Evil and ignorance: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Evil and ignorance » Evil and ignorance

Evil and ignorance
Another perspecitve on theodicy

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Evil and ignorance

prometheus33
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 12/08/05 - 01:46 PM:	#21
Fake Zen wrote: In fact it does. Because you beat a child then hand him a sweet and hope he forgets the brusies does not save a person from the original beating. According to a biblical perspective our "suffering is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8). So you're analogy of a "sweet" is a bit of an understatement to say the least. Fake Zen wrote: Justice is concieved on ideas of fairness, yet most suffering is not fair. Yes, but whose ideas of fairness? Who sets those parameters? The message of the Bible is that we all deserve some measure of evil and suffering on the basis of our own sinful actions. A mystery much more puzzling than that of evil, is the fact that God would in fact save some from the consequences of their deeds. The fact that Christ experienced death for the sake of sinful souls was not fair, but it was good.
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Albert Einstein

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 12/08/05 - 01:48 PM:	#22
Fake Zen wrote: You have not answered my question, only disagreed with it. what are we to do with suffering that is not beneficial? And may we also keep the words of Job with us, [In response to bildad asking "Does God pervert justice?"] "If it is a contest of strength, he is the strong one! IF it is a matter of justice, who can summon him?...When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the clamity of the innocent." 9:19, 23. You must assume that there is such a thing as suffering that is not beneficial. ‘In the meantime, what about all the innocent victims?’ you may ask. ‘Is it really worth their pain to prove some point of law?’ Well, God has not allowed evil to exist just to prove some obscure point of law. On the contrary, it is to establish once and for all the fundamental truth that he alone is sovereign and that obedience to his laws is essential for the continued peace and happiness of all his creations. One crucial thing to keep in mind is that God knows that he can undo completely any harm that this may bring to the human family. He knows that in the long term, the temporary period of pain and suffering will have a beneficial outcome. [as pointed out in the OP] Think of the mother who holds her child firmly while the doctor inflicts the pain of injecting a vaccine to give protection against some disease that would otherwise kill the child. No mother wants her child to feel pain. No doctor wants to cause distress to his patient. At the time, the child does not appreciate the reason for the pain, but later he will understand why it was permitted. The apostle Peter refers to trials or sufferings as a “fire” that proves the quality of the Christian’s faith. (1Pe 1:6, 7) Later, he likens suffering for righteousness to a burning when he tells his fellow Christians: “Do not be puzzled at the burning among you, which is happening to you for a trial, . . . you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory.” (1Pe 4:12, 13) That such suffering for righteousness has a beneficial effect is pointed out by the apostle Paul when he says: “Tribulation produces endurance.” (Ro 5:3) A person who faithfully and successfully passes through a difficult “burning” trial is stronger and more solidly established as a result of his endurance.—Ac 14:22; Ro 12:12. Some may feel that just knowing these things may be of little solace to those who are suffering. Hans Küng [ one of today's leading Catholic theologians] makes the point that a rational explanation for the existence of suffering is “about as helpful to the sufferer as a lecture on the chemistry of foodstuffs to a starving man.” He asks: “Can all the shrewd reasoning really give new heart to man, almost overwhelmed by suffering?” Well, all the “shrewd reasoning” of men who ignore God’s Word, the Bible, has not given heart to those who are suffering. Such human reasoning has only added to the problem by suggesting that God meant for man to suffer and that the earth was designed as a valley of tears or a testing ground for those who will eventually gain life in heaven. What a blasphemy!
"To the success of our hopeless task."

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 759

Posted 12/08/05 - 02:37 PM:	#23
So, Darkcrow is of the view that the suffering and death of infants is wilfully caused or allowed by God to "establish once and for all the fundamental truth that [God] alone is sovereign...". An apparently consistent, if rather scary, idea. However, the passages quoted only really work for responsible adults, and only then if they succeed in coming out of the 'trial' on the right side. It sounds rather like a father who says to his five-year-old, "cross the busy road to come to me, and try not to get run over. If you do, I will give you a big cuddle. If you don't, hey, I have other children who have faster reactions."

