The problem of Evil: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The problem of Evil » The problem of Evil

The problem of Evil
(the Epicurean paradox)

Page: First 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

The problem of Evil

BubbaSwitzler
banned

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

Posted 02/09/06 - 09:27 AM:	#161
Ophiuchus wrote: Bubba wrote: For one reason or another it is not posssible for God to create humans who are both of free will and ready to live the perfect life. That's an interesting response. So it would be another case of logical or physical impossibility? I guess this would get around the omnipotence issue. Right. Christians like to refer to the story of Adam and Eve (which most regard as history or true myth but which I have come to regard as a true hypothetical). Truly free will entails the freedom to reject God not to mention doing self-destructive things like smoking and drugs. Ophiuchus wrote: Maybe we're all necessarily created imperfect but somehow this allows God to "build in" something that makes us recognize his perfection and give up sin once we're in his presence? I don't know how this would work, but maybe... We have to be very carful about is the very concept of perfection. In a perfect world would there be perfect lions (able to catch any prey) and perfect gazelles (able to escape any predator)? The concept of perfection is not so simple as we tend to assume. But, yes, I think this is much closer to the truth. This is the idea of Christian Enlightenment that I have been kicking around. This life of toil and suffering (and joy and pleasure) is a necessary path from seperate and immature free will to whatever it is that awaits us later (and really we have no clue about what it is, only that death is not the end). Ophiuchus wrote: Bubba wrote: I've grown extremely disgusted with the modern attitude that suffering is evil and that God is a mean kid with a magnifying glass. Well, I'm not sure that this conjunction always holds. It seems you can say one without the other. God doesn't have to be mean for suffering to be bad. That's one of the Epicurean options, after all: that God is benevolent but not omnipotent. Either way, it seems that suffering is somehow inherently bad. See the seperate thread on suffering. The Christian concept of suffering is subtle. Suffering is not evil in and of itself. We have a natural inclination to avoid suffering ourselves and we have a moral duty to avoid imposing senseless suffering on others or to relieve their suffering. But that is not the same as saying suffering is evil. Parents allow or inflict suffering on their own children in many ways (e.g. turn off the tv and go study) but always (presumably) toward a greater good. So might it be with God. Ophiuchus wrote: Perhaps it is a lesser evil or a necessary evil, but it seems that if we could get all the good things out of life without suffering that would be a better world than one in which we do suffer. Then again, perhaps we just need to take another step behind ye olde shield of logical impossibility. There is the possibility of logical impossibillity but also the possibility of character building or other variations on that theme. I think before declaring God to be a failure (mean or incompetent) we should explore these possibilities. Ophiuchus wrote: Also, this attitude is nowhere near modern. Suffering is a major topic in various religions (though not always treated as evil per se, as in Buddhism) and goes back to times before Christianity. Maybe you are referring to modern manifestations of the topic? Yes and no. There is a curious mix of ideas in the modern world that gives rise to what seems to me a unique view of pleasure and suffering as good and evil. Ophiuchus wrote: Bubba wrote: The more I think about it the less I am shocked by the suffering and evil in this world. I must admit confusion about this statement. Care to explain? Just that having dealt with so many people who are the cause of their own suffering I have grown less sympathetic to the claim that God is the cause of evil and suffering in any meaningful way. While it is certainly not the case that all suffering is the consequence of human stupidity certainly stupidity is the source of a great deal of human suffering. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to imagine that suffering in general is a necessary part of enlightenment which is itself a necessary step in the development of humanity and genuine free will. Finally, one has to think hard about what life would be like without the challenges of avoiding suffering. The existence of suffering is a problem that humans are designed to solve and this problem solving is like the water that fish swim in, ever present and hardly noticed. What would life be like if we were truly without need or desire? I'm not sure that's paradise.
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

Ophiuchus
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 38

Posted 02/10/06 - 11:11 PM:	#162
Chops: I disagree that I missed agentlopez's point--I think s/he was unclear and what I wanted was clarification. Much of what you have said in your post contains options I presented to agentlopez for just such a purpose. Paulnbama and BubbaSwitzler: thanks for the clarification/explanation of your thoughts on the matter. Interesting propositions. Mariner: it is true that the beating is material existence. The question Camus seems to be raising is how the beating can be justified by the gift-giving if the gift could have been given without the beating. It is a problem for anyone who wishes to accept your proposition (1), as it seems Christians should do. As for (2), I don't think there is an inherent contradiction. Even if an assumption of the truth of (2) logically led to committing suicide, that doesn't generate a contradiction. It just makes the world cruel and life pointless. However, it is not obvious that suicide is the only rational response to assuming (2). It isn't inconsistent to think (a) the world is bad, (b) there is a better afterlife and (c) suicide will deny me entry to this better afterlife. Some Catholics I have known think a bit like this. Clearly, suicide is not the logical option in such a case. And yes, (3) removes the problem of evil, but that's fine. The problem of evil is only presented against those who want to defend (1) anyway (as you yourself pointed out). Mostly what I was interested in was what some Christian responses would be to the problem Camus sets up about how to justify an unnecessarily painful life assuming a kind and all-powerful God. The responses I have received so far seem to defend the thesis that the painful life is in fact necessary. So be it.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --Albert Einstein

