Theists: riddle me this

Great Debates
1

So, all you believer-types out there!!! Sparked by my recent studies of philosophy on religion, I have a philosophical speculation I’d like to hear your opinions on. It seems to me that the majority of theists on this board are subscribers to Western theology and/or the Abrahamic God (not all, but most). The defining characteristics of this God, among others, are understood by me to be: 1) omnipotence (possessing all power), 2)omniscience (possessing all knowledge; past, present, and future), 3)omnibenevolence (possessing all goodness and ultimate concern for mankind and justice), and in some cases omnipresence, which is unimportant for this discussion.
My question to you is, what are your opinions on the origins and justification of evil? Where did it come from, and why does God allow its existence? The only reasons that seem logical at first glance are—

a)God doesn’t know about it ;

b)God doesn’t care about it or will not eliminate it; or

c)God can’t eliminate it,

any of which assumed removes an intrinsic property of God, thereby contradicting his “Godness” (a removes omniscience, b removes omnibenevolence, c removes omnipotence), this situation also being known as the well-debated philosophical Problem of Evil. This is not a challenge to your beliefs; I am simply interested in your personal way of reconciling this with your faith, because this always posed a bit of a problem for me when I considered myself a Christian (more subconsciously than in such explicit terms, however). I am aware of many of the plausible answers to this dilemma, and actually take a hypothetical position in the matter in spite of my agnosticism, but I’m interested in individual perspectives, as well as being enlightened as to as-yet-unheard-of-by-me takes on the situation.

2

>>what are your opinions on the origins and justification of evil?

>>Where did it come from, and why does God allow its existence?

>>The only reasons that seem logical at first glance are—
>>
>>a)God doesn’t know about it ;
>>
>>b)God doesn’t care about it or will not eliminate it; or
>>
>>c)God can’t eliminate it,
>>any of which assumed removes an intrinsic property of God,
>>thereby contradicting his “Godness” (a removes omniscience, b removes omnibenevolence, c removes omnipotence),

Well, it’s an old question and I’m sure many people will have different answers. For example, I think the Kabbalists believe that God is infinite in scope, and to create the universe, withdrew himself a bit and made the universe in the gap. This lack of Gods essence is the “evil” that exists as a potential in the universe.

Personally, I think “evil” as a concept is fundamental to the universe. If free will is to mean anything, evil has to exist to make choosing good mean anything.

I don’t agree with the idea that your explanations negate one of the “intrinsic” properties, though. For one thing, you assume “evil” is undesireable. Granted, from our perspective it is, but you must admit that if you allow an “infinite” “omniscient” being to exist, it may perceive things differently. “Evil” may serve a necessary purpose beyond our ken. In this case option (b) doesn’t remove omnibenevolence because we (that is, you) have misunderstood the term.

A quaint (possibly patronising) example is the child who wants chocolate for every meal. The parent naturally refuses, and makes him eat his veg. “Evil” to child is necessary to the parent. The child, I’m sure, has a different view of “benevolence” because (s)he doesn’t understand.

Oh, and personally, I’m an optimistic atheist. I don’t believe in any God that human religions have derived. But I’m hopeful that there is something out there bigger and better than us. (If we were the pinnacle, this would be an awful waste of a good universe.)

3

Everything that is, is blurph. Further, you cannot imagine anything which is not blurph. Blurphness has been a fundamental characteristic of everything at all times, from and to eternity.

Pretty useless concept, huh?

For good to have any more meaning than “bl;urph” there must be an alternative: evil. Further, for free will, the power to choose, to have any real validity, there must be options between which to choose. Henry Ford: “The American people can buy a car of any color, so long as it is black.” If your choice is Hobson’s, it means nothing.

God created good. Evil was a necessary result. (BTW, there is a verse in Jeremiah in which, in some translations, God claims to have created evil.) Further, evil is the absence of good. Evil exists solely by the relative concentration or sparsity of good. I once used the analogy, which Gaudere found wanting, of heat and cold. Heat exists in and of itself; it is the energy characteristic of photons of a given range of wavelengths in the infrared. Cold does not. Cold is merely the relative absence of heat. Likewise, evil is the relative absence of good, and does not have independent existence.

