I envision concepts such as "obligation" and "value".

For example, "Men should not rape children for fun". The word should implies obligation. Or, "Raping children for fun is bad". The word bad implies the value of an act.

So I guess what I am asking you is, on your view, is the act of raping a child for fun a bad act or a good act, or an act that is neither good or bad?

...just as a side-note, I don't think the qualifier "for fun" even needs to be a part of the example. The moral prescription is that these acts should not happen, period, whether for fun or for some kind of contrived political expression of domination.

 

[quatona]

Well, when I speak of morality, I envision concepts such as "obligation" and "value".

Then please enlighten me about those concepts you envision so that I can contemplate on them appropriately.

For example, "Men should not rape children for fun". The word should implies obligation.

How do "obligations" come into being?

Or, "Raping children for fun is bad". The word bad implies the value of an act.

How do "values" come into being?

So I guess what I am asking you is, on your view, is the act of raping a child for fun a bad act or a good act, or an act that is neither good or bad?

So you are asking me for my feelings about it? I find it abhorrent. (Just like I find some actions of biblegod abhorrent that you have been defending.).

But we have been there like a dozen times, haven´t we? My answers won´t change.
When you invited me of all to address the problem of evil for you, I thought you had some new questions.