Some observations on the problem of evil

[UndercoverElephant]

I have noticed there are lot of threads around here which share a general theme of "How could God exist and let this happen?" This, I think, is the most powerful reason why people find it impossible to believe in the mainstream Christian conception of God. Put simply, the state of the world is so appalling, the amount of suffering so great, that there could not possibly be an omnipotent being in charge of the debacle.

What I am not going to do is defend the mainstream Christian conception of God. If you think God is all powerful, all knowing and 100% "good" (whatever that means), then it seems inevitable that such arguments should kill off any chance that such a God exists. With this much I am total agreement. However, Christian Theology (such as that of Tillich) does have a response to this - not that it is known about or properly understood by the majority of Christians. The real problem, IMO, is the naive conception of an anthropomorphised God who makes decisions in the same sort of ways that human beings do. Only if you have an anthropomorphised conception of God does one envisage a God who "thinks" like humans do. This would surely have to involve God having a brain, which is of course utterly ridiculous. The more intellectual sort of theist would give a two-fold answer.

1) God must stand outside the human decision-making process.

Human beings have both free will and brains. We create our own conceptions of good and evil and then (hopefully) try to live up to them. Sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes some people get it very badly wrong. The result is the vast amounts of human-induced suffering. I do not believe it is valid to blame God for this suffering. This is the responsibility of humans. The alternative would be for God to arrange a sort of "Stepford Wives" reality where everything runs like clockwork and nobody misbehaves. Personally, I believe such a reality wouldn't be worth living in. It wouldn't be life as we know it. Even though allowing humans free will results in infinite amounts of terrible suffering, this is still better than continual intervention by God to prevent human-induced evil.

2) God is unable to accurately predict the future.

This actually follows from (1). If humans have free will, then it is impossible for God to know in advance what those humans are going to do. But if God cannot know the future perfectly then He also cannot know exactly when the next earthquake is going to hit Istanbul. He therefore cannot take any action to prevent natural suffering either.

So there is your answer. These things are not a falsification of the existence of God per se. They are a falsification of the existence of the God of naive anthropomorphised Christianity. It also follows from my argument that the naive conceptions of "all-knowing" and "all good" are wrong. God can only know what is currently known by humans in the present, since it is still possible that God can know the contents of all human minds. But God cannot perfectly know the future, because the future is not 100% predetermined. He cannot be "all good" because "good" is a human-relative term. Whose side does He take when two humans have a dispute because they genuinely disagree on what is "good" and what is "bad"? He cannot. To do this, He would need a brain of his own so He could independently figure out what "absolute good" was.

These are just some thoughts - they are offered for wider discussion. My conclusion is that these arguments-from-evil are less powerful than they may seem at first. What they do is narrow down what sort of God could possibly exist. What they do not do is conclusively prove that no sort of God exists.

I was an atheist for many, many years. The current appalling state of play on Planet Earth was my primary reason for being 100% confident I was correct. How could an all-powerful Being be presiding over this disaster? The answer is that even God is confined to work within the laws of logic and to a large extent within the laws nature, that human beings have been granted the right to free will, and that even God cannot have perfect knowledge of the future because determinism isn't true.

None of the above is offered as a proof of the existence of God, rather obviously. It merely attempts to explain how it is possible for God to exist even though "the plan for planet Earth", if there ever was one, has gone very horribly wrong. Think of it like this: If God did exist (*the sort of God I have described, not the naive Christian omni-everything God), what could He actually do to fix the situation on Earth? What could He do that would not risk making the situation even worse? It is not clear to me that He could do anything at all. Human Beings are responsible for what goes on down here, and it is US that are making a mess of it, not God. One might even go further and claim that God has already tried to do something to make it better, and that these attempts have resulted in organised religion - which turned out to cause more problems than it solves. This would rule out further supernatural intervention on the grounds that more religions are not likely to improve an already messy situation. Better to stand back and let the stupid humans try to figure their own way to clear up the mess that they have made.