Not altogether great as an explanation, I admit. But the impression most Christians (and I gather Jews as well) get is that a primary characteristic of God is love. Because He loves us, He desires our freely given love in return. Because this means we must be free to give or refuse that love, He gifted us with free will. In order for free will to function, it must have choices to opt between. And so good and evil are needed to allow for those choices.

It makes sense in that paradigm. I am certain that there are arguments based on the total omni-whatever-ence of God that challenge the paradigm. But this is not a world governed solely by logic – matters of emotion and will influence human affairs greatly. Who is to say that this is not true in the greater objective realm as well, as a God with a divine analogue of our emotions and will acts out of His love for us?

Challenge: design a world in which freely given love and choice are available that does not include evil.

4

Selfish or self-regarding choice which seeks only to satisfy crude desires yet whose effects can be confined to oneself - market choices involving the non-infringement of others’ property rights in the broadest sense. Evil only in the sense of opportunities to do good (loving, other-regarding acts) forgone.

5

“What’s evil anyway?
Is there reason to the rhyme?
Without evil there can be no good
so it must be good to be evil sometimmmmme!
Up there…”

6

There’s another idea that omnipotence doesn’t mean God can “do anything”…I think it was Thomas Aquinas, who, talking about the old “boulder too heavy to lift” problem, said something like “It is blasphemy to assert that God can do what is contradictory or logically absurd.”. So, if you could argue that evil is somehow a natural consequence of something else (free will is commonly used), then evil can’t be eliminated while free will exists. If you get rid of free will, then the idea of moral evil disappears (we can’t do anything bad), but the idea of moral good does too (we can’t do anything good), because in most Western theological traditions, an act is good because the person does it to do God’s will, or evil, because he or she does it in contravention of God’s will…an action has to be freely chosen, if you’re going to speak of the “morality” of it, because, if you’re forced to do or not do something, that’s outside the realm of morality… i.e. if I have a siezure, and hit someone during that siezure, my hitting them isn’t a morally bad act.

7

most people adopt the ideas of the culture/subculture they are raised in. but is that culture necessarily correct? western culture promotes a negative attitude about the concept of reincarnation.

if God gave man “free will” can God jump up and mess with the rules of the game every time man does evil? what kind of free will would that be?

THE GAME makes more sense from the reincarnation perspective. the rules are that karma imposes consequences on the free exercise of evil.

Dal Timgar

8

I don’t think ‘promote’ is accurate here. It’s not something we think about much until we are exposed to eastern religious beliefs. And that is happening at earlier ages now. I think we’re pretty much neutral on the whole reincarnation thing. (Neutral in attitude, not belief obviously.)

I don’t think I understand what you’re saying here. Why would God want to or have to “jump up” and change the rules? Do you mean perform “miracles”? If so, I don’t believe in miracles.

9

The problem here, of course, is definitions. (isn’t it always in these debates?) Just what exactly is meant by Free Will? We all assume that we know what we are talking about, but I don’t think so.

The most pedestrian definition of free will is the ability to make choices, correct? God wants us to be able to make choices and come to him of our own volition (for whatever reason). But is there ever an instance where ANY choice made by ANYONE isn’t predicated upon their state of mind at the time? And isn’t this state determined by their prior experiences/upbringing/genetic heritage? What else is left?

The oposite of determinism is not Free Will, it is randomness. How does randomness, in any sense, “free” us? Would you rather your decisions be determined by your preferences and personality, or by complete chance? If we were somehow able to make choices without the bias of our past experiences and emotions, then of what value would those choices be?

All of this only becomes problematic when you posit an infinite god that created everything and knows everything, AND seeks to judge us for our actions. Our actions are determined, period. If god created everything and knows exactly what will happen to every particle of his creation, then he has as much right to judge us as a puppeteer his puppets.

10

Well, the topic isn’t really about the nature of Free Will and whether or not that exists. That’s a whole seperate issue.

Well that’s an assumption right there, that I don’t necessarily agree with, and again, has little to do with why evil exists.

which, by the way, is also an assumption not necessarily held up by everyone. ie. God seeks to judge us by our actions. Again, I don’t believe this.

Seperate issue again. And again, I don’t agree.

Not possible by Quantum theory. :slight_smile:

11

So, will there be evil in heaven?

12

No, and consequently, no free will either.

This is actually a point of religious dogma. Angels allegedly don’t have free will, and if the Catholics are right, neither will we.

