The Problem of Evil

@TK421,

TK421 wrote:

The problem of evil: if God is all-powerful, -knowing and -good (all-PKG), as in the Christian tradition, how can there be suffering in the world? If God is all-powerful, he could have created the world in such a way that there wouldn't be suffering; if all-knowing, he would have known prior to creating us that we would suffer; and if all-good, he would never have wanted us to suffer. What gives? Or does this prove that the Christian God cannot possibly exist?

Christians generally throughout history, and even at the time of the apostles, didn't interpret "all-powerful" as meaning God could do logically impossible things, or things that contradicted God's nature (e.g., God cannot sin), or even things that result in evil because of what God weakly actualized (e.g., made free will beings who as a result end up becoming evil). The term "all-powerful" has a much more limited definition than what most atheists giggle about and get all giddy about in chat rooms, and therefore I'm not even sure we should use that term. In terms of Christianity, the term "all-powerful" is a relation having to do with the intention of God versus the intention of those who oppose God's will. God is all-powerful in that God has the intention to bring about a world of a final Omega state, and who can stop God's will?

As far as why is there evil in light of God being all-powerful compared to the things that could cause evil to triumph, there are many possible and yet suitable answers. We don't know which ones are the right answer, we can only speculate. For example, evil might be entangled with goodness at an early stage where goodness will emerge, and therefore when God declared to make Good the final state of the world--bada bing--the occurrence of evil became a reality at the earlier stage of the world. Just as long as God did not directly cause the evil to occur, then God is not culpable for the evil that happened as a result.

As an example, let's say that you decide to pursue a career in politics to address global warming. As a result of someone hearing one of your great speeches to curb global warning they become radical and begin cutting power lines and such so that blackouts occur. You didn't intend for evil to occur in your speeches that was actually intended to bring about good (i..e., the curbing of global warming), but evil occurred anyway.

2 Replies

@harvey1,

TK421,

Perhaps you could define evil for us,by evil are you thinking of something supernatural or perhaps something you just do not like.

1 Reply

@TK421,

I had asked that same question for many years. Evil is in the world because of mankind. God, or the light of God and the creativity of God is within all creation, it's the heart of man that creates the evil, otherwise it would cease to exist.

1 Reply

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

I had asked that same question for many years. Evil is in the world because of mankind. God, or the light of God and the creativity of God is within all creation, it's the heart of man that creates the evil, otherwise it would cease to exist.

Justin,

Excellent point,man is the measure of all things,he is the giver of meaning and so to here, he has given the meaning of good and evil to what he likes and to what he dislikes,it is all subjective.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

...man is the measure of all things,he is the giver of meaning and so to here, he has given the meaning of good and evil to what he likes and to what he dislikes,it is all subjective.

That strikes me as too anthropocentric. I think that chimps have already communicated using sign language and other technology that they feel pain and sadness. In addition, I can easily imagine an ET civilization that has experienced far more tragic events in their history than our own.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey1 wrote:

That strikes me as too anthropocentric. I think that chimps have already communicated using sign language and other technology that they feel pain and sadness. In addition, I can easily imagine an ET civilization that has experienced far more tragic events in their history than our own.

Hi harvey, Smile

What is your point harvey,are not chimps also the subject in relation to their object[world].Tell me one moral value which is not a human evaluation.Because the chimp feels pain[really they need sign to figure this out] that does not mean the chimp has formed a whole abstract moral structure around that fact,ouch and avoidence follow and that is probably it.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Hey Boagie,

boagie wrote:

What is your point harvey,are not chimps also the subject in relation to their object[world].Tell me one moral value which is not a human evaluation.Because the chimp feels pain[really they need sign to figure this out] that does not mean the chimp has formed a whole abstract moral structure around that fact,ouch and avoidence follow and that is probably it.

There have actually been studies on this (e.g., David Harnden-Warwick at Emory University) that strongly suggest that chimps do in fact have a moral code like humans. Do you think that ET civilizations would lack a moral code?

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey,

Yes,interesting,seems our cousins are not so far behind us after all.I think there has always been a need on the part of man to try to miniumize the qualities of the animal------the easier to eat you my dear!I doubt however they have gotten around to forming a concept of evil or a god that looks like them,unless of course they are looking at us.I would imagine if it comes to pass that they do form this concept of evil it will probably be through the same means,the most natural thing in the world--I don't like it-----its bad------its evil!

