Problem of Evil Revisited

[idav]

The book of Job and the Shoah did not provide a sufficiently horrific context? Seriously? Good grief ...

So God has a funny way of showing love? Maybe not love. Is having the most horrible things in the world happen to you means God really takes to you?

 

[Muslim-UK]

In such a scenario people would inevitably be judged for things they have no control over due to the corruption of the world.

Can you provide a example, so I can better understand?

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem of evil is only a problem for people who think God is all-good and all-powerful.

Or who are unreasonably expected to have a reason to disbelieve in the existence of such a God.

 

[columbus]

Or who are unreasonably expected to have a reason to disbelieve in the existence of such a God.

PoE was the first big crack in the credibility of basic Christian boilerplate teachings. I clearly remember the fundamental illogic of the teachings and asking questions about it.
The answers didn't give me any understanding of the issue. They were mostly "You'll understand when your older. For now, don't rock the boat, ask hard questions, or even open your mouth unless you'll say what we tell you to say!"
I understood that part perfectly. And Jesus is Santa Claus for grownups. But I knew better than to say so, for the same reason I didn't tell my younger siblings about Santa and his habit of skipping all the poor kids.
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

Problem of Evil Revisited

My revisiting comes from an eastern (Hindu) approach where evil is part and parcel of a grander view.

I look at life from the perspective that life is eternal and we are in the process of learning that. We live as individuals for eons and not one life. We all return to godhead in the end. If one could see one's life from separation from godhead through the eons to return to godhead then things and temporary sufferings make more sense. What we see as evil are very short temporary events in the grand scheme of things where each individual story ends in success; return to peace/bliss/awareness of godhead.

Plus Problem of Evil proponents look at good/bad events as happening randomly to people. Eastern thinkers believe a long series of cause/events (karma) causes things to be the way they are.

I also use the analogy of creation as some grand expansive multi-dimensional artwork. And human problem of evil proponents view from their little speck and dimensional perspective of the artwork and try to judge the entire artwork. Their view is too limited to be meaningful.

I think to understand the answer to the 'Problem of Evil' we need to start thinking in more eastern ways.

1) That we live for eons in a soul developing process; not one body's duration. In that perspective any suffering in one life is short and temporary in this grander view. And even an unfortunate life and death has lessons for that soul and for those seeing and interacting with the unfortunate life.

2) That such things are not as random as they appear. There is chain of cause and effect through time we can not see.

3) That those currently living an unfortunate life will have victory 'enlightenment' at the end of the challenges.

4) That it is God at the core of everything and it is He who experiences the temporary good and bad fortunes. It is ultimately not Him imposing it on other separate beings. It is His play/drama where He separates Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself but this play ends with a happy ending for all. In any great play/drama there is always drama/suffering in the middle.

 

[idav]

Can you provide a example, so I can better understand?

It's when innocence is allowed to be corrupted that it doesn't seem all that fair. Someone brought up Job for example but Job was not innocent and willing to do anything for God but even worse things sometimes happen to innocent children. The OP mentions a movie where a child is kidnapped and brutally raped and murdered, the kind of stuff that has people crying over movies, but as the movie got into why, it showed the perpetrator going through horrible stuff as a child themselves meaning they only further progressed the corruption of the father and his father and so on.

 

[Jumi]

It is a problem for a god that would create autonomous beings in the first place. What would be the purpose other than love? Unless god should be seen as a sadist, it is a problem for theism.

Not really. Your problem relates to a subset of Christian theology and isn't universal. The idea that "love" should be the only reason for creating something comes from there.

 

[idav]

Problem of Evil Revisited

My revisiting comes from an eastern (Hindu) approach where evil is part and parcel of a grander view.

I look at life from the perspective that life is eternal and we are in the process of learning that. We live as individuals for eons and not one life. We all return to godhead in the end. If one could see one's life from separation from godhead through the eons to return to godhead then things and temporary sufferings make more sense. What we see as evil are very short temporary events in the grand scheme of things where each individual story ends in success; return to peace/bliss/awareness of godhead.

Plus Problem of Evil proponents look at good/bad events as happening randomly to people. Eastern thinkers believe a long series of cause/events (karma) causes things to be the way they are.

I also use the analogy of creation as some grand expansive multi-dimensional artwork. And human problem of evil proponents view from their little speck and dimensional perspective of the artwork and try to judge the entire artwork. Their view is too limited to be meaningful.

I think to understand the answer to the 'Problem of Evil' we need to start thinking in more eastern ways.

