Why does God permit evil????

Obviously if we are talking about two different conceptions of God, then an objection to one need not be an objection to the other.

The problem of evil is an objection to the traditional conception of God as all-loving, all-good, and all-powerful, as being compatible with the existence of evil. Rejecting that conception of God is avoiding that problem. Not dealing with it. The physician does not treat a patient's cold by pronouncing that a different patient does not have a cold.

Exactly.



Ah, but if the traditional conception of God is not God as all-loving, all-good, and all-powerful then the problem of evil fails, right?

And that is my point.

God is traditionally described in this way, but theologians do not leave the matter here. They also explain, take great pains to explain, that these descriptors are not accurate because God transcends language. No language can accurately describe God. Hence the Steiner quote, "what lies beyond man's word is eloquent of God."

Dawkins would have people believe that traditional theology holds God as being literally good, loving, and omnipotent. And he is incorrect. Traditional theology uses these various descriptors to point to God, to set us out in the general direction, which is all that words can possibly accomplish.

It goes back to God not being a being at all. We can call beings good, loving, powerful. Even saying "God exists" is troublesome.

The supposedly "traditional" concept of God challenged by the problem of evil is not the traditional concept of God. Just look at all of the ancient warnings against idolatry, look at the ancient Jewish reluctance to even use the name of God. On the other side of the globe, Taoists wrote that God who could be named is not the eternal God (Tao).

So, objecting that this philosophical discussion of the problem of evil does not deal with some other conception of God which avoids the incompatibility seems to me just beside the point.

However, apparently enough believers believed in the conception of God which is the context of the philosophical discussion so that writere like John Milton, the author of the book of Job, Voltaire, Dostoievsky, as well as Leibniz, thought that the problem was a religious problem as well as an academic philosophical problem.

In the face of this, Steiner's view is questionable.

Taoism is irrelevant. We are talking about the Western conception of God.

Except, of course, when the problem of evil is said to be a problem for the traditional conception of God. Then it is more than worth pointing out what that conception is or is not. And if the traditional conception of God is not as assumed by the problem of evil, that problem vanishes.



Right. God is not easy to grasp. Job, for example, addresses the problem in order to show that it is not a problem at all. Dostoevsky's character Ivan also manages to overcome the existential trouble.

As an existential crisis people have, it's a real problem just as feeling bad about losing the game is a real problem.


Not really: he explains just why the problem of evil, as typically presented, ultimately fails. So his view is explanatory.



And I introduced Taoism as an example of the ineffability concept spanning all mankind. Which makes Taoism, with regards to ineffability, relevant because it adds support of the universality of the traditional human spiritual mentality.

How does Steiner show that the problem of evil fails? In fact, what does that mean?

How does Job show it is not a problem? I don't understand what you say about Ivan.

In any case, we are talking about the conception of God that Milton, Dostoyevski, and Leibniz share, and the problem of evil in regard to that conception. Saying that evil is not a problem for some other conception is just a diversion. It does not matter which, if either, is the true. conception.

Your position seems to exclude some other options.

Assuming the existence of God, one could also suggest that He is indeed as powerful as credited . . . and that He has a plan.

Where were you when He was creating the Universe?

What can oppose God's Will?

So I take it you are referring to the Irenaean theodicy, where God's purpose is not to construct a paradise in this world, but rather, a means towards a perfect end (supposing an afterlife in the next world). Essentially, this world is a place of creative "soul making." Would you call that description accurate?

I do not disagree that this theodicy shows with some plausibility the need for an im perfect, person-making world. However, my problem is whether it justifies the actual extent of human suffering, e.g. the gigantic evils of the Jewish Holocaust, Rwanda Genocide, cancer etc.

You may attribute that to the moral wickedness of human action, but still, can such a painful creative process leading to an infinite good be the expression of a morally perfect, divine goodness? Assuming we even need a divine command theory to reach moral goodness?

Of course I am expecting a yes answer here from you, but for the religious skeptic, the problem of evil has not been sufficiently resolved.

He does not directly address the problem. If he is right, if the shortcomings of language are evidence of the divine, if language fails to accurately portray the divine, then any criticism of the divine's existence based on a description of the divine fails.

Theologians have mentioned that saying "God does not exist" does not make sense.



Job goes through various trials, directly experiencing what we would call evil, yet he endures these crises with piety while others fall victim to the existential crisis of suffering. He refuses to curse God. Ivan also overcomes this existential crisis.