2 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

I would imagine if it comes to pass that they do form this concept of evil it will probably be through the same means,the most natural thing in the world--I don't like it-----its bad------its evil!

I think that evil definitely entails a relative morality, but this must still be framed within a given framework. That is, relative relations are based on an absolute framework (e.g., special relativity theory is based on the absolute that light speed in a vacuum is a constant, and the laws of physics being the same in all inertial frames of reference). In the case of evil, all good or evil actions refer to an absolute framework. The perspective of evil depends on where you are in that absolute framework (e.g., on the side of Hitler or on the side of the Allies), but the pragmatic aftermath of what is labelled "evil" is invariant with respect to that absolute framework. Pain is still "pain" no matter who experiences it. Hence, if we stick to a moral code that refers to a framework (e.g., human society), then pragmatic outcomes allow us to define "evil" more objectively for that framework. Such as, a society that experiences social ills is afflicted by evil.

2 Replies

@harvey1,

The collective I don't like,it is bad,it is evil?

The particular does reside in the general or am I missing your point?:confused:

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

The collective I don't like,it is bad,it is evil? The particular does reside in the general or am I missing your point?

I think so. The particular and the general depend on the same absolute framework for their definition. Hence, what is good or evil depends on certain absolutes (established by the framework).

Let me give you an example. Let's say that society arbitrarily decides that not wearing seat belts is "evil," and wearing seat belts is "good." Fair enough, these are just labels to denote a particular behavior. We could switch the labels, if I correctly understand your moral argument, in which case wearing seat belts would be "evil" and not wearing them is "good." However, the absolute framework is our "society" and the health of "society" is measured by the percentage of those members in society who would have lived had they worn seat belts versus had they not wore them. In this case, the meaning of the labels "good" and "evil" can be attached to the absolute framework. The meaning of evil is invariant with respect to whatever we choose to label it and however we decide to view it. If we label not wearing seat belts as "heckabubble," then the meaning of "heckabubble" still means a higher percentage of society will not live another year because they didn't wear seat belts. This provides an objective meaning to the term "evil." It doesn't matter if we now call it "heckabubble," or "good," or whatever term we choose, it still means something which is evil against the absolute framework (i.e., the absolute framework being a measure of society referring to members who would have lived had they worn seat belts versus had they not wore them).

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey.

That is a little more abstract than is necessary, I see wear you get your love of stats though.Even if it is hung on that absolute framework it has to be the collective wish,which starts and ends with the individual in the interest of the collective.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

That is a little more abstract than is necessary, I see wear you get your love of stats though.Even if it is hung on that absolute framework it has to be the collective wish,which starts and ends with the individual in the interest of the collective.

My point though, is that wishes don't change the fact of matter of what happens if less people wear seat belts.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey,

That is still a subjective evaluation no matter the level.If more people get killed and that is not deemed evil,then it is not evil.I have the feeling I am frustrating you, but it is not intentional.You seem to be inferring that meaning can be other than subjective?

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey1 wrote:

Christians generally throughout history, and even at the time of the apostles, didn't interpret "all-powerful" as meaning God could do logically impossible things,

I'm not so sure that's true. For instance, the medieval ontological proof of God's existence depends on the concept of God as a greater than which nothing can exist. The concept of a God constrained by logic is less than the concept of a God not constrained by logic; therefore, God must be above logic. This illustrates a very basic and traditional way of thinking about God, at least in the philosophy of religion.

harvey1 wrote:

Just as long as God did not directly cause the evil to occur, then God is not culpable for the evil that happened as a result.

If God knew prior to creating the world the suffering that would befall humanity and had the power to do things differently, then He is culpable. One wonders why, even if He didn't have the power to avert mass suffering, He would create us in the first place. Certainly the degree of human suffering far outweighs the good, especially if we throw Hell into the equation. An all-knowing and -good God simply would not have created us. According to the book of Genesis, God created Adam because He was lonely. God didn't create Adam for Adam's sake, God created Adam for God's sake, knowing from the outset that most of us would end up writhing in eternal damnation. That doesn't sound like a very loving God.

harvey1 wrote:

As an example, let's say that you decide to pursue a career in politics to address global warming. As a result of someone hearing one of your great speeches to curb global warning they become radical and begin cutting power lines and such so that blackouts occur. You didn't intend for evil to occur in your speeches that was actually intended to bring about good (i..e., the curbing of global warming), but evil occurred anyway.