Geoff

 

[stup_id]

But then with this limitations, what is god needed for then?

If it was just for creating (the starting impulse of creation, the primary impulse...) then why was he creating?, and if he couldn't see what was going to happen once he started creation, why did he create anything anyway? if he cannot interact any more with this physical universe, what is the point in praying or even admmiting that IT/HE/SHE exists?

just some questions that I think arise immediatly

 

[Robin]

2) God is unable to accurately predict the future.

This actually follows from (1). If humans have free will, then it is impossible for God to know in advance what those humans are going to do. But if God cannot know the future perfectly then He also cannot know exactly when the next earthquake is going to hit Istanbul. He therefore cannot take any action to prevent natural suffering either.

How does human free will affect the next earthquate to hit Istanbul? Are earthquakes influenced by human activity?

If God has designed the Universe as most theists hold then he could not have failed to forsee the possibility of earthquakes, cyclones, diseases even if he couldn't tell precisely where and when they would occur.

So there is your answer. These things are not a falsification of the existence of God per se. They are a falsification of the existence of the God of naive anthropomorphised Christianity. It also follows from my argument that the naive conceptions of "all-knowing" and "all good" are wrong.

In fact they do not falsify even this concept. It is possible that these precise conditions are the only ones that will develop a human soul

God can only know what is currently known by humans in the present, since it is still possible that God can know the contents of all human minds. But God cannot perfectly know the future, because the future is not 100% predetermined. He cannot be "all good" because "good" is a human-relative term. Whose side does He take when two humans have a dispute because they genuinely disagree on what is "good" and what is "bad"? He cannot. To do this, He would need a brain of his own so He could independently figure out what "absolute good" was.

It is pretty much obvious to everybody from the outset that the Problem of Evil could easily be solved by altering the definition of God that forms the premise. Say God is not good, or God is not omnipotent, or God is not omniscient and the problem immediately disappears.

Quick correction though - he would need a mind of his own so He could independently figure out what "absolute good" was.

I would have thought that having a mind was the very minimum criteria for some being to be classified as God.

These are just some thoughts - they are offered for wider discussion. My conclusion is that these arguments-from-evil are less powerful than they may seem at first. What they do is narrow down what sort of God could possibly exist. What they do not do is conclusively prove that no sort of God exists.

But conclusive proof has never been the issue. I am not about to start believing in God because there is no conclusive proof that no sort of God can exist, any more than I am about to start believing in hobgoblins because there is no conclusive proof that no sort of hobgoblin could exist.

I was an atheist for many, many years. The current appalling state of play on Planet Earth was my primary reason for being 100% confident I was correct.

Probably not a good reason for atheism. I am an atheist simply because nobody has ever provided me with evidence of (or even an even an adequate definition for) God.

Essentially you still are an atheist with respect to the mainstream Judeo-Christian definition of God.

How could an all-powerful Being be presiding over this disaster? The answer is that even God is confined to work within the laws of logic and to a large extent within the laws nature, that human beings have been granted the right to free will, and that even God cannot have perfect knowledge of the future because determinism isn't true.

I have no way of knowing if determinism is true or not, that is another thread. But the problem here is of design. Could God have designed the universe up to and including man and entirely failed to foresee even the possiblity of cancer, floods, storms, earthquakes and so on?

Obviously not, so you would have to further narrow your definition of God and remove his status as purposeful creator of the universe

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But then with this limitations, what is god needed for then?

Holding reality together for as long as is logically possible?

If it was just for creating (the starting impulse of creation, the primary impulse...) then why was he creating?

, and if he couldn't see what was going to happen once he started creation, why did he create anything anyway?

That would be a sort of mechanistic deism, which isn't really the position I am defending, but related. The answer to the question is that any reality is better than no reality. Existence is better than non-existence, even if existence involves suffering. But I do not believe that the Universe or the human race was "designed" by God. That would also involve God having some sort of brain, IMO.

if he cannot interact any more with this physical universe, what is the point in praying or even admmiting that IT/HE/SHE exists?

