The problem of evil

[fhansen]

I suggest you mean "whatever physical constraints have been imposed on them by their Creator". The suggestion that man and beast are free to operate as they will is somewhat disingenuous. When the wolf rips the belly from the sheep, neither is radically free to operate as it wishes.

It just means that we all have limitations-and there's nothing here on earth that prevents us from doing as we will within those limitations. If I want to kill someone I'm completely free to try-I may or may not be stopped by, for example, the desire of some other being opposing my action. If I want to lift a two ton boulder I'll be constrained by my physical abilities. Animals likewise do as they will. Earthquakes, tornadoes, disease-all freely operating-and perhaps destroying- as nature proceeds along its path. We can call these acts of God or the will of God but we recognize in them that the universe is what it is-regardless of our preferences in the matter.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

It was the problem of evil which led me away from Christianity, as I became old enough to understand it.

This is understandable, but don't be deceived into thinking that by doing so you are opting out of the problem. The world is still unfair, unjust, and suffering remains. Some use a concept of God to relieve themselves from the burden of taking on the problem of suffering/evil. And some use their lack of belief in a god to do the same. Both are complicit in maintaining the status quo.

 

[Oafman]

This is understandable, but don't be deceived into thinking that by doing so you are opting out of the problem. The world is still unfair, unjust, and suffering remains

I am very much opting out of the problem. It's the contradiction between belief in a benevolent creator and the cruelty of the world around us, especially the natural world, which is the problem. It isn't a problem for me.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

Suffering certainly has its place: the creator, if he exists, has woven it into the very weft of life. Death is not a problem, although we may at the time of its arrival think it a confounded nuisance.

There is a difference between believing that suffering has a purpose and believing that it is inevitable.

The problem of suffering/evil has little to do with death. Death should not be brought into the discussion IMO.

 

[toLiJC]

It seems to me the problem of evil is a real problem, and it is my main barrier to faith. I just have trouble believing in a benevolent creator that cares about people- I see no evidence for it in this world. There is gross unfairness and suffering in the world and I don't believe Christians can account for it.

I grant that I could be wrong, that somehow there is a God in charge of it all and its just like the Christian God and is beyond my understanding. But it would be pretty cruel for such a being to hold honest doubts against me, given the quality of evidence he's left.

And honestly, if it is the case that God exists and he has such a mysterious plan, what does that say about Christian epistemology? How could we take any religious authority seriously if God's will is so inscrutable? It seems to me much more skepticism of religious claims are warranted, regardless of whether or not the Christian God exists.

the true God does only good, the "darkness" is the "god" that does evil - they are two independent entities, neither did God ever create the "darkness", nor did the "darkness" ever create God

1 John 1:1-10 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; ) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If(i.e. and if in such circumstances i.e. when we sin) we say that we have no sin(i.e. or if we, juxtaposing God and men, say that not the humans are sinful), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If(i.e. but if in such circumstances) we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If(i.e. yet if in such circumstances) we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

Blessings

 

[TreasureHunter12]

I am very much opting out of the problem. It's the contradiction between belief in a benevolent creator and the cruelty of the world around us, especially the natural world, which is the problem. It isn't a problem for me.

The problem of suffering is no longer a problem until it is. It cannot be escaped from by changing our beliefs. We can only free ourselves from it by solving it.

 

[Oafman]

The problem of suffering is no longer a problem until it is. It cannot be escaped from by changing our beliefs. We can only free ourselves from it by solving it.

But the 'problem of suffering' is not what this thread is about. We're discussing the problem of evil, which is the contradiction I mentioned in my last post.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

But the 'problem of suffering' is not what this thread is about. We're discussing the problem of evil, which is the contradiction I mentioned in my last post.

I consider them to be the same problem.

My point is that consistency of belief or altering our beliefs does nothing to actually address the problem of evil/suffering. We need more people willing to face the problem rather than intellectualize about it. I don't mean to single you out. I just wanted to make that point.

 

[FireDragon76]

I consider them to be the same problem.

My point is that consistency of belief or altering our beliefs does nothing to actually address the problem of evil/suffering. We need more people willing to face the problem rather than intellectualize about it. I don't mean to single you out. I just wanted to make that point.

Having more consistent beliefs does help a great deal in ones integrity.

I don't think the natural world itself is a good example of "evil", since its more like a process than a person. But the problem with Christianity is belief in a benevolent, all-powerful, personal God, a being that loves people and is supposedly intimately involved in their lives for good ends. I have trouble imagining how that could be so in this world.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

Having more consistent beliefs does help a great deal in ones integrity.