13

Umm…actually, the definition of free will we are using has to be coherent for us to even begin to talk about the problem of evil. If we don’t have free will then the question of evil is not very meaningful, correct? Who cares where it comes from or for what purpose it exists if our choices regarding it are illusions.

When trying to avoid obstacles in the road, whatever they are, it helps to know if you can actually steer the vehicle.

The existence of evil IS a problem for a tri-omni god, and although you might not believe in such a god (I know I don’t) the problem is usually brought up in that context.

I suppose I am not keeping with the spirit of the OP, which was to ask for individual rationalizations of the PoE, but I think the FW issue is relevant for anyone of any theistic bent.

John Finnan:

Right, but do you believe in a hell/separation from god/eradication for those that do evil? I mean, is their some “differential survival” between the wicked and rightous (or saved and un-saved) in your system. If not, well, congratulations on a more mature spirituality (IMHO), but I don’t think you are a conventional theist and, thus, the target of the OP’s questions (and mine).

You said you don’t agree that our actions are determined. I know it is a (somewhat) separate issue, but do you care to elaborate?

(I know that QM was mentioned, half-jokingly, but please lets not indulge in it too much. I know of no theory more abused by the God-of-the-Gaps species of arguments. Anyway, it ties in with the randomness vs. determinism thing…)

14

**nevermore wrote:

My question to you is, what are your opinions on the origins and justification of evil? Where did it come from, and why does God allow its existence?**

You do make two assumptions that I believe are false; the omnipotence and omnisence of the Gods. Oh, certainly they’re more powerful than mortal men, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, bend steel in Their bare hands… opps, sorry! Wrong script. :slight_smile:

Anyway, They certainly have abilities that leave us mere humans in awe, in the same way our human faculties would leave a cow or dog in awe. Giving the Gods these (the Omni-X) atributes leads to logical paradoxes like you quote in the OP.

The concept of evil within the J/C morality system come from, I think, the Babylonian Exile, where the Jews were exposed to another mythological system and picked up on this idea of a Great War going on between the forces of a Good God and an Evil God. PolyC can you check this for me, I can’t recall the cite (and I’m at work at I write this and don’t have access to my library).

The universe has no inherent evil characteristics. All evil is based upon human definitions of morality. Interestingly enough, they pretty much agree on the basics, such as don’t murder other people, etc.

15

Well, I don’t see the origin and justification of evil as having anything to do with the nature of free will, and whether or not my understanding of it is the same as yours.

But in this case, the OP asked for individual opinions as to how we reconcile it. This was mine. I see no need to have it conform to some generic-mass-mind-world-view-point.
And as I think I pointed out, it’s not a problem from that point of view. (Your milage may vary, natch.)

**
No. That’s just bullshit scare tactics. If any god had actually put that sort of system in place, he’d be a sadistic little fucker.

**

Probably correct, in that strictly speaking I’m an atheist. But, I have a certain optimism that gives me a certain theistic bent. I don’t believe in a God, but I hope I’m wrong.

I don’t think we have as much free will as most people think. Leaving aside for a moment the question of self determinism and the possible ‘illusion’ of conciousness…
The actions we have available to us on a day to day basis are constrained by our circumstances. (If I’m a starving African child in the Sahara, I can’t choose to see CATS, or go for a swim.) Our choice of actions are also constrained by the people around us, and their thoughts and actions, which more often than not are beyond our control, yet may influence us. (Man in hostage situation cannot choose to go home.)

(Okay, these are extreme examples, but you get the point.)

Finally, our actions and to a certain extent, our thoughts, are constrained by our state of mind. Now, that state of mind can depend on a number of factors, not all of which are under our control. Substance abuse in the body, medical conditions, trauma, neuroses, a vivid nightmare the night before, etc… Our concious minds can be influenced in subtle ways that we cannot always understand.

A final analogy may help make my stance a little clearer. It’s as if you were on a boat, sailing through an Arctic ocean. In some rare areas, you have large areas of open sea. You can choose a number of directions. Some of those directions (unknown to you at the time) lead to narrower paths. Some to more open sea. Some to dead ends that leave you with no choice at all. And there are ice flows moving through the ocean that can collapse a path you saw was open, or close a route you were heading for.

“God, (if there is a God) save my soul. (If I have a soul.)”

