How Do You Make Sense of Evil?

[Drew]

Let me begin by saying that I fully understand how management might see this as a means of re-starting a thread that has been locked . When the "Philosophical Problem of Evil" thread was started, I salivated and was flexing my fingers for some serious responding. However, it got locked before I could fire off any rounds.

Would it be acceptable to structure a thread around "explanations" that we Christians provide for the presence of evil in the world - how we make sense of its existence in light of our belief in a good and loving God. Then, perhaps it would not violate the rules to allow others to "critique" those accounts or explanations. In this way, the "worst" that could be done re "attacking Christianity" would be for someone to argue "such and such an account does not work for this reason....." Perhaps that kind of interaction might be countenanced because there are no direct "attacks" on the content of our faith, but only "attacks" on the explanations we give for the existence of evil. The "worst" thing that could arise (from the Christian perspective) is that all proposed arguments are shown to have serious flaws and the reason for the existence of evil has to be deemed a mystery (for the Christian).

I realize this may be pushing the rules. But my intent is to allow Christians to at least try to demonstrate to the world that the existence of evil can be made sense of in the Christian perspective. To the sense that such arguments succeed or are at leat plausible, the case for the faith is strengthened. If this is deemed to violate the rules, I will not protest.

I will give a cryptic one sentence summary of my position on this matter: God had no choice but to allow (or even, dare I say it, "create") the possibility of evil in order to make the best possible world for us, the objects of his love.

 

[Devekut]

Interesting Drew,

I will watch this thread with interest. I would add, to be considered, is not that God is found in this dichotomoy where either he desires to stop evil but cannot, or can but does not desire to...but rather that God seeks a good that is higher than the alleviation of human sufferings and abuses. Essentially, that God can permit evil (without condoning or indifference) if it is in the name of a higher good.

I'm thinking Drew that you are working out the above in closer detail.

 

[Drew]

My position on the existence of evil is that, in a mysterious and presently incomprehensible way, it is necessary in order for God to create the "best possible world". And I do not mean this in the arguably simplistic sense that "there has to be evil in order for us to recognize good" - I think such an argument goes nowhere.

Those who are committed to a model of God's omnipotence that enables Him to "do anything He wants" will not like my model. I believe that when God commits to make the universe with feature "X", He effectively constrains Himself in respect to doing things that He might have been able to do had He not implemented feature X. In other words, not even God can do things that logically or conceptually or otherwise simply cannot go together.

Can God build a house that is square in shape, has a huge floor area, has a sunroom on both east and west sides, with the further feature that it will take 30 seconds or less to walk between sunrooms? No He cannot - the very nature of all these requirements is such that they cannot all be met, even by God. Because creation is real, "it is what it is" and if God has committed to X, He may not be able to do Y.

More later, but I hope my general position is becoming more clear - the existence of evil is like the annoying 3 minute walk the rich people have to undertake as they walk from the east=facing sunroom to the west-facing sunroom in their gigantic castle-like home.

 

[mondar]

Interesting Drew,

I will watch this thread with interest. I would add, to be considered, is not that God is found in this dichotomoy where either he desires to stop evil but cannot, or can but does not desire to...but rather that God seeks a good that is higher than the alleviation of human sufferings and abuses. Essentially, that God can permit evil (without condoning or indifference) if it is in the name of a higher good.

I'm thinking Drew that you are working out the above in closer detail.

Can we say that the higher good that God derives from allowing the existance of evil has to do with his glory?

 

[Free]

Drew,

I tend to agree with you. In creating the best possible world it was necessary to give humans the freedom to choose whether or not to love God. If we are indeed created to love God then that love must be from choice or it is something other than love.

I used to believe that God allows evil so that it brings out virtuousness in people but that quickly falls when one considers the nature of evil and the extents to which it goes (rape, incest, the Holocaust, etc.). From some of my more recent readings comes the argument of the complexity of evil--because it is so complex most philosophers have abandoned the classic Problem of Evil as an argument against the existence of God. Any who use the classic argument from evil, and likewise any who claim to have a sure answer, have failed to fully grasp the complexity.

In short, there really is no answer, biblical or otherwise. The Bible merely states that evil exists and causes much suffering, that God will help people in their suffering, and that evil will be dealt a final blow someday, but it gives no explanation as to why it exists.

 

[TanNinety]

My position on the existence of evil is that, in a mysterious and presently incomprehensible way, it is necessary in order for God to create the "best possible world".