I did not say there was no interaction at all (I didn't say there was any, either). Same answer as above. This is the best possible world, and the best possible world is better than no world at all.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How does human free will affect the next earthquate to hit Istanbul? Are earthquakes influenced by human activity?

They might be, to a marginal extent. The point is that if humans have free will then determinism must be false and it logically follows that it is not possible even for an omniscient being to know the future. Just as even an omnipotent being cannot create a stone that is so heavy that even He cannot lift it, an omniscient being cannot know things which are logically unknowable - and that includes the future if determinism is not true.

This is one of the biggest contradictions in mainstream theology. The claim that humans have free will (which is an essential Christian claim) and the claim that God has perfect knowledge of the future (which is not an essential Christian claim but is believed by the vast majority of Christians anyway) are logically incompatible. One of them must be false.

If God has designed the Universe as most theists hold then he could not have failed to forsee the possibility of earthquakes, cyclones, diseases even if he couldn't tell precisely where and when they would occur.

Sure, He may well know that earthquakes must happen eventually. It may be the case that a planet with no geological activity is not compatible with the existence of life on that planet.

In fact they do not falsify even this concept. It is possible that these precise conditions are the only ones that will develop a human soul

I don't understand this reply. Why? How?

It is pretty much obvious to everybody from the outset that the Problem of Evil could easily be solved by altering the definition of God that forms the premise. Say God is not good, or God is not omnipotent, or God is not omniscient and the problem immediately disappears.

Quick correction though - he would need a mind of his own so He could independently figure out what "absolute good" was.

If what you mean by "mind" is "symbolic/cognitive thinking" then this implies a brain is required. I do not believe that minds and brains are identical, but I do believe that minds supervene on brains - that without a brain there can be no "thought" - although there can be raw existence and there can be nature.

I would have thought that having a mind was the very minimum criteria for some being to be classified as God.

Not so. Many of the most prominent theological philosophers of the 19th/20th centuries denied that God should be thought of has having a mind of His own. At least one of them (Tillich) also claimed it was wrong to speak of God existing. For Tillich, God does not exist. God is beyond "existence".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

This Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God. He does not think of God as a being which exists in time and space, because that constrains God, and makes God finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself.

But conclusive proof has never been the issue. I am not about to start believing in God because there is no conclusive proof that no sort of God can exist, any more than I am about to start believing in hobgoblins because there is no conclusive proof that no sort of hobgoblin could exist.

Of course.

Probably not a good reason for atheism. I am an atheist simply because nobody has ever provided me with evidence of (or even an even an adequate definition for) God.

What do you think of Tillich's definition?

Essentially you still are an atheist with respect to the mainstream Judeo-Christian definition of God.

Many Christians and Jews would consider me to be an atheist (or at least a heretic), yes. If I had to choose a religion, it would be Hinduism.

I have no way of knowing if determinism is true or not, that is another thread. But the problem here is of design. Could God have designed the universe up to and including man and entirely failed to foresee even the possiblity of cancer, floods, storms, earthquakes and so on?

No, I don't think so. But I do not believe that God "designed" the Universe in this sort of a way. I don't see God as an engineer. It is quite obvious that human beings are the product of natural selection. It is equally obvious that the Earth supports life only because of an extraordinary sequence of fortunate co-incidences, but that these co-incidences happened it least once in a Universe as enormous as this one is not particularly remarkable. If there was only one planet, it would have to have been designed. But if there are countless trillions of them, there's a good chance that at least one of them might be right by accident. Explaining the cosmological constants is trickier, because we have no right to claim there are countless trillions of Universes.

Obviously not, so you would have to further narrow your definition of God and remove his status as purposeful creator of the universe

Purposeful designer I would rule out. "Metaphysical sustainer"/"Root of all Being" might be a better description. I leave open the question of whether this Being intervenes in the course of history or individual human lives. I think that question is either unanswerable, or best left unanswered. It cannot be resolved by debate, that is for sure.

