Theodicy

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

I see no evil. You gotta break eggs to make an omelet.

Evil to me is simply defined as something we perceive to be evil from our point of view.

Hi wil, as I said above to nocturna, to think of evil as completely based on our perspective, to say it's all relative so there really is no evil, is tempting. And the breaking eggs to make an omlet, that is a way of saying that the ends justify the means. Saying that evil really is good because without evil we would not have any experience of joy, or that evil is needed for us to learn and grow, still kind of leaves Dostoevsky's question hanging.

I don't have an answer, but one idea that brings some comfort is the idea that not joy or happiness, but being itself, or any being in which we are not automatons, simply can't happen without dualism, without choice. The only alternative is to not be at all.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Lunamoth —

Because man was created with free will.

Pax tecum,

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I agree.

In His Peace,
Laurie

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Indeed. “Good” is a concept which can only exist if the concept of “evil” exists. If there is one, there is the other. When something / somebody / some action is described as “good”, one is making a comparative statement to the alternative, which is “evil” (or bad).
s.

This is true, we experience everything in this dualistic manner, and the two make up the whole which, I conclude, is good (since being alive and self-aware is good). The alternative to good and evil is non-being. But to say we go beyond good and evil in this life, wouldn't this be like saying it does not matter, there is no meaning? There is no reason, beyond my own comfort, pleasure and happiness, to do anything at all, because it does not matter if others think it good or evil. (BTW, I realize you did not suggest we try to transcend good and evil in this life...was just kind of thinking out loud there.)

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Dondi

The question is if God is omnibenevolent, then why does evil exist? I think it is a mistake to assume one is diametrically opposed to the other. It seems to point the finger back at God, when evil is a human characteristic (assuming your definition of evil if moral-based). Evil is a perversion of that which is good, else we could not define evil at all. There would be no basis to form an opinion of what is evil and what is good.

Evil is a consequence of humans having the freewill to choose. But without freewill, there would not be the capacity to love, for love implies a choice.

But then the question is, does God have a freewill? And if so, does He have the capacity to choose evil as well? You could give the pat answer that God is good because it is in His nature, but then you would have to understand what His nature really is.

As Creator of the Universe, He created all the laws set forth for us to function, much in the way an inventor devises a way in which he invention will operate within a certain set of parameters for optimum functioning. If it was God's intention to create a being that will have some kind of relationship with Him, then some of His own attributes would have to be infused into that being. So it would be a matter of creating a being of His own image (not in some anthromorphological image, but having certain attributes to communicate, interact, and commune with God). Making a carbon copy of Himself would do no good, if that being could not be automonous in it's thinking. All you would have is a mimic of the real God and without choice would be doing things in perfect will of God, but no real thought of doing it. (It would rather be like the pre-ordained bride picked out for Eddie Murphy in "Coming to America" who stood on one leg and barked like a dog on command).

Instead, God opted for a being who could choose to love God back...or not. He needed only one commandment to test his invention out, and yes, it worked...too good. The rest is history, both good and evil. While it was God's plan that man choose, it wasn't God's plan for him to choose poorly.

If we are going to learn what the nature of God is, we need to discover what are the operating parameters for man. For it is within those parameters that we can find an evermore perfect love toward God and toward others. So our quest is seeking the good choices among the bad choices available. Unfortunately, there are so many bad choices, that it's hard not to be infuenced by them. We are all affected one way or another by both good and bad options set before us. I believe that as we grow older we will gravitate in varying degrees between better choices and worse choices.

But in Christianity, and I suppose some of the other religions, we are promised that God's Spirit is there to guide us and empower us toward the better choices. With the Spirit of God, we can break the habits and addictions that can hold us to those bad choices and attitudes. And through His Spirit, we discover the power of His Love and how that Love can help us love others. It is a process that God makes avaliable if we are willing to abide in Him and obey His commandments. Obediance does not have to be a drag. Obedience is seeing the benefit of operating within the parameters that will allow us to function as God had planned. We become good be doing good. We form good habits by doing good habits. We turn the evil intentions back into good intentions. Wrong attitudes into right attitudes.