By reducing God from "all-powerful" to "not-so-all-powerful" we admit the potential for humanity to outstretch God. I don't think this is a possibility traditional Christianity would entertain.

[quote=boagie]Perhaps you could define evil for us,by evil are you thinking of something supernatural or perhaps something you just do not like.[/quote]

Death, diease, injury, etc: the phenomenology of suffering.

justin wrote:

I had asked that same question for many years. Evil is in the world because of mankind. God, or the light of God and the creativity of God is within all creation, it's the heart of man that creates the evil, otherwise it would cease to exist.

If we think about evil in terms of suffering, then there are two general types of evil: moral and natural. Moral evil involves suffering caused by people, whereas natural evil has to do with evil not caused by people, such as natural disasters, disease or death. If a comet fell from the heavens and landed on my studious pate, we would categorize the event as an example of natural evil.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Boagie,

You're not frustrating me at all.

boagie wrote:

That is still a subjective evaluation no matter the level.If more people get killed and that is not deemed evil,then it is not evil.I have the feeling I am frustrating you, but it is not intentional.You seem to be inferring that meaning can be other than subjective?

This is an issue of moral subjectivity and not moral relativity. However, in that case you still have a moral theory that exists which explains why something is considered morally evil versus not. In the case of seat belts, there is a long evolutionary explanation as to why society seeks to self-preserve itself. So, even though you say that evil is a subjective evaluation, this subjective evaluation is caused by something happening in society and the evolution of that society which is objective in nature (e.g., evolutionary psychology, bargaining theory, cooperative game theory, morals by agreement, etc). Some fact of the matter exists which causes society to consider something evil, and this is not subjective in nature--it is objective. The term "subjective" is just shorthand.

1 Reply

@TK421,

TK421 wrote:

I'm not so sure that's true. For instance, the medieval ontological proof of God's existence depends on the concept of God as a greater than which nothing can exist. The concept of a God constrained by logic is less than the concept of a God not constrained by logic; therefore, God must be above logic. This illustrates a very basic and traditional way of thinking about God, at least in the philosophy of religion.

I'm not aware of many medieval scholastics who held that position. If logic determines that God should exist in a certain way, then it would be illogical to say that God exists illogically.

TK421 wrote:

If God knew prior to creating the world the suffering that would befall humanity and had the power to do things differently, then He is culpable. One wonders why, even if He didn't have the power to avert mass suffering, He would create us in the first place. Certainly the degree of human suffering far outweighs the good, especially if we throw Hell into the equation. An all-knowing and -good God simply would not have created us.

I disagree. I think God proves that He possesses the property of goodness by bringing about permanent goodness in the world. God averts culpability with evil by simply not directly or indirectly causing evil. That is, God is not a sufficient condition for evil.

For example, if we tied a rope on a downhill slope where skiers are passing by, then we are directly culpable for the evil of the passerby skiers tripping and hurting themselves (i.e., we act as both the sufficient and necessary condition for their fall). If we simply stood at a difficult spot which was too distracting to the skier such that all the skiers fell and hurt themselves, then we are indirectly culpable for the evil of them falling and hurting themselves (i.e., we act only as a sufficient reason for them falling, but some might have fallen anyway, or a pro wouldn't have fallen at all, so we are not a necessary condition for them falling). On the other hand, if we simply took skiers on a ski trip and some fell and hurt themselves really badly--maybe even one died, then we are not culpable for this evil. That is, we are only a necessary condition for them falling, but we do not act as a sufficient condition for them falling.

God is not a sufficient cause of evil, and therefore is not culpable for evil. For God to be a sufficient cause, you'd have to show that evil was inevitable for creation, and that's what Christian theology rejects.

TK421 wrote:

By reducing God from "all-powerful" to "not-so-all-powerful" we admit the potential for humanity to outstretch God. I don't think this is a possibility traditional Christianity would entertain.

God is all-powerful in a relational sense versus a crazy, absurd sense.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey,

I have always stated that subject and object are inseparable,I still believe you are mistaken if you believe that meaning could be other than a subjective creation.The objects,the events are out there making their contribution to the process of understanding and indeed without them there is no meaning,but they do not create their own meaning, nor do they hold it as a property.

Justin, Smile

"Death, diease, injury, etc: the phenomenology of suffering." That would make evil that which you do not like.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

...you are mistaken if you believe that meaning could be other than a subjective creation.

Meaning doesn't come to exist in a vacuum.

1 Reply

The Problem of Evil

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know