The Problem of Evil

[parkerjwill]

So the Holocaust wasn't actually evil, it was actually perfectly fine since god was there to watch it, and just gave off the "illusion" of evil?

There is ignorance, which is a lack of knowledge. Ignorant people do ignorant things. All action is accounted for, and thus there is a cause behind all phenomenon.

Again, evil is a perceived quality within the mind which is conditioned by the illusion of duality. Evil is not a substance, it is not a truth unto itself. All things are ultimately good, but those whose vision is conditional and relativistic, and who cannot see the eternal, will always have some sort of dogma about the world, categorizing it into limited and static conceptions of "good" and "evil".

 

[parkerjwill]

What I'm trying to say is that to call something evil is to confess a limited perspective on that person, place, thing, event, etc.

 

[CryOfALion]

What I'm trying to say is that to call something evil is to confess a limited perspective on that person, place, thing, event, etc.

I get your point about evil, I personally think it is very dangerous. Not because I disagree necessarily, but because it is a fine philosophical line that is easy to fall off of. Sociopaths, and sometimes psychopaths often claim they aren't evil, they are enlightened. Some people take philosophical chaos as ideal no matter what the consequences (and at some times, especially because of the consequences.) Zork and Mr. Shadow from The Fifth Element are good examples. Then you have the myth/lore about how angels and gods tend not to identify with humans because they lack emotion and/or pain - which can be most associated with evil actions. Some people fetishize evil, and want for it.

I think it would be very hard to remain full of emotion, while also objectively seeing situations for what they are - using both together in a harmonic and righteous act of will. Much like science and faith, emotion and objectivity should work together and not oppose each other, ideally. I do think in a perfect world, evil would still exist in an objective thought-form. Realistically, I see how calling an object evil could be a reflection of one's own limitations placed on the object. It happens often in cases of "judging books by the cover." But, I do think evil is a "tangible" part of our objective and subjective lives, and it is an important boundary object.

I think God, and Christ are the only Ones that can successfully use a balanced, full range of emotions and objectivity for the purposes of making a purely righteous and harmonic act of will. I think since we cannot do that, we tend to see bad things that happen as bad - not any good in it at all, or any type of enrichment and teaching. Some of us do, but I don't think any of us do 100% of the time. And, those of us that are >50% tempered like that, it probably took A LOT of perspective and experience.

You would probably need to die, and then come back to life to have a complete hindsight. Then, you could begin to understand the problem, solution, place and use of evil further.

 

[parkerjwill]

I also agree that it is a fine philosophical line, and many people do indeed fall off of it. This fall is the basis for relativistic existence. One calls his own side the good, and the opposite the bad. God and His Kingdom lie in absolute center.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Already solved:

Debating atheists on the “Problem of Evil” | Reformed Christian Theology

If you have new objections as to why evil somehow impugns the anture of God, get back to me.

I don't see how you think that article is at all convincing.... literally nothing of what he wrote helps his case.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is ignorance, which is a lack of knowledge. Ignorant people do ignorant things. All action is accounted for, and thus there is a cause behind all phenomenon.

Again, evil is a perceived quality within the mind which is conditioned by the illusion of duality. Evil is not a substance, it is not a truth unto itself. All things are ultimately good, but those whose vision is conditional and relativistic, and who cannot see the eternal, will always have some sort of dogma about the world, categorizing it into limited and static conceptions of "good" and "evil".

You didn't answer my question....

So if I'm not mistaken, you're basically saying the Holocaust was an ultimately good event?

 

[parkerjwill]

Again, the dichotomy of good and evil is a subjective opinion. Therefore "evil" lacks inherent substance. Ignorance is a real phenomenon, but ignorance is understood not as a true substance unto itself but a lack of substance. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. God is the Supreme Person, He gives agency to the conscious beings who desire to be as gods themselves. The mess they make of their world is their own doing. Tough love.

 

[abacabb3]

I don't see how you think that article is at all convincing.... literally nothing of what he wrote helps his case.

Again, what are your objections? My whole point is that your argument holds no water. Evil is not a problem unless the universe is anthropocentric. Unless you can demonstrate that, then the suffering of men holds no moral consequence.

 

[abacabb3]

You didn't answer my question....

So if I'm not mistaken, you're basically saying the Holocaust was an ultimately good event?