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 02/12/06 - 01:26 PM:	#163
Ophiuchus wrote: Mostly what I was interested in was what some Christian responses would be to the problem Camus sets up about how to justify an unnecessarily painful life assuming a kind and all-powerful God. The responses I have received so far seem to defend the thesis that the painful life is in fact necessary. So be it. I would say that the answer is rather that the beating is good-in-itself. Existence is not simply the road to Heaven, it is good-in-itself, and even if Heaven without prior Existence would simply not be Heaven (i.e. if we accept that Existence has instrumental goodness), this does not mean that Existence is evil-in-itself (i.e. that it lacks intrinsic goodness). It's better to be beaten up than to not exist, especially since many other (good) things accrue to those who exist -- existence is not pure evil, by hypothesis (since theists embrace option 1). Heaven, therefore, is not necessary to justify it, it would be justified even if God did not arrange Heaven for us. Camus thinks that God is trading with us, but He is not. He is giving us more than our due -- our claim, strictly speaking, is to Existence (with its mixed goods and evils), not to Heaven, but God, in His mercy, decided to give us more. It isn't inconsistent to think (a) the world is bad, (b) there is a better afterlife and (c) suicide will deny me entry to this better afterlife. (b) contradicts (a). In a purely evil universe, nothing is "better". The assumption that there is a better afterlife already places those who assume it in the field of believers in (1) -- whether they realize it or not. They are people who believe that the universe (i.e. life + afterlife) was arranged by a benevolent power.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Flavarflav
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 13, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 02/13/06 - 02:34 PM:	#164
This is a very interesting topic! I've been doing this in RS in school and found it very interesting. I have yet to find an answer to the riddle though...

Ophiuchus
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 38

Posted 02/16/06 - 12:26 PM:	#165
Mariner, if (1) does not entail a purely good universe then (2) does not entail a purely evil universe. But perhaps the sticking point is the word "better." I do not mean morally better, but rather preferable in a desire satisfaction sense. As such, it is not inconsistent to think that the world of physical existence is bad and that there is a preferable afterlife that would be made inaccessible should one commit suicide. Many Christians I know actually take just this tact. It may be better to exist and be beaten up than to not exist at all. I think that is an open question. After all, there are many (especially Christian theologians) who believe that life could not possibly be intrinsically good and that God is necessary to give life meaning. Perhaps these people are the real targets of the "immorality of Heaven" problem. I don't rightly know. Finally, that the afterlife is preferable does not necessitate that it was created by a benevolent power. Consider the very problem Camus raised to begin with. it is not inconceivable that some omnipotent deity could be like an abusive father. He beats the child out of spite (or some personal issue of sorts) then tries to make up for it via a gift (in this case Heaven). You can argue that such is not the case, but it seems a lot more would have to be said to secure that it could not be the case.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --Albert Einstein

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 02/17/06 - 03:35 AM:	#166
Ophiuchus wrote: As such, it is not inconsistent to think that the world of physical existence is bad and that there is a preferable afterlife that would be made inaccessible should one commit suicide. Many Christians I know actually take just this tact. In a vacuum, it is not inconsistent -- but if one posits that the world was not created by a benevolent power, then it is inconsistent. Your first objection (that 1 entails the non-existence of evil) is correct, which is why the Christian theodicy, summed up admirably by Leibniz, is that "this is the best of all possible worlds". Of course evil exists inasmuch as there is free will, but in a very important -- if lofty -- sense (the "God's eye sense", so to speak), evil does not exist, since all evil choices are taken up by God in the overall design, which is the best possible design. The idea that evil may be a part of the best possible design is not inconsistent -- all one has to do is to posit that the alternative would be worse, free will being the most common example --, but the idea that infinite bliss may be a part of a random design is. After all, there are many (especially Christian theologians) who believe that life could not possibly be intrinsically good and that God is necessary to give life meaning. Perhaps these people are the real targets of the "immorality of Heaven" problem. I don't rightly know. I don't know of any Christian theologian that believes that life is not intrinsically good. It is one of the most basic tenets of Christianity, and it stands in contrast to many other religions/philosophies in this regard. Finally, that the afterlife is preferable does not necessitate that it was created by a benevolent power. Consider the very problem Camus raised to begin with. it is not inconceivable that some omnipotent deity could be like an abusive father. He beats the child out of spite (or some personal issue of sorts) then tries to make up for it via a gift (in this case Heaven). You can argue that such is not the case, but it seems a lot more would have to be said to secure that it could not be the case. Ah, it is not inconsistent in itself, but it is inconsistent with all materialist -- or, more to the point, indifferent -- theories of human origins. If man is the product of the universe's blind forces, why should he not be happy in life? This leads back to my original point in this thread, about how the problem of good is a more serious problem to the atheist than the problem of evil. To make this theory work, one has to actually posit an evil deity, responsible for man's unhappiness in the universe (therefore abandoning atheism). But there is a graver inconsistency in this road. Absolute evil can't exist without a parasitic relationship with goodness -- it must corrupt, but to corrupt, there must be a good possibility in the first place. This evil deity wants to torture human beings because X, and X is good in his viewpoint, but what makes X good for this deity? Why X? Because "it is his nature" (the tentative answer Christian theologians would give for the mirror question "why God shuns evil")? But if we accept this answer, then we are in a major dilemma, in that we can't identify what is good and what is evil anymore. If the nature of the highest deity is evil, then evil is good. But we disagree with this highest deity (how come?), and then there are two possibilities for explaining this disagreement: 1) There is another God, just as powerful as the evil deity, whose nature is good. Zoroastrian dualism, in other words. And in this worldview goodness/evil is a mere preference. A serial killer may say that he chose to align with the evil deity, who likes death and suffering, and we won't have any arguments to disprove his stance as a viable ethical stance. 2) There is a higher God, more powerful than the evil deity, whose nature is good -- and then the evil deity stands in a parasitic relationship with that God, and we can justify our ethical stance (which favors goodness) metaphysically. That, of course, is the Christian (and more generally, monotheistic) position, substituting "evil deity" for "the Devil" or something to that effect. And this alternative falls into the Augustinian solution for the problem of evil -- God allows the Devil to exist because the alternative would be worse (it is worth noting that Satan means adversary, tempter, so that Satan plays a role in the "ethical ecology" of the universe . Without Satan, our opportunities to be good, which are intrinsically good in themselves even if we fail at it, would be nonexistent).
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Paulnbama
Quipper