Wow Dondi, Excellent excellent answer. Thank you! I really can't add anything to that but to say you've expressed how I see it much better than I ever could. I don't think it would satisfy the anti-theist, but then what ever could? In his book Evil and the Justice of God, NT Wright suggests that a deep and time-honored tradition in Christianity is to treat the question of theodicy as almost a mystery, there is no logical answer from the perspective of humans and while attempts are inevitible, and can yield fruit, at the end of the day the only answer is silence.

One other great thing brought out by Wright in this book is the importance of forgiveness in addressing the practical problem of evil in this world. He suggests that God's forgiveness actually heals evil not only in this life, but heals all the evil ever done in a real and tangible way. In the act of forgiveness, the victim is freed from the evil as much as the perpetrator is released from his sin.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Wow Dondi, Excellent excellent answer. Thank you! I really can't add anything to that but to say you've expressed how I see it much better than I ever could. I don't think it would satisfy the anti-theist, but then what ever could? In his book Evil and the Justice of God, NT Wright suggests that a deep and time-honored tradition in Christianity is to treat the question of theodicy as almost a mystery, there is no logical answer from the perspective of humans and while attempts are inevitible, and can yield fruit, at the end of the day the only answer is silence.

One other great thing brought out by Wright in this book is the importance of forgiveness in addressing the practical problem of evil in this world. He suggests that God's forgiveness actually heals evil not only in this life, but heals all the evil ever done in a real and tangible way. In the act of forgiveness, the victim is freed from the evil as much as the perpetrator is released from his sin.

I'm going to have to look into that book, luna. Sounds quite interesting.

I don't think I adequately addressed the question of the nature of God (and I'm not sure I could, really, but...) In human terms, we can think of God being good because His standards are good, being that it is how man needs to function optimally. So the Law can be regarded as the Principle of Good. But the Law was made for man, so that still doesn't answer the question of how does God choose to do what He does. Could He make an evil choice? Well, then to say that a choice God makes is evil is to compare His actions to the Law God set up for man. Yet is it proper to judge God according to what He set up for man and apply it to Himself? Assuming He is all wise, all knowing, and all powerful, knowing the end from the beginning, there may be factors that He knows that we don't and therefore we can not really accurately assess what God's plan is perfectly (we see through the glass darkly). We assume that because He has set such high and noble standards for us, that whatever God does must carry the highest, most noble status for Him. And that forms the basis of trust in God.

We wonder why there is so much evil in the world and why God would allow such. But the grand scheme is still being played out in the drama of life. God has given us the ability to choose, so we now have a history of nothing but choices. In a manner of speaking He has relinquished control to us, and it has not always produced good results. So we contemplate whether God is doing the right thing with us. It is evident in several places in scripture that God wondered the same thing.

I kinda view God as having a long leash on mankind. We're able to venture to a certain point, but He is still in control of the reigns. One of these days, He's gonna reel us in. We'd have spent too long playing outside. Time to come home now.

Ok, so maybe I failed in my attempt, but it's got me thinking, too.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

This is true, we experience everything in this dualistic manner, and the two make up the whole which, I conclude, is good (since being alive and self-aware is good).

As ever, me too just thinking out loud here, luna! I would not say that one combine “good” and “bad” to make a whole which is then called (one of these two) “good” since the whole must be transcendent of these concepts, I think.

The alternative to good and evil is non-being.

Can you expand on how you believe this to be the alternative? “Non-being” is a concept (like good and evil), which exists because “being” exists. We live lives of conceptual living (oh no, I think I may set Paladin off here) in the main. By way of comparison, a cat (for instance) lives a life without the concepts of “good” and “evil” but it is not (if I understand your point) “non-being” (or at least, something is eating all the cat food I put out!).

But to say we go beyond good and evil in this life, wouldn't this be like saying it does not matter, there is no meaning? There is no reason, beyond my own comfort, pleasure and happiness, to do anything at all, because it does not matter if others think it good or evil.