We have no clear idea of what this "best possible world" is. If we take the kingdom of God for example, it is where the tears are wiped away and there is no more suffering and we have eternal life and healing from the tree of life and the law of God is written in our hearts and kept without disobedience. The knowledge of we are no longer suffering and have no tears of pain is based on the fond memory of our lives on earth where we once did suffer. So in a way, evil is necessary to appreciate good. What other necessity for evil can we deduce from the kingdom of God?

Another way to test this would be to attempt to create this "best possible world" logically without involving "evil" and show that it is not possible hence showing that evil is necessary. But in either cases I think we would need a deeper understanding of what this "best possible world" ultimately is!

 

[Vic C.]

Interesting Drew,

I will watch this thread with interest. I would add, to be considered, is not that God is found in this dichotomy where either he desires to stop evil but cannot, or can but does not desire to...but rather that God seeks a good that is higher than the alleviation of human sufferings and abuses. Essentially, that God can permit evil (without condoning or indifference) if it is in the name of a higher good.

I'm thinking Drew that you are working out the above in closer detail.

Can we say that the higher good that God derives from allowing the existence of evil has to do with his glory?

It has everything to do with HIS glory... and HIS very existence.Evil magnifies HIS Goodness. We'd still be lost if we didn't have that point/counterpoint thing going on. Who do you (not actually you, mondar) glorify when anything happens? I glorify HIM.

Anyone who watches football must have seen the amazing catch by David Tyree. After the game, he was interviewed and asked about the catch. He said God does some funny things and that he gives all the glory (for the catch and the win) to HIM.

HE gets the glory. In everything give thanks... Glorifying the Lord is a very common theme in the Bible and much of it was done in the face of adversity.

Let me begin by saying that I fully understand how management might see this as a means of re-starting a thread that has been locked . When the "Philosophical Problem of Evil" thread was started, I salivated and was flexing my fingers for some serious responding. However, it got locked before I could fire off any rounds.

LOL Drew, that is why the thread was locked right away. We didn't even want it to get to that level of intensidy... and it would have, no doubt.

We need to stop coming here with guns ablazin'. :smt067 Otherwise, we'll be doing more of this... :smt117 and this... :smt018

 

[Drew]

Let me begin by saying that I fully understand how management might see this as a means of re-starting a thread that has been locked . When the "Philosophical Problem of Evil" thread was started, I salivated and was flexing my fingers for some serious responding. However, it got locked before I could fire off any rounds.

LOL Drew, that is why the thread was locked right away. We didn't even want it to get to that level of intensity... and it would have, no doubt.

We need to stop coming here with guns ablazin'. :smt067 Otherwise, we'll be doing more of this... :smt117 and this... :smt018

Just in case in there is any misunderstanding, the reason I said I was "salivating" was not that I wanted to "fight". It was rather that I found this to be an interesting question and I believe that there is a compelling argument that allows the Christian to address the "evil" question. I was salivating at the opportunity to make a serious counterargument against those who dismiss Christianity since it seems to be unable to give a coherent account of the existence of evil.

 

[Vic C.]

... I was salivating at the opportunity to make a serious counterargument against those who dismiss Christianity since it seems to be unable to give a coherent account of the existence of evil.

Here's your chance, brother. 8-)

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Hi. I am new here. I often rely on the Catechism Of The Catholic Church for my answers, because I believe it teaches me correctly, and also because I'm not such a great communicator. So I hope nobody minds if I quote it regarding the subject of this thread:

II. Good Acts and Evil Acts
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3 ... t1art4.htm

CCC 1755 - A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete actsâ€â€such as fornicationâ€â€that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

CCC 1756 - It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Voyageur]

Thanks, Drew, for restarting the debate...

I would like to hear Christian thoughts on the Epicurean Paradox.

 

[Voyageur]

Drew,

I tend to agree with you. In creating the best possible world it was necessary to give humans the freedom to choose whether or not to love God. If we are indeed created to love God then that love must be from choice or it is something other than love.

For anyone interested in related reading, the best possible world notion was advanced by Leibniz (a Christian), the eminent German mathematician and philosopher. The counter-argument was masterfully addressed in Voltaire's satire Candide (which stands as a great work of fiction even if you disagree with the underlying philosophical position).

I recommend reading the works of both men.

 

[Voyageur]

I will watch this thread with interest. I would add, to be considered, is not that God is found in this dichotomoy where either he desires to stop evil but cannot, or can but does not desire to...but rather that God seeks a good that is higher than the alleviation of human sufferings and abuses. Essentially, that God can permit evil (without condoning or indifference) if it is in the name of a higher good.