Job deals with the existential crisis of evil, and shows how man can persist and thrive despite evil and suffering. Thus, Job shows that the problem of evil is not a significant objection to God's existence. And you probably wont get more traditional than the Old Testament.



Unless you go on to claim that the problem of evil is one for the traditional conception of God. And this is not the case. Theologians have dealt with various incarnations of the problem of evil, this stuff isn't new. If you are going to talk about a God susceptible to the problem of evil, you cannot be talking about the traditional God because that concept has been refined in such a way that it does not suffer from these problems.

Depending upon how we understand God, the problem of evil may have teeth. But if we're talking about the traditional God, the problem of evil is an existential issue, not a problem to be philosophically resolved for the ten millionth time.

Milton and Dostoevsky were artists using the existential crisis to build their work. Liebniz was mostly dealing with the Holiness problem, which is solved when you let go of God as perfectly good having understood that descriptions of God are not cold diamond but signposts to something beyond the scope of language.

Earthquakes and other natural disasters (disease) cause an immense amount of innocent suffering in the world (and we are not even thinking of what happens to animals).

The moral ability of man appears to be above gods in this debate. We are actually saying gods values are below ours. He has no remorse, no mercy and is in fact quite vengeful. It is not us unbelievers that describe this god, its not us that portray him when it is beneficial, as a caring benevolent merry chappy. Then when certain questions become unanswerable he reverts to the god of the old testament, nasty self serving and with no concern for his creation. If he cant be described, if he does not fit the image portrayed, then its simple, he does not exist.

As an agnostic I believe if god exists we can not know him but unlike the faithful I don't say he exists, then when the description does not fit, his values make him invisible.

But only if we blame God and assume he is benevolent

There are a number of conceptions of God (the Old Testament God, for instance). It probably is unanswerable what the correct conception of God is, although if there is a God, then there must be one. And, of course, the central question is whether any of the conceptions (if any) is true. That is, whether there is a God. As an agnostic, you do not know whether any of the conceptions are true.

---------- Post added 11-07-2009 at 10:45 AM ----------



Earthquakes cause suffering whether or not God is blamed, or we assume anything about God. What has the blaming of God, or anyone's conception of God, or whether God exists, to do with whether there is suffering in the world?

Because the thread is here to answer the question Why does God permit evil??, an earthquake is not evil it is a catastrophe

Ah, but if the traditional conception of God is not God as all-loving, all-good, and all-powerful then the problem of evil fails, right?.......
God is traditionally described
The supposedly "traditional" concept of God challenged by the problem of evil is not the traditional concept of God. Just look at all of the ancient warnings against idolatry, look at the ancient Jewish reluctance to even use the name of God. On the other side of the globe, Taoists wrote that God who could be named is not the eternal God (Tao).

1. God is perfectly good
2. God is omnipotent
3. There is evil.
It looks as if at least one of the above statements has to be false. They cannot all be true.
If that is so, then the atheist has a perfect shot against the existence of the traditional God of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religion. It is the chief weapon in atheology

There are a number of conceptions of God (the Old Testament God, for instance). It probably is unanswerable what the correct conception of God is, although if there is a God, then there must be one. And, of course, the central question is whether any of the conceptions (if any) is true. That is, whether there is a God. As an agnostic, you do not know whether any of the conceptions are true.

---------- Post added 11-07-2009 at 10:45 AM ----------



Earthquakes cause suffering whether or not God is blamed, or we assume anything about God. What has the blaming of God, or anyone's conception of God, or whether God exists, to do with whether there is suffering in the world?

Try ancient and modern concepts of the divine and the problem of evil as opposed to medieval scholastic concepts:
god is not omnipotent.
The world was not created ex nihilo.
god does not "permit" evil.
Evil is a inherent feature of any possible or meaningful world.

The description of god as they appear, are to me not logical or valid. None of them are true, to my mind, that is my belief and its from that perspective that I make my comment.

The concept that if god makes earth quakes then god is evil but from the perspective that earthquakes are just earthquakes, then they are not. Dont blame the car blame the driver.

Earthquakes are not, of course, intrinsically evil. But, they are extrinsically evil because they have evil effects. They cause suffering and pain. I am not blaming the car, but it is, nevertheless, true that cars kill and maim people.