 

[gnome]

Holding reality together for as long as is logically possible?

You face a classic infinite regress--why does the universe need something to "hold it together", but the thing holding it together is self-sufficient.

 

[Robin]

They might be, to a marginal extent. The point is that if humans have free will then determinism must be false and it logically follows that it is not possible even for an omniscient being to know the future. Just as even an omnipotent being cannot create a stone that is so heavy that even He cannot lift it, an omniscient being cannot know things which are logically unknowable - and that includes the future if determinism is not true.

However even if determinism was not true for free will does not mean that there are not some deterministic things - there clearly are. Otherwise we could have no technology.

This is one of the biggest contradictions in mainstream theology. The claim that humans have free will (which is an essential Christian claim) and the claim that God has perfect knowledge of the future (which is not an essential Christian claim but is believed by the vast majority of Christians anyway) are logically incompatible. One of them must be false.

I don't think this is necessarily true. An atemporal God could view all of time even if it contained free will.

However I would argue that in this case God could not participate in the universe.

I don't understand this reply. Why? How?

Imagine that God really has in mind to create humans, just as we are. It stands to reason then that if any aspect in our environment were different to what it is now then we might be different. So if the world had developed with no disease etc then we would have turned out differently.

So the only recipe that produces us is the world we experience. God could not have produced us in any other way.

If what you mean by "mind" is "symbolic/cognitive thinking" then this implies a brain is required. I do not believe that minds and brains are identical, but I do believe that minds supervene on brains - that without a brain there can be no "thought" - although there can be raw existence and there can be nature.

Well the question is - how does the Mind of God differ from a blind force of nature?

If you think of God as a word to represent the sum total of existence (and of course I mean this to go beyond merely spacetime) then you could ask - is God intelligent?

Well, yes, you could say that God is very intelligent, he produces galaxies, stars, planets, biospheres, animals etc. But you would not mean that God purposefully designed these, you would mean something more like self organisation.

We could justify calling this intelligence because the workings of our own minds depends upon blind natural forces.

But this would not differ from the materialist world view.

So God would have to have some ability to contemplate the essence, the ability to form and put into place a plan, before he could reasonably be called God.

What do you think of Tillich's definition?

Still digesting

 

[Z]

So, basically, a Deist.

Welcome to the club!

 

[Q-Source]

The real problem, IMO, is the naive conception of an anthropomorphised God who makes decisions in the same sort of ways that human beings do.

Yes, this is a real problem. You fail to see that the two fold answers that "intelectual theists" give are also based on an anthropomorphised conception of God. Replace God by nature, reality or all that there is and those answers make no sense.

If God did exist (*the sort of God I have described, not the naive Christian omni-everything God), what could He actually do to fix the situation on Earth? What could He do that would not risk making the situation even worse? It is not clear to me that He could do anything at all.

According to your non-naive description of God, He (why do you keep refering to God as "He"? ), is not either omniponent or onmiscience, then I wonder how such God could ever intervene with anything at all.

I believe the simplest answer is always the best. Reality is all that there is, it has no purpose or cause, it encompasses all good and bad, intervention and non intervention, past, future and present. It is all that we're going to ever experience in our lives and the conception of God is just a tiny piece in this big puzzle.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You face a classic infinite regress--why does the universe need something to "hold it together", but the thing holding it together is self-sufficient.

Because the things it holds together are finite/contingent and the thing which is holding it together is infinite/neccesary. This was a central part of Tillich's definition (see above).

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't think this is necessarily true. An atemporal God could view all of time even if it contained free will.

How? For this to be true, it must be somehow "pre-determined" what you are going to do every time you make a supposedly free decision, making it not free at all. There is a straightforward logical contradiction there.

Well the question is - how does the Mind of God differ from a blind force of nature?