It's actually a trichotomy: the third possibility being that God is able and willing (the qualities befitting a benevolent and all-powerful god), but evil still exists. Therein lies the problem.

What is that good that is 'higher than the alleviation of human sufferings and abuses?'
How does this good come from constant and prolonged evil?

You say there is a higher good. One must be able to explain this. Perhaps it is a sublime sort of goodness, that none of us can truly know until we die and ascend into heaven. Sublime in that it cannot be explained.

However, perception, which filters all of humanity's reality, knows of the highest order of goodness, which can be seen in the smile of a loved one; the beauty of the planet; a child's face; a story beautifully told; the act and benefits of good will. All these things... they are but a few examples of the highest order of goodness. Next to that, this 'higher goodness' is rather illusory. If only God knows of it, then we humans have no access to it and it is thus removed from us. Why must the higher good be cloaked in mystery?

 

[Voyageur]

From some of my more recent readings comes the argument of the complexity of evil--because it is so complex most philosophers have abandoned the classic Problem of Evil as an argument against the existence of God. Any who use the classic argument from evil, and likewise any who claim to have a sure answer, have failed to fully grasp the complexity.

I assume this is related to the thread in which I brought up the Epicurean Paradox.

I'm quite aware that the paradox proves nothing. In matters of the ultimate truth, nothing can be proven, as many a philosopher would admit (see my signature below). The paradox really interests me in so much as it relates to evil.

How it might suggest something about the nature of God. How it can make us re-examine our ideas about God.

 

[Voyageur]

It has everything to do with HIS glory... and HIS very existence.Evil magnifies HIS Goodness.

Perfect goodness need not be magnified. It should be self-evident.

We'd still be lost if we didn't have that point/counterpoint thing going on. Who do you (not actually you, mondar) glorify when anything happens? I glorify HIM.

Why does perfection need glorification? Perfection is manifest.

Anyone who watches football must have seen the amazing catch by David Tyree. After the game, he was interviewed and asked about the catch. He said God does some funny things and that he gives all the glory (for the catch and the win) to HIM.

Which begs the question: was the Tyree catch God's comeuppance for the Patriot's arrogance?

 

[Drew]

Thanks, Drew, for restarting the debate...

I would like to hear Christian thoughts on the Epicurean Paradox.

At first, I thought that the "Epicurean Paradox" was the latest European entry into the sub-compact automoblile market.....

But, more seriously, I will assume that the following captures the content of this paradox:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"  Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief

I will take door number 1. I have yet to see any Scriptural text that clearly states that God can do anything he wants to do. I suspect that we very much want to believe that God can absolutely anything He wants to do, I just think that we have clues from our own experience that He may be limited by the very commitments He makes when He makes the world the way that it is.

By the way, I am not referring to the kind of limitation that prevents God from making a triangle with four sides. It is an error of logic to even go down that route. God cannot make a triangle with four sides because the very meaning of the concept "triangle" entails the notion of three sided object. So I think that whole area is a rabbit trail. A four-sided triangle is what I will call a "logical" impossibility - even for God.

What is a more fruitful line of inquiry is the one where we ask whether a universe can be constructed that meets each a set of specified criteria, none of which logically contradict with any other. In other words, are there limitations other than logical contradiction type ones (the 4 sided triangle) that constrain God. I suspect that the answer is that there are.

While it is difficult to make the point in a general way, I think we all know that when we decide to do things a certain way, we close certain doors in respect to future decisions we might like to make. Let's say that I am an automotive engineer who is assigned the task of making a car that accelerate from 0 to 60 in three seconds (feature A) and also get > 60 miles to the gallon (feature B). There is no logical contradiction here - it is in no way logically impossible to create such a car.

But it might be "naturally" impossible to do this. By this I mean, even God might not be able to create a universe where a car meeting feature A and B can be built. Here is where a big vulnerability of my argument gets exposed. I doubt that no one is smart enough, least of all me, to be able to make a case about why it would be naturally impossible for God to do this.

I cannot think of anything more to say. I hope to say more later.

 

[Vic C.]

It has everything to do with HIS glory... and HIS very existence.Evil magnifies HIS Goodness.

Perfect goodness need not be magnified. It should be self-evident.

You say it should be self-evident, but why? How could I obviously appreciate a warm, sunny day if I've never experienced the dead coldness of winter?