I'll give you Augustine's answer:

But the goodness of the Creator never fails either to supply life and vital power to the wicked angels (without which their existence would soon come to an end); or, in the case of mankind, who spring from a condemned and corrupt stock, to impart form and life to their seed, to fashion their members, and through the various seasons of their life, and in the different parts of the earth, to quicken their senses, and bestow upon them the nourishment they need. For He judged it better to bring good out of evil, than not to permit any evil to exist (The Handbook on Hope, Faith, and Love, Chapter 27).

Further:

Nor can we doubt that God does well even in the permission of what is evil. For He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surely all that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good; yet the fact that evil as well as good exists, is a good. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent Good, who without doubt can as easily refuse to permit what He does not wish, as bring about what He does wish (The Handbook on Hope, Faith, and Love, Chapter 96).

 

[parkerjwill]

"Evil is not a problem unless the universe is anthropocentric."

Good point. Anthropocentrism and its individual expression of solipsims are both examples of self-absorbed subjectivism. Being in your own head, experiencing the world as if you existed at the center of it. The self-appointed judge at the fulcrum of good and evil.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Again, the dichotomy of good and evil is a subjective opinion. Therefore "evil" lacks inherent substance. Ignorance is a real phenomenon, but ignorance is understood not as a true substance unto itself but a lack of substance. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. God is the Supreme Person, He gives agency to the conscious beings who desire to be as gods themselves. The mess they make of their world is their own doing. Tough love.

I completely disagree, good and evil generally correlate to actions that contribute to or subtract from our overall well being. That may be personally, as a group, or as a society.

Those actions and effects are objective, and therefore form an objective basis for things that we judge as either morally good, or morally evil.

As for the holocaust, we can see the clear damage done to the victims, the victims families, and the society that they lived in. Whether or not you want to personally accept that is irrelevant, the damage was done and the harm was felt by millions. If you want to live in denial of that, then you are simply wrong. Your subjective opinion is wrong, because it does not line up with objective fact. We can therefore justifiably call the holocaust a morally evil act.

In keeping with the topic of the thread, there is a huge number of examples of behaviour displayed or orders given by your god that does not line up with something a loving being would do. Some actions (or lack of actions) we can clearly point to and call evil as well. Therefore, if your god is capable and willing to cause evil, or let evil happen, then he can not be called benevolent, or supremely good.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Again, what are your objections? My whole point is that your argument holds no water. Evil is not a problem unless the universe is anthropocentric. Unless you can demonstrate that, then the suffering of men holds no moral consequence.

What on earth does the universe being anthropocentric have to do with evil at all? I don't even see how you're trying to make that connection.

If somebody commits an evil act on earth, how does the Andromeda galaxy fit into the equation?

What matters is the good or harm that is being done to people on this planet. The rest of the universe is utterly irrelevant to that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'll give you Augustine's answer:

But the goodness of the Creator never fails either to supply life and vital power to the wicked angels (without which their existence would soon come to an end); or, in the case of mankind, who spring from a condemned and corrupt stock, to impart form and life to their seed, to fashion their members, and through the various seasons of their life, and in the different parts of the earth, to quicken their senses, and bestow upon them the nourishment they need. For He judged it better to bring good out of evil, than not to permit any evil to exist (The Handbook on Hope, Faith, and Love, Chapter 27).

Further:

Nor can we doubt that God does well even in the permission of what is evil. For He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surely all that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good; yet the fact that evil as well as good exists, is a good. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent Good, who without doubt can as easily refuse to permit what He does not wish, as bring about what He does wish (The Handbook on Hope, Faith, and Love, Chapter 96).

To be completely honest, that sounds like a bunch of gibberish meant to excuse the fact that bad things happen.

 

[abacabb3]

To be completely honest, that sounds like a bunch of gibberish meant to excuse the fact that bad things happen.

Being that you could not actually point out what was illogical about what was stated, I will take that as a concession that your position does not have merit. Augustine is a heavy hitter in philosophy, you can't just handwave it away.

 

[abacabb3]

What on earth does the universe being anthropocentric have to do with evil at all? I don't even see how you're trying to make that connection.

If somebody commits an evil act on earth, how does the Andromeda galaxy fit into the equation?

What matters is the good or harm that is being done to people on this planet. The rest of the universe is utterly irrelevant to that.