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 12/08/05 - 03:14 PM:	#24
mric wrote: So, Darkcrow is of the view that the suffering and death of infants is wilfully caused or allowed by God to "establish once and for all the fundamental truth that [God] alone is sovereign...". An apparently consistent, if rather scary, idea. However, the passages quoted only really work for responsible adults, and only then if they succeed in coming out of the 'trial' on the right side. It sounds rather like a father who says to his five-year-old, "cross the busy road to come to me, and try not to get run over. If you do, I will give you a big cuddle. If you don't, hey, I have other children who have faster reactions." There is a distinction between “willfully caused and “allowed.” However, it was the first family, Adam and Eve who wanted to know evil, as well as good, not God who wanted them to know. Now, we all get the opportunity to “know evil,” and it is by the grace of God we also have the ability to know the difference. “Be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:1) You have powerful reasons for obeying God. He loves you, and he has given his laws, including the law for children to obey their parents, to protect you and to help you enjoy a happy life. (Isaiah 48:17) He has also given his Son to die for you so that you can be saved from sin and death and enjoy everlasting life. (John 3:16) Are you grateful? So no, “a father who says to his five-year-old, "cross the busy road to come to me, and try not to get run over,” is not what a “parents in union with the Lord” would say.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

Fake Zen
Sword-Bearing Sage

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2005
Location: Roanoke
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 126

Posted 12/08/05 - 05:40 PM:	#25
prometheus33 wrote: Yes, but this is a man in the midst of the suffering still struggling with his terrible loss. Listen to him after he sees the Lord and has experienced a deeper knowledge of him. Job 42 1 Then Job replied to the LORD : 2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. 3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. 4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' 5 My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. 6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." Here he understands 1) that God is good (implied) and omnipotent 2) that he (Job) is ignorant and sinful. Whe you come to realize these two facts the so called problem of evil becomes irrelevant. This is an extreme misinterpretation of the book of Job. Never once does he come to recongize God's goodness, nor does God. Omnipotence is established, even in the verse i quoted. However, if you had read a few more lines down (or the entire book) you would see that God admits to his injustice. He says that, Jobs friends has have spoken wrongly about the Lord, and they should die were it not for Job's prayerful intervention. The view of god that the friends presented is similar to yours, that god is all good and incapable of evil. WHat it is that Job realizes from the speech of the lord is that man is of small account in this world. The only argument Job has had of God is that he is obsessed with the evil of mortals and this shouldnt be such a big deal. God comes in reply at the end of the book by hurling rhetorical questions at Job and the order of the universe. What he is trying to get across is not his benevolence but his power, and that the ways of the world are not understood by man. The world in which suffering befalls by chance allows one to gain truth. But God remains unjust. read the whole book next time, or choose a verse that better reflects the actual intent of the book. It is preciesly the attributes of goodness and omnipotence that bring the problem of evil about. THere is GOd and he is good and all powerful. therefore he disdains evil and has the power to end it. yet evil remains.
Amors est Mors

Fake Zen
Sword-Bearing Sage

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2005
Location: Roanoke
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 126

Posted 12/08/05 - 05:47 PM:	#26
prometheus33 wrote: According to a biblical perspective our "suffering is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8). So you're analogy of a "sweet" is a bit of an understatement to say the least. Yes, but whose ideas of fairness? Who sets those parameters? The message of the Bible is that we all deserve some measure of evil and suffering on the basis of our own sinful actions. A mystery much more puzzling than that of evil, is the fact that God would in fact save some from the consequences of their deeds. The fact that Christ experienced death for the sake of sinful souls was not fair, but it was good. once again your retreat into man kinds ingnorance. Very well then if GOd allowed christ to suffer unjustly than he is unjust. besides the ignorance claim is refuted by the properties of analogy. Unless you are willing to argue that the property of analogy is no use than you have to concede. HOwever, keep in mind that when doing so you lose all suppositions of god including his goodness. in the end we just dont know anything and may as well be worshipping a god of complete evil for the good it does us. And great boons aside, regardless of promise of glory, injustice remains injustice. God is unjust because he allows or causes evil to befall people who do not deserve it.
Amors est Mors