Well, in the conceptual realm of good and evil (i.e. not “going beyond”) I would say that trying to live a “good life” has intrinsic value, without any external referent. I’m guessing you would be at odds with this notion (the lack of external referent). I say “external referent” not to remove “G-d” from the discussion, merely to talk as generally as possible. Intrinsic value because: all actions have consequences, what you do to others you do to yourself, we are all an interconnected unity, to believe that “I” am a free agent living in a subject/object relationship to “the world” and am able to do whatever I wish to (for my own selfish ends) is delusional, and other such phrases spring to mind here.

(BTW, I realize you did not suggest we try to transcend good and evil in this life...was just kind of thinking out loud there.)

One can maybe choose to live a life trying to be good (through “free will”) and still have an awareness that good and bad are “merely” concepts. Beyond concepts the universe just “is”. However, any seeming paradox of conceptual thinking as compared with transcendent reality is not an excuse for amorality or nihilism (because “doing good” is inherently, er, good.)


s.

[Francis king]

I was thinking about his thread yesterday, over the course of the day, and was speaking to a retired policeman about a recent local presumed gangland shooting, and this man's opinion was that he did not care, as it was one less of "them"...

I went home, and was thinking about evil, and what it consitutes, and came to a few conclusions...

evil, yes, is a relative concept, and must also be shown in light of good for us to realise it's true depths, yet, beyond these moral concepts, surely evil is more concrete than that?

I visited a prison once, to talk to some lifers. They were all Catagory A prisoners, and the room was full of murderers. Most of them were a likeable bunch, full of interesting stories- most had understood their acts were criminal, but they generally did not feel it was immoral to, say, shoot a man who had molested your niece, or kill a man who had run away with all your drugs when you dealt such, it was okay to kill your wife in a fit of jealous rage, it was okay to kill the man she had been screwing with too.

Most of them would describe their motivations as either: buisness, and part of the game, or acts which we could describe as "crimes of passion"- hot headed, jealous, seemingly spontaeneous acts, which they felt some remorse for afterwards, yet at the time had felt justified in committing...

Anyone of these men could be any one of us, too, I thought: losing control and stepping over the thin line is all it takes- a simple small snap- and next: you're a lifer too.

However, of this group of men, one stood out. Yes, like a few of the others, he had killed his wife- but there was something different about him.

He was nothing much to look at- no model, no body builder or dancer or martial artist. He was quite short, average build and height, middle aged, slightly balding, a seemingly inconsequential man. And yet:

when I made eye contact with this man, like I had with so many others, something happenned. It felt like the world had become a lot smaller, and this man had become considerably larger. I felt like I was being sucked in.

I could not take my eyes away from him, and something in my mind told me I should be frightened, but I was too interested to be frightened, yet I did stand a little nearer to the screws, just in case. This man had simply killed his wife, like a few of the others had, yet...

He had not felt nagged and oppressed by his wife... he had not been greedy, and chose to bump her off for money. He had not been in a rage simply because of her infidelity, he was not psychologically unstable, and he hadn't heard the voices tell him to bump her off to rid the world of stain...

no... he had done it because he wanted to, he thought he'd get away with it, and he thought to commit the act was amusing.

And therein lies the difference. There is a difference between the 17 year old man with a low IQ and testosterone inspired pustules upon his face who watches porn and frustrated, fiddles with his 8 year old cousin. Abhorrent as the act may appear, it is on some level, understandable. Same with these troubled kids who run into schools and shoot their classmates: yes, horrific, yes, wrong, but wow, surely you can see the pain this kid is in to run to such things?

Contrast these acts with the repeated crimes of say, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley: a relatively intelligent man and woman who not only raped and murdered around 20 children but who also recorded their screams so they could play them back at leisure.

So, to me, there is a difference between say, the murder of a drug dealer by another drug dealer and the murder of a child by a stranger who deliberately murders children. I have met a few gangsters over the years, and well, I liked them all. They treated me with respect, and I never felt need to feel fear around them.

Losing control of yourself is easy- people do it every day. Addictions, responding to situations with rage, anger, violence, letting the heart rule the head, easy peasy.