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2005
Location: Uh....here?
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 561

Posted 02/17/06 - 05:21 AM:	#167
Ophiuchus wrote: After all, there are many (especially Christian theologians) who believe that life could not possibly be intrinsically good and that God is necessary to give life meaning. Perhaps these people are the real targets of the "immorality of Heaven" problem. I don't rightly know. I agree with Mariner in that life is not instrinsically evil; so good is the over- riding element in life. If it were not so then empathy would have no meaning and value systems would be in a much worse dissaray than people think they are now.
Zoe: I know something ain't right. Wash: Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right, we'd be in jail.

A.D.D.
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 251

Posted 02/20/06 - 10:03 PM:	#168
Mariner wrote: I find it more curious that atheists put so much emphasis on the Problem of Evil without realizing that it brings another problem to the fore, the "Problem of Good". Why should there be goodness in the universe? What is goodness? Just as evil demands an origin, so does goodness; but there is only silence on that matter. I'm yet to finish reading the thread, so apologees if someone has already responded to this (and its most likely they have) Good needs Evil to help define itself, but for its ultimate goal evil does not neccesarily have to exist. Twist that around, and you'll will see that Good may help Evil define itself also, but for Evil to truly achieve its ultimate goal - it needs Good's existence neccesarily. Evil feeds off Good, so if there's no good it can't achieve its ultimate purpose or doesn't do it very well. Everything dies immedietly and Evil has nothing left to do, for Evil to do a good job for a long sustained period it needs lots of good - to feed off. Consequently... It makes more sense to me to say Good is there to aid the goals of an omnimalevolent being than to say Evil is there to aid the goals of an omnibenevolent being. When you add things like omniscience, and omnipotence to that, its even more damning, because essentially whatever the nature of God, those qualities/omni-predicates mean that whatever this physical universe (and our planet inparticular) is like is ultimately down to him, since he'd have the power and the knowledge before creation to look at all possible physical universes and pick the best one to suit his ultimate purpose for creation. Is this really the best an omnibenevolent being could pick, i'm not in the best position to answer that, but from my limited perception - it seems like its a far better one for the omnimalevolent being to pick. Evolution alone (at its crudest most base description - kill or be killed) as the mechanism in the life,death and experiences of sentient beings seems more in keeping with an omnimalevolence. I've drifted way off Long point short - I do not believe there is a problem of "Good" whatsoever. The problem of Evil is still there however.

A.D.D.
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 251

Posted 02/21/06 - 07:04 AM:	#169
Paulnbama wrote: I agree with Mariner in that life is not instrinsically evil; so good is the over- riding element in life. If it were not so then empathy would have no meaning and value systems would be in a much worse dissaray than people think they are now. Couldn't it be said that the ability to empathise, sympathise and be altruistic are great survival tools - Same with value systems, isn't order a great way of group survival? Basically aren't all these things just practical, pragmatical ways or self and group survival and thus means to an end, not 'good' in and of themselves.

A.D.D.
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 251

Posted 02/23/06 - 04:51 PM:	#170
Also BTW off topic I know but can someone explain to me why saying a greatest possible being could be omnimalevolent is logically unsound.

Page: First 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.