1) That we live for eons in a soul developing process; not one body's duration. In that perspective any suffering in one life is short and temporary in this grander view. And even an unfortunate life and death has lessons for that soul and for those seeing and interacting with the unfortunate life.

2) That such things are not as random as they appear. There is chain of cause and effect through time we can not see.

3) That those currently living an unfortunate life will have victory 'enlightenment' at the end of the challenges.

4) That it is God at the core of everything and it is He who experiences the temporary good and bad fortunes. It is ultimately not Him imposing it on other separate beings. It is His play/drama where He separates Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself but this play ends with a happy ending for all. In any great play/drama there is always drama/suffering in the middle.

That reminds me of this story which is worth sharing again. It's a really neat very short story.
The Egg

 

[idav]

Not really. Your problem relates to a subset of Christian theology and isn't universal. The idea that "love" should be the only reason for creating something comes from there.

What are some reasons for a deity to create autonomous beings? Do you think it's more art or entertainment?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do WE? Why are we blaming God for our moral failures, and our crimes against each other? Why are we expecting God to do for us what we are not even willing to do for ourselves?

To come back to this:

The Problem of Evil isn't a matter of blame; it's a special case of asking a set of questions:

1. Say some specific god (or some specific anything, really) exists; what would we expect to see - or not see - in the world around us?
2. What do we actually see in the world around us?
3. Can any differences in the answers between 1 and 2 be resolved while still assuming that the god exists (and all that this implies)?

Edit: it doesn't have to be about evil, per se. If someone, say, believed in a god who covered the world knee-deep in jelly beans, we could follow the same process and ask "but we aren't knee-deep in jelly beans; what gives?"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do WE? Why are we blaming God for our moral failures

Atheists don't blame God for anything.

However, many of us believe that if there were an omniscient, omnipotent entity, that those facts alone make it omniresponsible for everything it does and everything that results from what it does, including creating a species capable of moral lapses.

But those would be humanist values. Christians don't typically see it like that.

There are good people out there that are more than willing to devote 100% to god, only to find corruption and evil coming from a supposed benevolent God, or more of an apathetic God.

A bunch just got killed in a church, possibly while praying.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Why do WE? Why are we blaming God for our moral failures, and our crimes against each other? Why are we expecting God to do for us what we are not even willing to do for ourselves?

We are the ones supposedly without superpowers that could fix it. I mean, I get what you're saying, but if we have to do all the work, why should God ever get the credit?

Question? Was the person is this movie, making their love for their youngest more important than their love of their God?

But isn't it fair to ask why should we love (S)omeone who apparently can't be bothered?

The vast majority of people devoting 100% to GOD know this life is but a short test, and the Soul will be given new garments and live for eternity in bliss.

If God thinks we can handle eternal bliss after we die (because God didn't let us live for whatever reason), why does He think we can't handle it now?

We all return to be judged, and should be fearful of that day, a day when the defenceless, voiceless and oppressed will be heard loud and clear.

Smart people go to court with a lot of preparation.

There are no prizes or rewards with death.

Even if there are, I don't see why heaven or hell or any of its variants mean anything. How does my going to heaven improve things "on the ground"? It doesn't, really.

Someone brought up Job for example but Job was not innocent

He was specifically called out for being righteous and without fault. God specifically notes that Satan baited Him to smite the poor schmuck for no good reason.

 

[Milton Platt]

Why do WE? Why are we blaming God for our moral failures, and our crimes against each other? Why are we expecting God to do for us what we are not even willing to do for ourselves?

I guess it is a matter of how a person decides to define the term god. The Christian god is most often given the attributes of all knowing, all loving, all good, all powerful, etc. Those attributes should mean that the god knows in advance all the actions and outcomes stemming from any given system he designs, and can choose to design any kind of system he desires. Being all good, the proposed god should not choose to create a system that contains evil, but rather a system that is all good. So if there is a god, it can't be the Christian version.

Whether or not humans are doing evil is immaterial. We are a part of the system the god designed with foreknowledge that this would happen. Therefore, the god either intended for there to be evil, or didn't care. You are also ignoring the fact that there is evil that does not include human actions.

Only without this creator god does humankind become responsible for it's actions.

 

[james bond]

The problem of evil is often presented as logic and reasoning for a non-benevolent God. I know it's a pretty common argument on these forums so I will be brief. I have always reconciled the problem of evil by seeing God and humans as a father child relationship of unconditional love. In the case of unconditional love, can it be said that God would necessarily allow evil due non-favoritism?