16

The answer Freyr is looking for is:
A) Zoroastrianism
B) Mazdaism
C) Mithraism
D) Zurvanism
E) All of the above

Some variant of this was the Official Religion of the Persian Empire. It’s probably not worth anyone’s while to get into the details of how the four -isms above are related to each other, and I’m a bit foggy on the details, but suffice it to say that Zoroaster (prophet/religious teacher) refined and codified the worship of Ahura Mazda (good god of imported cars) as against Ahriman (bad god). In the inimitable way of deities, A.M. had a son, Mithra, the god of light, who fought the evil one, and took a shower in bull’s blood (exactly how that fits into the picture, I’m not sure). Zurvan, on the other hand, is either a meta-god or a philosophical construct – take your choice whether to personify him/it – which created good and evil and imbued A.M. and Ahriman of the original faith.

The Parsees of India and a persecuted minority in Iran still cling to a variant of Zoroastrianism, which makes it the smallest of the world’s major religions.

And that is, I’m sure, more than anybody wanted to know about the subject.

17

MEBuckner:

John Finnan:

Well, that sucks. Why the hell would i want to go there? For choosing the right path in the temporal world, I get rewarded by being transformed into a mindless minion. Great system.

???
Look, man, evil, by definition, is BAD. That’s what evil means. By evil, I mean “those things which we can universally agree upon as NOT GOOD.” Not in an individual’s point of view, i.e. your child/chocolate example, but in the general view of the sane portion of mankind (and please let’s don’t argue the parameters of “sane”). Like hunger and murder and rape and suffering of innocent children. As to my “assuming evil is undesirable”, if you mean desirable in the sense of having utility and being necessary and therefore being desirable, I assume no such thing. I assume the definition of evil, not the nature or function of it.

[redirecting to general public]
As to evil being the comparative standard for good, which I predicted would be the common response, then why do we need so much? Is it really necessary to have evil in such amounts in order for its antithesis to be demonstrable? Also, if evil necessarily exists to give meaning to “good,” does it then follow that since God (the ultimate good) is and always was, evil has always been as well? Or, following Polycarp’s assertion that

did evil originate with Creation? This seems to me a contradiction, for if God is good, evil would have to exist as long as he did to prove him good. Or did it only originate because we needed a comparative standard, and before our existence his goodness was a universal truth?

This is great. Ever so much fun. Keep the thoughts coming, they’ve been really interesting so far.

18

Freyr said:

Not of God(s), but of THE God. Of Western theism, that is. These assumption are not mine, either; I don’t even believe in God (not yet at least), therefore his omni-anything is nonexistent and thus to me a nonissue–these are just the characteristics I was told to accept when I went to church. If I were to believe in God, however, my view would likely be pretty similar to yours, if only for the fact that I have no concept of infinite power, or knowledge, or infinity at all.

19

Yes it does. But I didn’t write the rule book, so don’t nail the messenger to a tree, okay? :slight_smile:

And Evil is Bad ?
Yes, to our understanding it is.
As for whether or not evil is desireable, I’m not trying to use the child analogy as a direct comparison or explanation. I’m simply saying that if you posit the existance of an infinite God you have to at least allow the possibility that it may be in a better position to judge what is ‘evil’ than you are.

Of course not, but once evil exists as part and parcel of free will, then it’s pretty much man’s fault anyway. Unless you want some 60 foot Babylonian god to come stomping up to the UN everytime Saddam’s little foot soldiers step in a Kurd. (Pretty much nixes the Free will element then, doesn’t it?)

That’s what I said about the Kabbalists. It began as the universe did. But I don’t see a contradiction, since we know nothing about whether God was ‘good’ before creation. Even the Bible is silent on that point. However, you can make the argument that if God was always “infinitely good” then he has no free will either, since he must always take the action resulting in the maximum goodness. :slight_smile:

20

John-

sigh I guess I thought we had an arguement going…

I am an atheist as well, though probably more firm than you. I believe that evil is a human invention, designed to impose an individual cultures’ morality upon…yadda-yadda…blah-blah…(insert standard moral relativist arguement here).

(when you factor god out of the equation, evil is nowhere near as interesting, which is probably why I went a bit off topic)

As far as the determinism thing goes…Look, either a thing does something based upon its previous state, or it does it randomly. That’s it, right? I hope I am not missing something obvious. So, being that people are things, though very complex things, our actions are just as much determined as anything else, even if we decide to label them as “choices,” thus invoking some mystical game-playing BS.