That is the same difference as the difference between an act of will and an empirical/physical causal chain. Nature works via empirical causality, God doesn't.

If you think of God as a word to represent the sum total of existence (and of course I mean this to go beyond merely spacetime) then you could ask - is God intelligent?

That would be Pantheism. I am a Panentheist, which is slightly different. God is not just the totality of existence but is fully present in all the parts. But, no, I would not describe God as "intelligent". God is beyond "intelligence".

Well, yes, you could say that God is very intelligent, he produces galaxies, stars, planets, biospheres, animals etc. But you would not mean that God purposefully designed these, you would mean something more like self organisation.

Yes, in a way.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, this is a real problem. You fail to see that the two fold answers that "intelectual theists" give are also based on an anthropomorphised conception of God. Replace God by nature, reality or all that there is and those answers make no sense.

That rather depends on what you mean by "intellectual theist". My metaphysics professor is an "intellectual theist", and I can guarantee you there is no anthropomorphisation in sight. The same can be said for Tillich. I am not completely sure you are aware of exactly what it is you are criticising at this point.

According to your non-naive description of God, He (why do you keep refering to God as "He"? )

Happier if I call it "It"? What difference does it make Who cares? It's a pronoun.

, is not either omniponent or onmiscience, then I wonder how such God could ever intervene with anything at all.

Why?

I believe the simplest answer is always the best.

But the problem is agreeing on what is the simplest answer. 0=Infinity looks pretty simple to me, but you won't accept it.

 

[Q-Source]

That rather depends on what you mean by "intellectual theist".

I don't know what exactly an intellectual theist is, it was you who brought the concept. I suppose it is someone trying to rationalise the existence of God.

My metaphysics professor is an "intellectual theist", and I can guarantee you there is no anthropomorphisation in sight. The same can be said for Tillich. I am not completely sure you are aware of exactly what it is you are criticising at this point.

What I said is that a) and b) seem to apply to the usual conception of God. Except that this time, HE (as you refer to it) stands outside human decisions and cannot predict the future.

So, this makes us ask: on what basis does your metaphysics professor decides what characteristics God has or doesn't have?.

If you consider a different conception of God (a really non-anthropomorphised version) like "all that there is" or the root of all being, then you wouldn't require to attribute to IT characteristics such as a) and b).

Happier if I call it "It"? What difference does it make Who cares? It's a pronoun.

I don't care how you call it, you can call it SHE, HE or WE. I was only pointing out the incongruence in your critique of a Christian version of God when at the same time, you refer to "the root of all being" as HE. It makes a lot of difference, I wouldn't refer to nature as HE.

But the problem is agreeing on what is the simplest answer. 0=Infinity looks pretty simple to me, but you won't accept it.

The simplest answer is that reality is all that there is. The inclusion of God into the picture does not add anything. Look around you, that's all that you're ever going to experience.
0=infinity is an illogical out-of-the blue creation that you haven't even managed to explain. I stick to Occam razors argument.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't know what exactly an intellectual theist is, it was you who brought the concept.

Did I? When?

What I said is that a) and b) seem to apply to the usual conception of God.

What (a) and (b)?

Except that this time, HE (as you refer to it) stands outside human decisions and cannot predict the future.

So, this makes us ask: on what basis does your metaphysics professor decides what characteristics God has or doesn't have?.

What has this got to do with what I have been saying? I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. You seem to be asking about additional attributes of God, none of which have been discussed or implied by me. You appear to be reading things into my arguments which are not there, and you are ascribing beliefs and views to people you know nothing about, based upon nothing but your own pre-conceptions.

If you consider a different conception of God (a really non-anthropomorphised version) like "all that there is" or the root of all being, then you wouldn't require to attribute to IT characteristics such as a) and b).

What (a) and (b)???

I don't care how you call it, you can call it SHE, HE or WE. I was only pointing out the incongruence in your critique of a Christian version of God when at the same time, you refer to "the root of all being" as HE. It makes a lot of difference, I wouldn't refer to nature as HE.