Fake Zen
Sword-Bearing Sage

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2005
Location: Roanoke
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 126

Posted 12/08/05 - 06:28 PM:	#27
darkcrow wrote: You must assume that there is such a thing as suffering that is not beneficial. What is beneficial about a 13 year old boy, who was born to atheist parents, but nonetheless never stole anything, maybe lied once or twice, but was generally regarded as a good kid, being swept away in rainstorm? keep in mind i mean the child, not the parents should you wish to construe some sort of story in which this incident leads them to the savior. darkcrow wrote: 'In the meantime, what about all the innocent victims?' you may ask. 'Is it really worth their pain to prove some point of law?' Well, God has not allowed evil to exist just to prove some obscure point of law. On the contrary, it is to establish once and for all the fundamental truth that he alone is sovereign and that obedience to his laws is essential for the continued peace and happiness of all his creations. This is a contradiction. how can god have continued (though i am not sure what you mean by continued considering there is little now) peace and happiness for all creatures when he allows so many to suffer unjustly in order for this to occur. darkcrow wrote: One crucial thing to keep in mind is that God knows that he can undo completely any harm that this may bring to the human family. He knows that in the long term, the temporary period of pain and suffering will have a beneficial outcome. [as pointed out in the OP] Think of the mother who holds her child firmly while the doctor inflicts the pain of injecting a vaccine to give protection against some disease that would otherwise kill the child. No mother wants her child to feel pain. No doctor wants to cause distress to his patient. At the time, the child does not appreciate the reason for the pain, but later he will understand why it was permitted. I have already responded to a similar analogy above. your claim for our ignorance does not hold conisidering we are not children and indeed some of appreciate our pain. secondly, a shot to keep us from dying and a bullet through the heart of a loved one are two different forms of suffering. on he one hand the incident with the bullet requires interpretation on our part in order for it to have meaning, whereas the shot will take effect without our understanding. thirdly, while god my indeed have a benevolent agenda this does not free him from injustice, only gives reasoning for why he is unjust. dark crow wrote: The apostle Peter refers to trials or sufferings as a "fire" that proves the quality of the Christian's faith. (1Pe 1:6, 7) Later, he likens suffering for righteousness to a burning when he tells his fellow Christians: "Do not be puzzled at the burning among you, which is happening to you for a trial, . . . you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory." (1Pe 4:12, 13) That such suffering for righteousness has a beneficial effect is pointed out by the apostle Paul when he says: "Tribulation produces endurance." (Ro 5:3) A person who faithfully and successfully passes through a difficult "burning" trial is stronger and more solidly established as a result of his endurance.—Ac 14:22; Ro 12:12. Some may feel that just knowing these things may be of little solace to those who are suffering. Hans Küng [ one of today's leading Catholic theologians] makes the point that a rational explanation for the existence of suffering is "about as helpful to the sufferer as a lecture on the chemistry of foodstuffs to a starving man." He asks: "Can all the shrewd reasoning really give new heart to man, almost overwhelmed by suffering?" Well, all the "shrewd reasoning" of men who ignore God's Word, the Bible, has not given heart to those who are suffering. Such human reasoning has only added to the problem by suggesting that God meant for man to suffer and that the earth was designed as a valley of tears or a testing ground for those who will eventually gain life in heaven. What a blasphemy! Indeed it is, yet that is what you are suggesting when you want are saying suffering brings about endurance. suffering does bring about endurance except for those that are martyred. Also, are we to disregard philosophers, athesists, and buddhists who find meaning in their suffering, but do so by "shrewd reasoning" rather than christian scripture? does not the dharamapadda have something to say? It tells us to learn from and end our suffering, rather than bear it for some unknown greater good that you suggest. The god that wishes to test only is only praise worthy in strength, since that is what he demands of others. however, a god who takes responsibility for evil and admits his own injustice allows man to make truth from his suffering regardless of what it may be. This is the Book of Job's point. Life teaches us that "naked we came and naked we shall return." were we to have meaning ascribed to our suffering (such as punishment or endurance) than it keeps us from learning certain truths such as the above. Edited by Fake Zen on 12/08/05 - 10:18 PM
Amors est Mors

