The POE From a Heathen Perspective

[The Kilted Heathen]

Over the past week or so, Meow Mix has made a few wonderful threads illustrating the Problem of Evil (POE) and the inconsistencies (well, problems) therein. In a nutshell the Problem of Evil is as follows:

"God Almighty is the highest good!"
"Well then why is there a load of bad in the world?"​

This has given rise to the Problems of Evil, plural.

It was quite a mess that was put to Augustine of Hippo, around the year 10,400 of the Human Era (look it up, it's a fascinating calendar system!). The solutions included what we currently know of the Christian Perdition ("Hell"), the figure of the Devil (in all his various names from many cultures), and moral outlooks that have been imposed for well over a thousand years. But even now, 1,621 years later, it still doesn't really work.

The true problem, of course, is a combination of Monotheism ("there is One God, Almighty,") and the various claims of him being all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent. Three traits that are often foiled and non-demonstrable through the agency of Free Will, presence of this "Devil" figure sticking his fingers in the pudding, and just plain lack of verifiable evidence. It is not so much that bad things happen that's the problem, it's that bad things happen under the ever-and-pervasively-watchful-eye of this Ultimate Good deity that can do anything but doesn't.

So the simplest solution is that all these claims are good for nothing more than fertilizer. Back to Square 1!

Why does evil exist?
​

First let's understand what evil is, because the dichotomy of "Good vs Evil" isn't so clear-cut in many Pagan faiths. "Evil" is defined (best applicable to the topic) as profoundly immoral and wicked; harmful or tending to harm. This can certainly be a lot of things, and can even be heavily circumstantial. Heavy thunderstorms, for example, can be devastatingly harmful to human settlements. They knock down walls, damage vehicles, flood homes, and frighten children and adults alike. Yet for meteorological imbalances and seasonal transition, they function as a positive. A forest fire is scary and highly destructive, but on the other hand is a natural process that rejuvenates the forest and the land. Companies like Amazon, Hobby Lobby, and Chik-fil-A may seem to be beneficial and benevolent on the outside, and even on inside looks, but deeper inspection shows them to be highly immoral, damaging, and harmful to their employees and larger community.

Evil is really human perception of how things affect others, with a tag of morality assigned arbitrarily.

Do the Gods cause Evil?​

It largely depends on the above perceptions, but yes. For the careless and the unprepared, many of the actions that we attribute to the gods can be seen as evils in their harmful tendencies. Droughts, storms, earthquakes, fires-- even Death is often seen as an inevitable evil. However these things are evils not because there's some malicious god in the clouds gleefully throwing lightning around and targeting people, and they certainly don't happen because of given lifestyles or denials of these gods. They happen in the same context that you step on an ant mound and collapse several tunnels because you simply didn't see it there while you were working.

Are the Gods all-powerful?​

No. The gods are exceptional within their rights, as we see daily. We can create and direct electricity and fire, but we barely control fire and nothing we create vial electricity will ever measure to a thunderstorm in breadth and power, all things considered. And when we try, for example with a hydrogen bomb, the results are always devastating, always excessively harmful, and never good for anyone involved.

That the gods are powerful in their own rights, as well, does not mean that they can do anything, or that their authority extends beyond their means. You'll never hear the voice of Thor telling you not to pleasure yourself (well, perhaps not in a field as he storms overhead), or see Sunna shine less on people who don't appreciate her. Freyr doesn't only provide for his loyal followers, nor Sif offer her bounty only after proper tribute is given. (There are many other cultural examples, I am only presenting a Heathen perspective here.)

Do the Gods care?​

I would say that the gods care, in the same measure that we care about suffering in distant countries. It might sadden or anger us, but what can we really do? The gods are here to provide what we cannot, and do the things we cannot, but this is overall Miðgarðr - the Realm of Man. It is not Ásgarðr, which is to say that it's our home, not theirs, and thus the various problems that we encounter are more often than not ours to solve. As much as the gods may or may not care about our problems (I really doubt the gods dip into our politics), what could they do about our actions?