There is some sort of major miscommunication going on here. I have no idea why you think a pronoun is so important. I used "He" by convention. It just makes the sentences more readable. Yet for you, this seems to be a very major issue. I did not equate God with nature. You did. And I couldn't care less what pronoun is used.

The simplest answer is that reality is all that there is.

That is a unsupported assertion. It also has bugger all to do with any of these debates.

What counts as "simplest" is a matter of unresolved dispute in this case. The answer is not obvious. I can give you some links to the relevant literature if you want.

The inclusion of God into the picture does not add anything. Look around you, that's all that you're ever going to experience.

You are just arm-waving, Q-Source. What you are saying has got no relevance to the topic of this thread, regardless of whether or not it is true.

0=infinity is an illogical out-of-the blue creation that you haven't even managed to explain. I stick to Occam razors argument.

Q-Source, with the greatest respect, you are derailing the thread. I am not attempting to prove God exists. That is not the purpose of the thread. All your responses only make sense if they are replies to a person who is attempting to prove God exists, and I am not trying to prove God exists. The real purpose of the thread was to refute two arguments against the existence of God. Attempting to demonstrate that the argument from evil fails to lead to a conclusion that God neccesarily does not exist is not the same as attempting to demonstrate that God neccesarily exists. Do you understand the difference? If you want to prove God exists, refuting proofs against the existence of God will get you precisely nowhere. Additional arguments would be required that God neccesarily exists, and I deliberately haven't supplied any. And even if I had supplied some then you would be required to respond to those arguments instead of what you are actually doing, which is to supply arguments of your own, which have nothing to do with this thread, attempting to demonstrate that God does not exist.

 

[Huntster]

How does human free will affect the next earthquate to hit Istanbul? Are earthquakes influenced by human activity?

The obvious return question is:

What do earthquakes have to do with "good" and "evil", and "free will"?

 

[ceo_esq]

The obvious return question is:

What do earthquakes have to do with "good" and "evil", and "free will"?

Earthquakes are commonly understood to fall into the category of what philosophy of religion calls "natural evil" (as opposed to "moral evil"), meaning, roughly, phenomena that cause human pain and suffering but which are not the result of human free agency.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The obvious return question is:

What do earthquakes have to do with "good" and "evil", and "free will"?

Some people point to natural evil as well as human evil as in need of explanation. I agree with you - natural disasters are not evil, regardless of the suffering they cause. The only correct application of the word "evil" is for human actions which deliberately cause suffering to others for no good reason.

 

[gnome]

Because the things it holds together are finite/contingent and the thing which is holding it together is infinite/neccesary. This was a central part of Tillich's definition (see above).

Saying the thing which holds it together is necessary is assuming the conclusion: the universe needs god, because god is necessary.

Why must something finite still need something else to hold it together, infinite or otherwise? Why can it not simply "be" without anything MAKING it exist?

 

[ceo_esq]

Some people point to natural evil as well as human evil as in need of explanation. I agree with you - natural disasters are not evil, regardless of the suffering they cause. The only correct application of the word "evil" is for human actions which deliberately cause suffering to others for no good reason.

Couldn't you validly apply "evil" to divine actions which deliberately cause suffering for no good reason?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Saying the thing which holds it together is necessary is assuming the conclusion: the universe needs god, because god is necessary.

That is why it wasn't offered as a proof of God. It is merely one possible definition of what is meant by the word God. This thread is not an attempt to prove God exists. It is an attempt to show that the argument from evil against the existence of God isn't sound. In other words, it is merely attempting to establish that the existence of God is not impossible (on those specific grounds).

Why must something finite still need something else to hold it together, infinite or otherwise? Why can it not simply "be" without anything MAKING it exist?

Again, this would be a discussion about a different argument. In this case it is the cosmological argument from contingency - which is an attempt to prove that the existence of God is neccesary. I do not believe this argument is successful, and I am not defending it.