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 12/08/05 - 06:58 PM:	#28
Fake Zen wrote: And great boons aside, regardless of promise of glory, injustice remains injustice. God is unjust because he allows or causes evil to befall people who do not deserve it. Perhaps I can help. By what standards do you measure the term, “unjust”? When God’s faithful servant Abraham could not understand why something was happening, he said of God: “That be far from thee to do after this manner, to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?” (Genesis 18:25) With the coming of Christ, God’s qualities of justice and loving-kindness were magnified. The ransom sacrifice arrangement by means of Christ opened up the way for everyone, Jew and non-Jew alike, to gain everlasting life. Perhaps that is what Peter had in mind, “Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. .”—Acts 10:34, 35. That sounds just to me.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

BubbaSwitzler
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 2542

Posted 12/08/05 - 10:52 PM:	#29
darkcrow wrote: Fake Zen wrote: And great boons aside, regardless of promise of glory, injustice remains injustice. God is unjust because he allows or causes evil to befall people who do not deserve it. By what standards do you measure the term, "unjust"? And here we arrive at precisely the point of contention. Darkcrow asks exactly the right question but I suspect that few will realize the significance of it. What is justice? What is good? In order to pass judgement on God you must have an answer for these questions. Without an answer the claim that God is unjust is meaningless. One possibility is to hold God accountable to his own standards. But this is not as simple as it might at first appear. Because God has a different role in the universe than we do. In addition, we really can't claim to understand how God fits into the universe (though many try). Can God do what Fake Zen expects of him without causing more harm in the process? The real debate around theology today is whether or not God measures up to our moral standards. Very typically the answer is "no" and so he is disposed of. As a society we have matured beyond God's morality. We have become enlightened. God is unfair, unjust, etc. and we are better off without him. Or so it is claimed. I am skeptical of some of the rationalizations offered for the nature of the universe that God has created. But I am even more skeptical of claims by God's critics that they have discovered a superior morality. God save us from your critics!
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1235

Posted 12/09/05 - 12:08 AM:	#30
prometheus33 wrote: Dclements, I don't think that I'm necessarily preaching to the choir. The first part of my post pointed out that empiricism has an extremely narrow epistemilogical grid. We can know things without necessarily being able to prove them empirically. Would you concede to this at least? The second part of my post points to man's inability at times to grasp the bigger picture. I think that's true regardless of what you believe in. I'm suggesting that you consider what seems like pointless suffering may indeed have a greater purpose. To be honest I don't spend much time debating in the Epistemology forum so I don't think I should comment on how we know something beyound that one should be careful seperating beliefs from facts. I see nothing wrong with someone saying 'I believe that the reason evil exists is because that it is part of some bigger plan that only God understands...". It is when someone thinks their beliefs are facts or more important than other peoples beliefs that I have problems with. And sure, I've considered that suffering may have 'greater purpose', but if it does several a greater purpose I can not conceive it doing so if there is a omnipotent and benevolent God and I do not think you can either(beyound 'it is for reasons that only God can understand' of course). prometheus33 wrote: With regards to your suggestion that my argument supports the problem of evil, I disagree. You're correct, my daughter is young enough to not understand. But she got over her pain and distrust regardless of her continued ignorance of the need for the shots. That's my point. We will not always know why, by we can know (not necessarily through empiricism or 'facts', as you called for) that God is good nonetheless. Perhaps this is not an argument based on a strict line of logic, but it wasn't intended to be-- the purpose was to illustrate a point through analogy. Although Fake Zen gave a good answer to your arguement I will give you my 2 cents since I knew this would be answer before I submitted my last post( and, as I said in my last post, the example you gave supports the problem of evil). You may not agree that a child needs to know why she is getting shots or that one does not require knowledge in order to understand why something is good and not evil and that we can simply have faith in that it is good, but what if her faith in you was wrong and you were injecting her with poison or if the shots harmed her in any way? Would she be justified in believing the shots were wrong and not believing you that they were something good for her? If she knows whether the shots are 'good'/'evil' through knowledge than faith she would have a much better chance at when to think something may help her and when something may harm her.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.