Has anyone seen the movie The Shack? Well this movie uses that argument as a man struggles with faith after losing thier youngest to a human monster. It uses a horrific example to address the problem of evil so if anyone has seen the movie, that's the kind of context I'm looking for. Why would God allow such horrible atrocities?

Who stated this problem of evil?

To Christians, the problem is original sin. I'm not sure what the Bible says about it and whether it will ever go away, but I don't it will. The best we can do is be saved from it. Is this what you mean by "non-benevolent" God? It's wrong to blame God, when the fault clearly lies with man and woman.

I'll have to look up The Shack. Thanks.

 

[PureX]

Because there is a random element of probability at work, sometimes referred to as "luck." What "we" might expect from God is to at least make things fair - a level playing field. If it appears that "evil" has an unfair advantage over "good," then it may appear to some that God is stacking the deck deliberately so that "evil" will triumph.

But the playing field IS leveled! That's what we're complaining about. We want it UN-leveled, so that the "good guys" win and the "bad guys" lose. But the world treats us all the same, regardless. "God" world treats us all the same. So that if we are seeing life as "unfair", it's because we're viewing it from a selfish, self-centered perspective; wherein we say what is 'good and evil', and we decide who deserves to be treated, how.

 

[PureX]

Generally, the Problem of Evil is brought up by people who aren't blaming God for humanity's failures.

Yes they are, because they are assuming that if God is able to stop the evil (omnipotent), then God is obliged to do so. Yet we could choose not to do evil, and we don't seem to feel any obligation to refrain from it.

 

[Muslim-UK]

It's when innocence is allowed to be corrupted that it doesn't seem all that fair. Someone brought up Job for example but Job was not innocent and willing to do anything for God but even worse things sometimes happen to innocent children. The OP mentions a movie where a child is kidnapped and brutally raped and murdered, the kind of stuff that has people crying over movies, but as the movie got into why, it showed the perpetrator going through horrible stuff as a child themselves meaning they only further progressed the corruption of the father and his father and so on.

Ok so a person has been abused, grows up and goes onto be abuser themselves. I'm pretty sure, such a person would have been able to keep their unbalanced views from getting attention, allowing the to get close to their victim. This shows they had control and rather than get therapy and help, they instead, used their free will, using what happened to them as an excuse to inflict harm unto others. Such a person is fully accountable for their actions, and if they get away with it in this life, Judgement still awaits in the hereafter.

Now if the same person had a mental illness and was not in control of their actions, then they are not considered accountable in the sight of GOD. He will be fully aware of their mental state, as nothing is hidden from Him.

Ultimately free will means we all are given choices, just as Adam and Eve, pbut, (peace be upon them) were given. They realised their mistake, and turned to GOD in repentance. Whereas Satan, (Iblis) refused to repent, rather blaming his downfall on others. 2 choices, 2 very different paths.

 

[PureX]

To come back to this:

The Problem of Evil isn't a matter of blame; it's a special case of asking a set of questions:

1. Say some specific god (or some specific anything, really) exists; what would we expect to see - or not see - in the world around us?
2. What do we actually see in the world around us?
3. Can any differences in the answers between 1 and 2 be resolved while still assuming that the god exists (and all that this implies)?

Edit: it doesn't have to be about evil, per se. If someone, say, believed in a god who covered the world knee-deep in jelly beans, we could follow the same process and ask "but we aren't knee-deep in jelly beans; what gives?"

So then the process is backward. Start with two, and work back. Given what we see happening in the world around us, what does this tell us about "God", if such an entity exists? But wait, what we will 'see' will be what we looked for, and not necessarily what or all that was there to be seen. So we're going to need to do a lot of 'correcting and repeating'. And many of us are not willing to do this.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Yes they are, because they are assuming that if God is able to stop the evil (omnipotent), then God is obliged to do so. Yet we could choose not to do evil, and we don't seem to feel any obligation to refrain from it.

Yes indeed. Also, our free will would become pointless if GOD stepped in, rendering our existence irrelevant. He already has Angels, who worship Him without question and without Free will perfectly, why bother creating man with all his flaws!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes they are, because they are assuming that if God is able to stop the evil (omnipotent), then God is obliged to do so. Yet we could choose not to do evil, and we don't seem to feel any obligation to refrain from it.

No, they're assuming that if God is the source of everything, then there would be nothing in creation that isn't in accord with God's will.

IOW, if everything comes from God and God isn't evil at all, then where did evil come from?