Yet to deliberately and consciously injure, maim, destroy, not from fear, rage, pain, gain, not because you have been ideologically brainwashed so it seems acceptable, not because you have "lost face" and it seems the only way you can maintain ego integrity, but simply because within that is some amusement not found elsewhere: that is psychopathy...

the product of a dead soul, or a sick mind...

Our Gods and prophets may speak different languages, but they all tell us the same thing: God is pleased most when we are decent people. If we are reduced to begging, or whoring, or collecting taxes to feed ourselves, even then, we can still have scruples and a sense of morality.

I spent time with some junkies once, and was fascinated by their behaviour. Yes, they all committed crime to get by- shoplifting, burglary, prostitution, et cetera, but within this group the group supported each other as best it could- sharing, supporting, teaching, etc, and yet...

if you had "gone over", i.e, taken to much smack and stopped breathing, very few junkies would contact the emergency services for you. You would die.

Is this evil? Maybe not- they were at risk of potential prosecution, if they had provided or administered the agent, they may become incarcirated while questioned, which would prevent them scoring more drugs, they might do some jail time and be forced to "turkey".... maybe, to you, petty reasons, but reason enough...

Within this gang, a few people with AID's existed. It is an occupational hazard for junkies, after all. Regardless...

of those who had "the virus", two types prevailed. Those who would never, under any circumstances, share their works with other people, not wanting to pass on said virus, and then, as well as these, the majority, there was a few who knew they had it and would still allow others to use their dirty needles without even mentioning it...

Now, even within these groups, there is a kind of morality. Even the lifers and the scabby junkies usually have a conscience. People who we dismiss as the lowest of the low, filth, scum, even these people have hearts, can be decent, loyal, dependable, can be trusted.

These aren't middle class people with secure jobs and suitably heated homes and well stocked larders: these are generally people who were already at the margins of society even before addiction or stupidity took hold, and yet...

they are moral, under the circumstances. They are still human, and human enough to consider the other humans in their space. In general, they do not want to harm you. They might rob you, but they would rather sneak into your home when you were not there than slice you up with a carving knife, kill your dog and children and then rob you. They are not looking for the delightful screams, the fear; they are just trying to get by...

Even the most grievous acts can be justified, on some level, usually. We might not like the rationale, but we can understand the logic. That person, in that space, under those circumstances. Greed, fear, pain... great motivators... but to maim, hurt, cause pain, simply for the sake of one's own amusement?

Unhuman and inhumane...nothing to do with the Gods...

[bananabrain]

free-will must allow for the possibility of the free-willed (ie humans) making the *wrong* choice. without the freedom to make mistakes, how could we make the right choice? how would our choice be valid or moral if we had only the choice to choose good? without choice, there is no concept of sin. without choice, there is no concept of repentance or atonement. the one is a natural concomitant of the other.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dondi]

Francis,

You speak volumes here in this thread. In the case of the junkies, what you are describing is a sort of relative morality for survival purposes. Self -preservation. In the junkie world there is a shared morality with the understanding that it is not always binding. Situational ethics, if you will.

I can't help think about Rahab in the book of Joshua who aided the two spies by hiding them, but then lied to the authorities about their whereabouts in order to allow them to escape. Yet she was commended in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (Hebrews 11:31). To anyone who looks to lying as a sin, it would seem that she was morally wrong in doing so. But her own survival depended on it, for she had made the spies promise to save her and her family for helping them escape.

A junkie is not going to intervene for him/herself. Intervention comes from without, and though it is not always successful, there is a measure of hope for the junkie. If he/she is will to seek help, reach out for that lifeline, then there is a chance they can come out of it. But unless there is involvement, they remain in that world, for it is all they pretty much know.

Addiction is getting to the place where rules don't apply. Or not considered. For the yearning for the thing overwhelms the sense of morality. It is a trap. And it perpetually eats at you. They remain in that choice, cause it's the only choice they know experientially.