Having true and consistent beliefs is of course desirable, but it is a mistake to think that we get true beliefs by focusing on them. Focusing on our beliefs can only, at best, clarify what we already know or more likely reaffirm our false perceptions. Speaking from experience, if you focus on beliefs, you will be lost.

But, if you keep your focus on the problem (that which troubles you), true beliefs will eventually result as a consequence. Don't concern yourself with solutions or what others and their religions claim the solution to be. Seek a deeper understanding of the problem.

What I'm trying to say is the problem of evil/suffering shouldn't be approached via interacting with others; it should be directly experienced within your emotions. Face it there.

 

[SteveB28]

I responded to your question about free will and why it reportedly doesn't cause sin in heaven.

Yes. And you answered in terms of people's choices and responsibilities.

 

[fhansen]

Yes. And you answered in terms of people's choices and responsibilities.

Yes, because that has to do with free will.

 

[SteveB28]

Yes, because that has to do with free will.

Fine. Then I repeat and rephrase my question.

Who's "free will" is responsible for babies being born without brains and millions of children dying from famine?

 

[SteveB28]

Here is my point:

If I am walking down the street and I see a baby in an uncontrolled pram rolling towards me and then on to a busy street, I have a choice to make. I can easily reach out and stop the pram from rolling further, or I can step aside and watch the pram roll into the street, knowing the carnage that is likely to follow.

By all measures of morality, I would be considered to have acted nobly in the former and to be a callous coward in the latter. The effort that it would take to keep that baby safe would be minimal on my part and most people would expect me to make that effort.

If it exists, your god is faced with these situations thousands of times every day.

And it chooses to step aside and watch the 'pram' crash into the traffic. Yet its assumed powers are such that the effort required to prevent children starving, or ensuring that babies are born with brains would be as minimal as me reaching out for that pram.

Explain why it should be respected, let alone worshipped.

 

[fhansen]

For myself, there’s a tremendous amount of good in this world-and there’s a tremendous amount of evil. The former can support the existence of a good creator-being, the latter the absence of such a being, or at least the non-interference of such a being. The question is whether or not such a being’s non-interference necessarily equates to a non-caring, non-loving creator.

It’s a crummy world in very many ways-and could conceivably be much better. But it’s the world we have and most of us would at least still opt for continued existence in it if the only alternative were non-existence. We like existence-we cherish it instinctively I believe- and, if honest, the great majority would probably instantly and fervently elect to continue to exist if somehow suddenly faced with the option to cease existing this very moment-right now. And we also like the various goods that do exist here, tacitly agreeing in that sense with a hypothetical god, that existence is still good, even in this world. And if we were to know that every tear would be wiped away in the next world, with sheer, unending bliss our fate, it should at least go far in mitigating any sense of ultimate despair or futility or meaninglessness to this life. Our job is to make it a better world as we can, doing all we have the capability of doing in that respect. If we don't, we surely don't have the right to blame God or anyone else for their failures at making it better.

 

[Picky Picky]

It just means that we all have limitations-and there's nothing here on earth that prevents us from doing as we will within those limitations. If I want to kill someone I'm completely free to try-I may or may not be stopped by, for example, the desire of some other being opposing my action. If I want to lift a two ton boulder I'll be constrained by my physical abilities. Animals likewise do as they will. Earthquakes, tornadoes, disease-all freely operating-and perhaps destroying- as nature proceeds along its path. We can call these acts of God or the will of God but we recognize in them that the universe is what it is-regardless of our preferences in the matter.

But it doesn't just mean we all have our limitations: at least, it doesn't if you hold that someone planned it to be this way. If you hold that belief, there follow some implications about the nature of that Planner. Not very nice implications.

 

[Loudmouth]

evil exist because freedom makes it possible.

Is there no freedom in heaven? Is there evil in heaven? Will two year olds be dying of painful cancers in heaven just because they break a rule they don't understand?

 

[Loudmouth]

Christians often misunderstand what "sin" is exactly. They associate it with behavior but it is deeper than that; it is more like a contamination of our human nature. Morality is not a solution to the problem.

So you are saying that 2 year olds die of painful cancers because their human nature has been contaminated?

 

[Loudmouth]

Who is responsible for babies born without brains? Who is responsible for famines that starve millions of children? Who is responsible for childhood cancer?

Not the children who suffer because of it.

What moral person would make children suffer for the wrongdoings of other people?

 

[TreasureHunter12]

So you are saying that 2 year olds die of painful cancers because their human nature has been contaminated?

It's universal. We all have (invisible) ticking time bombs inside of us. For some it goes off when they are 2, for others when they are 92.