Stick to the Earth. If I fight an illness with antibiotics, this would be a great evil to the bacteria in me. The question is to what measure do we apply God for where the evil exists. In a bacteriacentric universe, us killing bacteria would be a huge injustice.

 

[parkerjwill]

I completely disagree, good and evil generally correlate to actions that contribute to or subtract from our overall well being. That may be personally, as a group, or as a society.

Those actions and effects are objective, and therefore form an objective basis for things that we judge as either morally good, or morally evil.

As for the holocaust, we can see the clear damage done to the victims, the victims families, and the society that they lived in. Whether or not you want to personally accept that is irrelevant, the damage was done and the harm was felt by millions. If you want to live in denial of that, then you are simply wrong. Your subjective opinion is wrong, because it does not line up with objective fact. We can therefore justifiably call the holocaust a morally evil act.

In keeping with the topic of the thread, there is a huge number of examples of behaviour displayed or orders given by your god that does not line up with something a loving being would do. Some actions (or lack of actions) we can clearly point to and call evil as well. Therefore, if your god is capable and willing to cause evil, or let evil happen, then he can not be called benevolent, or supremely good.

Let us explore in depth your definition of evil. Define evil as an objectively real thing. Can it be done contradiction-free, without positing an absolute principle?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'll give you Augustine's answer:

But the goodness of the Creator never fails either to supply life and vital power to the wicked angels (without which their existence would soon come to an end); or, in the case of mankind, who spring from a condemned and corrupt stock, to impart form and life to their seed, to fashion their members, and through the various seasons of their life, and in the different parts of the earth, to quicken their senses, and bestow upon them the nourishment they need. For He judged it better to bring good out of evil, than not to permit any evil to exist (The Handbook on Hope, Faith, and Love, Chapter 27).

Further:

Nor can we doubt that God does well even in the permission of what is evil. For He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surely all that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good; yet the fact that evil as well as good exists, is a good. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent Good, who without doubt can as easily refuse to permit what He does not wish, as bring about what He does wish (The Handbook on Hope, Faith, and Love, Chapter 96).

This answer is particularly repugnant because to every evil action one is simply left saying "It's good that God allowed that to happen!" Examined closely, it's simply an attempt to turn God's non-intervention into a higher good in every single circumstance. I don't see how anyone can call anything evil on this view because, in so far as God allows it by not intervening, it is "good".

 

[Dave Ellis]

Being that you could not actually point out what was illogical about what was stated, I will take that as a concession that your position does not have merit. Augustine is a heavy hitter in philosophy, you can't just handwave it away.

Ok, fair enough... Can you please provide the citations that Augustine used to come up with his ideas? He's making a number of logical leaps, and basing his views off of unsupported claims (i.e. he hasn't established a creator even exists)

 

[Dave Ellis]

Stick to the Earth. If I fight an illness with antibiotics, this would be a great evil to the bacteria in me.

No it's not. The bacteria is posing a threat to you, and you are defending yourself. It's no different than if a predator attacks some prey, and winds up being killed because the prey was particularly adept at self defence.

It's not evil for the predator to attack the prey, nor is it evil for the prey to defend itself. It's simply how the natural world works. Likewise, your body is going to naturally attempt to fight off the bacteria, and taking an antibiotic is nothing more than strengthening your own defence.

Ironically, the only thing that would be evil in this scenario would be if the entire process was purposefully created and designed that way by an intelligent mind. If those natural processes evolve by themselves over time, it is amoral. If you purposefully design a system where things have to kill each other to survive, it's immoral. The difference between the two is purposeful intent.

The question is to what measure do we apply God for where the evil exists. In a bacteriacentric universe, us killing bacteria would be a huge injustice.

Again, I reject your premise. However, even if I was to go along with your example, in a bacteriacentric universe it would actually be an injustice for them to attack us unprovoked. It would not be immoral for us to defend ourselves.

But again, your premise makes no sense. You can't judge the actions of bacteria to be moral or immoral, they're just doing what they do. There's no intent behind the action, because bacteria are incapable of rational thought or determining intent.

 

[parkerjwill]

I cannot tell if you (Dave Ellis) believe in an objective moral standard in life or not. You use highly emotionally charged topics (Holocaust) to say God doesn't exist. Yet you turn around and profess some kind of Darwinian morality based on survival?