What about things like cancer?​

While I'm loathe to rely on them, an analogy: It's a very common sentiment in terms of software coding and bug fixing that for every issue solved, three more crop up. Even for the most skilled technicians, sometimes things just go wrong. Biological Evolution is a constant process akin to software and hardware updates; sometimes things aren't going to go smoothly. And we are still trying to understand what exactly causes cancer; it could very well be a case of self-poisoning with the foods that we eat and the plastics we consume.

I believe that the gods care about these issues, and perhaps are even angered and vexed by several, but for many the solution to them (if it needs be a divine source) is like a farmer trying to perform brain surgery. What's more, while these issues do cause suffering, we have the knowledge and skill necessary to alleviate and even cure them. The evil that comes in there is human greed, where medicine that costs pennies to make is sold for hundreds of dollars.

Rolling Discussion​

This has sat in Drafts for a couple days due to work, and I'd like to get it out before too terribly long. So we'll publish here, and if questions arise the conversation can continue to evolve on it's own with new questions being brought in, or discussion on the topics above.

 

[Meow Mix]

Shame I’m going to bed now, but I’ll interact tonight.

 

[Stevicus]

The true problem, of course, is a combination of Monotheism ("there is One God, Almighty,") and the various claims of him being all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent. Three traits that are often foiled and non-demonstrable through the agency of Free Will, presence of this "Devil" figure sticking his fingers in the pudding, and just plain lack of verifiable evidence. It is not so much that bad things happen that's the problem, it's that bad things happen under the ever-and-pervasively-watchful-eye of this Ultimate Good deity that can do anything but doesn't.

So the simplest solution is that all these claims are good for nothing more than fertilizer. Back to Square 1!

​

Yes, this is, I think the root of the problem. It also rests in the idea of an all-powerful being who created the entire universe out of nothing, down to the minutest detail.

But I get the impression that the pagan gods didn't actually "create" the entire universe, in which case they wouldn't be all-powerful. That would make a huge difference in how they are perceived by humans.​

 

[Brickjectivity]

Over the past week or so, Meow Mix has made a few wonderful threads illustrating the Problem of Evil (POE) and the inconsistencies (well, problems) therein. In a nutshell the Problem of Evil is as follows:
"God Almighty is the highest good!"
"Well then why is there a load of bad in the world?"This has given rise to the Problems of Evil, plural.

Yes, Meow has come up with the basic problem, however... Meow and yourself have kind of missed the reasons why people don't answer this challenge in the way you expect. I'm not saying you need to, but every person faces some of these questions about evil. A loved one gets sick and then the question arises, yet people believe in God.

Why don't they conclude the same as you? In ancient Rome up until this time, why don't most people think about this problem of evil in the same way as you...or do they? Do they have no brains, no philosophical ability? What is the underlying reason or what are the underlying reasons? This has not been dealt with...which leads into the rest of the post about the problem of evil and the 'Heathen' gods.

First let's understand what evil is, because the dichotomy of "Good vs Evil" isn't so clear-cut in many Pagan faiths.

Bingo! I think that's exactly it. People want there to be good and evil. Is that wrong? People also want to hope, and God is a way to choose hope. It is a way to say "I choose to believe that there is something better."

Additionally as monotheism was sweeping through the empires and displacing the polytheist temples over the decades or centuries, I think it was partly in rebellion. I think the people were rebelling. They were rebelling against something..maybe the way things were or maybe against inaction or against the idea that life should go on endlessly without improvement, without change. Maybe they didn't like the bull**** excuses that the royalty were proffering.

Which brings us full circle to today where you and the neopagans are rebelling against the bull**** of the royalty of today. I think you're kind of trying to do the same thing as the people who switched to monotheism.

 

[PureX]

The "problem" is all of our own making.

We set all the presumptions, and then we resent the conclusion. It' all self-inflicted.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It also rests in the idea of an all-powerful being who created the entire universe out of nothing, down to the minutest detail.

Not so much that specifically, but that he's claimed to be the Highest Good.

I get the impression that the pagan gods didn't actually "create" the entire universe, in which case they wouldn't be all-powerful.