Until there is a better alternative to that addiction, that lifestyle, the world of the junkie remains unchanged. Many are good people who have simply lost their way, perhaps through some tragic event or slow creeping toward that abyss via influencial friends that started out as a thrill, but now is a nightmare. Rahab saw an out. And she took it. But how often does an opportunity like that happen?

Your right, Francis, none of us are immune. We could be one paycheck from living off the streets, dumped into a necessary life of crime for survival. And we could devolve into a funk that keeps us there for a long time, maybe never to crawl out. It's scary to think about.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm going to have to look into that book, luna. Sounds quite interesting.

I don't think I adequately addressed the question of the nature of God (and I'm not sure I could, really, but...) In human terms, we can think of God being good because His standards are good, being that it is how man needs to function optimally. So the Law can be regarded as the Principle of Good. But the Law was made for man, so that still doesn't answer the question of how does God choose to do what He does. Could He make an evil choice? Well, then to say that a choice God makes is evil is to compare His actions to the Law God set up for man. Yet is it proper to judge God according to what He set up for man and apply it to Himself? Assuming He is all wise, all knowing, and all powerful, knowing the end from the beginning, there may be factors that He knows that we don't and therefore we can not really accurately assess what God's plan is perfectly (we see through the glass darkly). We assume that because He has set such high and noble standards for us, that whatever God does must carry the highest, most noble status for Him. And that forms the basis of trust in God.

We wonder why there is so much evil in the world and why God would allow such. But the grand scheme is still being played out in the drama of life. God has given us the ability to choose, so we now have a history of nothing but choices. In a manner of speaking He has relinquished control to us, and it has not always produced good results. So we contemplate whether God is doing the right thing with us. It is evident in several places in scripture that God wondered the same thing.

I kinda view God as having a long leash on mankind. We're able to venture to a certain point, but He is still in control of the reigns. One of these days, He's gonna reel us in. We'd have spent too long playing outside. Time to come home now.

Ok, so maybe I failed in my attempt, but it's got me thinking, too.

Thank you for that Dondi. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this thread. Theodicy wears me down if I think about it too much. I don't think you failed in your attempt...attempts are really all we have.

I get some mileage out of thinking about our choice to have children of our own. We know there's a good chance for pain and suffering in their lives, we know absolutely that they will die, yet we have them anyway and don't view this as selfish or evil. The love we have for them and the chance for them to love us and others in return is worth it all.

Still mulling it all over.

[lunamoth]

Hi Snoop,

Originally Posted by Snoopy

As ever, me too just thinking out loud here, luna! I would not say that one combine “good” and “bad” to make a whole which is then called (one of these two) “good” since the whole must be transcendent of these concepts, I think.

I think being and loving and having choice are all good. But I see your point I think. I see God as transcendent of good and evil, as (I think) Dondi is also saying.

Can you expand on how you believe this to be the alternative? “Non-being” is a concept (like good and evil), which exists because “being” exists. We live lives of conceptual living (oh no, I think I may set Paladin off here) in the main. By way of comparison, a cat (for instance) lives a life without the concepts of “good” and “evil” but it is not (if I understand your point) “non-being” (or at least, something is eating all the cat food I put out!).

Yes, I thought of that argument even as I was posting. The difference is self-consciousness, or knowledge of good and evil. Our ability to choose beyond instinct.

Well, in the conceptual realm of good and evil (i.e. not “going beyond”) I would say that trying to live a “good life” has intrinsic value, without any external referent.

But if there is no referent, how do you determine good? That which is beneficial to you, to your kin, to your community, to the environment? The bigger the scope the more conflict of interest there is.

I’m guessing you would be at odds with this notion (the lack of external referent). I say “external referent” not to remove “G-d” from the discussion, merely to talk as generally as possible. Intrinsic value because: all actions have consequences, what you do to others you do to yourself, we are all an interconnected unity, to believe that “I” am a free agent living in a subject/object relationship to “the world” and am able to do whatever I wish to (for my own selfish ends) is delusional, and other such phrases spring to mind here.

I understand your point...we are all interconnected and our welfare depends on the welfare of at least some others. But there is still a lot of conflict of interest as we move further from our self and family.