[quote:b9e52]We'd still be lost if we didn't have that point/counterpoint thing going on. Who do you (not actually you, mondar) glorify when anything happens? I glorify HIM.

Why does perfection need glorification? Perfection is manifest.[/quote:b9e52]
How does one know God is perfect unless measured up against imperfection?

[quote:b9e52]Anyone who watches football must have seen the amazing catch by David Tyree. After the game, he was interviewed and asked about the catch. He said God does some funny things and that he gives all the glory (for the catch and the win) to HIM.

Which begs the question: was the Tyree catch God's comeuppance for the Patriot's arrogance? [/quote:b9e52]
In retrospect and in light of new charges of cheating brought upon the Pats, I'd say, maybe so. He's been know to lift His "umbrella" of protection from people and nations throughout history. But one has to wonder; does God really care about "fixing" football games or is Tyree just blessed through faithful prayer?

 

[Drew]

.Evil magnifies HIS Goodness.

I have never thought that this argument was very convincing. It would seem that taking this line of thinking will lead one to have to explain how it is that God's goodness is made manifest to us in the coming redeemed world in which there will be, presumably, no evil around to magnify God's goodness.

Having said that, I suspect the sharp-eyed observer might use this argument against my position. I have stated that God had no choice but to create evil in order to make the best possible world for us - and this is not to say what Vic has said, it is to say something entirely different. And yet now I have said that the future redeemed world has no evil. So am I not digging myself into a hole since the redeemed world is obviously better than this world? Or to be more precise - the coming world is clearly without evil and so we have an example of a world that is better than ours. Why couldn't God have "skipped" this world and gone straight to the future world with no evil? Would that not be more loving?

Good question. We shall try to thinks of and answer my precioussss....yes we shall..........

 

[Vic C.]

I have never thought that this argument was very convincing. It would seem that taking this line of thinking will lead one to have to explain how it is that God's goodness is made manifest to us in the coming redeemed world in which there will be, presumably, no evil around to magnify God's goodness

Drew, we are not in His real presence yet, are we? Can you even imagine what it will be like once we are in His presence? That is what makes Philippians 2:9-11 so special. Plus, most souls in His presence at this time will have already experienced evil while on earth. Either way, I'm convinced. :

Ooh, there's a song that describes what it will be like when we experience his total glory and goodness...

I can only imagine

I can only imagine what it will be like
When I walk by your side
I can only imagine what my eyes will see
When your face is before me
I can only imagine
I can only imagine

Surrounded by your glory
What will my heart feel?
Will I dance for you Jesus,
Or in awe of you be still?
Will I stand in your presence,
Or to my knees will I fall?
Will I sing Halelluja,
Will I be able to speak at all?
I can only imagine
I can only imagine

I can only imagine when that day comes
And I find myself standing in the Son
I can only imagine when all I will do
Is forever, forever worship you
I can only imagine
I can only imagine ...

(recorded by -Mercy Me-)

 

[Voyageur]

You say [perfection] should be self-evident, but why? How could I obviously appreciate a warm, sunny day if I've never experienced the dead coldness of winter?

I'm not referring to what we humans consider perfection. Perfection is subjective. Unless, of course, we're admiring a perfectly sculpted square, for example. A perfect square can be objectively assessed as perfect.

The warm, sunny day analogy is weak. If someone had only experienced warm, sunny days, and was truly happy with his/her life, we might say that there were days where perfection was made manifest to them. Likewise, someone who only experienced cold days might also find the perfection in such bleak conditions. It is subjective. And the opposite doesn't need to be known or experienced to appreciate a life-time of the same weather.

How does one know God is perfect unless measured up against imperfection?

This assumes that humans haven't the mental faculties to appreciate the perfect nature of God unless he is measured against imperfection. Is this an expressed Biblical viewpoint?

If we acknowledge God is perfection, then it stands to reason that God has always been and will always be perfect. This means that God does not need us to acknowledge his perfection for him to be perfect. In theistic terms, his perfection exists whether we are there to appreciate it or not. Thus, his perfection is manifest. It need not be glorified. I am positing that humanity could still appreciate a God's perfection in the absence of imperfection. A perfect square is always perfect. It's perfection is manifest. One need not observe an imperfect square to be told or observe that a square is perfectly constructed. We know the rules for building a perfect square. We need not ever see an imperfect square in order to build and/or appreciate a perfect square.

Perfection is just a word representing a quality of God. To see that quality would be sublime even without awareness of it's negative.