But the violence inflicted and the victim that’s hurt thereby is a second-order consequence: it’s an inevitable result of God’s grant of free will in the first place. If we are to have free will, then a priori we must be able to make the choices to inflict abuse on an unwilling victim.
So while it’s no less true to observe that God’s framework is ultimately responsible for both the good and the evil in the world, I’d argue it’s both more accurate and more useful to observe that God’s framework was the granting of free will, from which an inevitable consequence is the occasional evil result.
That doesn’t account for all the suffering caused by disease, natural disasters, and all other non-human causes, which God chooses to allow despite it having no effect on free will.
But the way he did it (assuming he exists and did it) just seems pointlessly cruel. For example, he could have put in some neurological feature such that as soon as someone tries to commit rape, they suffer crippling nausea until the urge passes. But even aside from that, he could have not created all the various parasites and illnesses that cause so much suffering to innocent children with no gain (and nothing to do with “free will”) whatsoever.
That seems reasonable for good and evil resulting from free choices - what confuses me a little is that often it seems (to this outsider) that there’s a lot of praising and reverence towards God for those fine, noble things, such as gigi’s original post in here pointing out that virtues flow from God’s will, and not so much what would seem to be the obvious corollary; cursing his name and his actions for the evil part, too.
Over that, of course, we still have the problem of first-order consquences; natural disasters, for example. If a construction company knowingly builds a flawed structure and some defect causes harm, I think it would be reasonable to hold them to account. Can we not point to tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados etc. and the harm they do and attribute those directly to God’s knowledgable actions? What of disease, illness, or genetic defects, as the result of flawed creation of living creatures?
Edit: Hey, it’s a natural disaster problem response chain! Howdy, fellows.
We say, “God is good.” But you’re right: we can no more make that statement with assuredness than we can say God is evil, the problem that vexes iiiandyiii.
I’d argue that a more accurate understanding would say that God is meta-good: he is good in a way that our limited understanding of the universe can’t ever completely comprehend.
In the Book of Job, Job is unjust afflicted with disaster after disaster. Finally he essays the temerity to complain to God that what has happened to him is unfair and evil. God answers with a litany that is best summarized with: “Where were you when I made the world?” He is saying, in effect, that Job can’t question what’s going on, because Job simply lacks the full understanding of what God has made and what He’s doing… and, moreover, that Job lacks the ability and capacity to EVER reach such an understanding.
We might imagine an analogy: if our own body’s cells had some tiny perception and sentience, perhaps they would object to some of what we do. Perhaps the muscle cells would object to the DNA methylation patterns changing, which is happening for no good reason. If they could debate, perhaps they’d refute the hypothesis of the “good brain” by pointing out how this supposed good brain allowed such changes to happen. But we know that exercise might be painful for those muscle cells now, but ultimately it will result in better health for the whole body, so we accept (with regret) the pain along the way. But those muscle cells simply have no reference point to even begin to understand such an abstract concept. Nonetheless, we do, and our meta-goodness is not damaged merely because there is temporary damage and pain associated with the exercise we’re doing.
Yes, that’s true. But free will is merely an example of a design choice that is intended to produce good long-term results while admitting some undesired poor results as inevitable consequences.
Another such design choice is the natural physical laws of the universe, in which framework prokaryote goo can become Anne Hathaway in a mere 3.6 billion years. Absent disease, natural disasters, and solar flares, that doesn’t happen.
That doesn’t (to me) make God seem like anything but a sadistic bully, in the “child tormenting an ant farm” way (“where were you, ants, when I put this ant farm together and filled it with your life-giving food?”).
But this doesn’t excuse anything God has done – it’s just a handwave as to why it can’t be explained to us. And since this argument justifies any bad thing that God might choose to do, including, say, baby-raping, it’s not even close to satisfying to me.
It’s quite simple: We know exactly what God wants from us. We know it so completely and utterly that we can force other people to abide by what we know God wants from us. Because God gave us inspired understanding and the Bible and churches and the like.
Except when bad things happen, at which point God is just beyond our puny intellects and how could we ever think we understand?
I know this is The Pit, but this conversation is going with such collegiality that I was surprised at this.
While some folks in the world may be saying this, I don’t really get the sense that anyone in this thread is saying this.
I’m sharing my view of God, admittedly informed by Catholic teaching but certainly not in a way that should suggest forcing anyone to abide by what I know.
That excuses every bad thing that’s ever happened. Not good enough for me. How could it? That gives him free reign to do any cruel or evil thing at all.
When we’re talking about the worst things that have ever happened to humans, it’s understandable when sometimes posts appear less collegial. But I think jsgoddess is just (as the rest of us are) attempting to put her beliefs into words, from her point-of-view. I don’t think her post lowers the tone of the discussion – she was just explaining how some of the arguments sound to her.
As mentioned, it doesn’t. He is good regardless of whether any of us ever existed. Clearly He could have chosen never to create any of this, since He knew going in that we would commit atrocities against one another. That doesn’t make Him an evil sadist. His will is that we love each other and want for each other what He wants for us. It’s up to us to receive that gift and ask that His will be done.
It’s a valid question: if God were evil, how would any of these justifications be any different? After all, He’d still be operating at this meta-level, immune from test or justification.
And the answer is: I am convinced He is good. But I absolutely realize that the mere fact I’m convinced isn’t remotely persuasive to you. I learned from the now-replaced Baltimore Catechism that in Catholic-speak, a mystery is a truth which we cannot fully understand, and faith is a divine virtue by which we firmly believe the truths which God has revealed.
But I absolutely understand that my belief doesn’t do a thing for you.
And this question, ultimately, admits of no evidence. It’s absolutely untestable.
The problem is, that even assuming God exists, the evidence shows that he’s either evil, or has too little power to fix things. It’s not a case of two equal sides with no evidence, it’s a case where there’s evidence for one side but not another.
Okay. This makes it sound like you would agree that it would be profoundly unjust to punish someone (with, say, eternal suffering in hell) for not being “convinced He is good” and having faith. Is that so?