One can maybe choose to live a life trying to be good (through “free will”) and still have an awareness that good and bad are “merely” concepts. Beyond concepts the universe just “is”. However, any seeming paradox of conceptual thinking as compared with transcendent reality is not an excuse for amorality or nihilism (because “doing good” is inherently, er, good.)

I think you're saying that you can choose good with no external/objective standard for good. Well, since we all have to choose what we think represents or reveals good, whether we believe this to be a standard for everyone or not, I guess I can't really argue with that.

Sorry if this does not make sense. Guess that's why I put off coming back to this thread.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

free-will must allow for the possibility of the free-willed (ie humans) making the *wrong* choice. without the freedom to make mistakes, how could we make the right choice? how would our choice be valid or moral if we had only the choice to choose good? without choice, there is no concept of sin. without choice, there is no concept of repentance or atonement. the one is a natural concomitant of the other.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Some (not myself) would say that's the point. There is no good and evil, there is no 'wrong' choice, there is no sin, there is no need for repentence or forgiveness or atonement. A post-modernist view.

Did G!d create evil? The Christian view as I understand it is that evil has no power of its own, it is a twisting or corruption of good. Even more so (or less so?), it is nothing, the absence of good as darkness is the absence of light and of no energy in itself. But can there be a place where G!d is not? G!d created the doughnut...did he also create the hole?

[lunamoth]

Francis, Just want to ditto Dondi regarding the poignancy of your posts.

Yours,
luna

[bananabrain]

i think you're misunderstanding, luna - there is no place empty of G!D, but G!D isn't about to just jump in and solve everything - humans have to be allowed to do it for themselves. if you're a parent, haven't you ever stood back and let your kid fall over when you could have caught them, because they *needed to learn* about consequences? as for the post-modern view, it is complete twaddle resulting from a moral vacuum when you consider more straightforward choices - there is a spectrum of moral ambiguity and just because choices are unclear in the middle of it, it doesn't mean there aren't clearly right or wrong choices in other situations, as well you know. if there is no right or wrong, shall i let this serial killer murder my auntie? i don't *think* so.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Did G!d create evil? The Christian view as I understand it is that evil has no power of its own, it is a twisting or corruption of good. Even more so (or less so?), it is nothing, the absence of good as darkness is the absence of light and of no energy in itself. But can there be a place where G!d is not? G!d created the doughnut...did he also create the hole?

A view is evil an action who's origin and end resides in other-than-the-good.

'Evil' and 'sin' in Christian terms presupposes a rational knowing, so the argument that there is no evil, it's all how you look at it, is not acceptable. Unless you're saying man can do no wrong, and everything is permissable.

St Thomas argues that man does not will evil, he wills a lesser good, or rather he acts selfishly ... and tragically, his being disordered by such actions cutting him off from a sense of the whole, there is no limit, it seems, to what he will do to slake his selfish apetites ...

+++

The other argument, as bananabrain has said, is people blame God for what is in the natural order of things.

Where there are rivers ... and children ... the law of averages states that eventually a child will fall in. Is God uncaring for creating rivers? Or for not creating a fish that flips kids out of rivers? Can you imagine a world where some celestial health-and-safety officer has gone through and removed everything that might prove harmful?

Not much left, just a huge ball of bubblewrap (the non-suffocatory kind).

This is essentially a childish outlook. Even in Paradise, if you sit under a coconut palm, you're asking for trouble.

It is one of the 'sins' of science that we have come to kid ourselves that we can make the world a safe place. How much do we spend and expend, trying to make ourselves and the world 'comfortable'?

The meat, perhaps, that St Paul spoke of is not that God will magic everything into some kind of fairy-tale land of cotton candy, but that life in the Spirit goes on pretty much as it did before ... stop looking for someone to blame, and get on with it ...

When the Tower of Siloam fell and killed 18 people, His disciples said, "why did they die? For their sins, or for their fathers' sins?" And Our Lord replied, "No. They died because a tower fell on them."

In other words, they died because '**** happens' — and believing in God does not, in some mysterious way, means that **** will no longer happen ...

Thomas