I would not view them as "all-powerful", but they are believed to have created / continue to create the physical world, as a joint-effort rather than One Above All or some such.​

Yes, Meow has come up with the basic problem,

Oh, Meow didn't come up with the problem. It's been a theological problem since 10,400 (400 CE).

Meow and yourself have kind of missed the reasons why people don't answer this challenge in the way you expect.

I don't really expect a given response, but the answers to it have been varied throughout the ages. Ranging from "Mysterious Ways" to "The Devil Did It".

A loved one gets sick and then the question arises, yet people believe in God.

And many get angry. Lose their faith, or at the very least question it. I've seen family members fall victim to this Crisis of Faith often.

This has not been dealt with...which leads into the rest of the post about the problem of evil and the 'Heathen' gods.

If you could, just Heathen gods. "Heathen" is a proper noun these days, and the title that we of Germanic Paganism go by. However I'm not quite sure what you mean by leading in to the rest of my post. Did you have a specific area? We don't really have a "Problem of Evil" because we lack the claim that our gods are both "All-Powerful" and the "Highest Good". Neither do we have a "Devil" figure to answer such a conflict.

Bingo! I think that's exactly it. People want there to be good and evil. Is that wrong?

Such isn't really what I was saying at all. Of course there is "good and evil" in human perception, even in Polytheism. Yet those two moral poles can be found even in individual gods. Odin is often seen as wise and generous, mysterious and benevolent to those with a hunger for knowledge. He is also scheming, selfish, power-hungry, and dangerous.

People also want to hope, and God is a way to choose hope. It is a way to say "I choose to believe that there is something better."

A hope that is somewhat dashed when god stands alone, and all evils are at his feet as well. Enter the solution (and subsequent construction) of the "Devil". The Christian god can stand as the Highest Good, a beacon of hope, and all evils are swept under the rug as influence of the Devil, a prowling lion at the gate.

Which brings us full circle to today where you and the neopagans are rebelling against the bull**** of the royalty of today. I think you're kind of trying to do the same thing as the people who switched to monotheism.

I really don't see how, and don't appreciate our faith being relegated to nothing more than rebellion against "the royalty".

 

[Meow Mix]

My thoughts are as follows:

The Problem is formulated as a logical inconsistency problem based on a set of premises. If we don't use those exact premises, we don't end up with a contradiction with observation, so there is no Problem (not that specific problem anyway).

People often make mistaken assumptions about the Problem: they think that the skeptic is looking at suffering, concluding that it is distasteful, and then saying "I don't like this, God is a meanie for letting this happen." (I wonder if that's what you're taking away from the Problem, @PureX and @Brickjectivity ? Not assuming, just saying: if so, that is not the correct interpretation of the Problem).

For instance, I can form a similar, less convoluted problem of the same reductio ad absurdum form where the premises form a contradiction: I could argue that if Tom is defined as being a bachelor and also defined as being married, then Tom does not exist. The argument makes no value judgments on whether being a bachelor or being married is good or bad; it just notes that there's a contradiction. And the problem goes away, obviously, of the Tomist believer doesn't hold one of the two premises of the argument.

So this is what I mean when I say the Problem goes away if the theist drops one of the premises: the Problem is that there is a contradiction with the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (when we combine it with the observation that there is preventable suffering in the world that God would be culpable for). The argument doesn't say that suffering is bad: it's more just about how preventable suffering is contradictory with omnibenevolence qua omnibenevolence.

It's very complicated because there's an entire field of theology called theodicy that consists of responding to the Problem: perhaps preventable suffering is compatible with omnibenevolence because it's not actually preventable, for instance; or perhaps preventable suffering is compatible with omnibenevolence because it's justified for some desirable good thing that can only come about from the suffering that precedes it, etc. (See my "Tale of the 12 Officers" post for parodies of twelve popular theodicies). None of these theodicies work (which is where most arguments about the Problem take place), so the only way to escape the Problem is to drop one or more of the premises: admit that perhaps God isn't omnibenevolent, or perhaps that God isn't omnipotent, or any one of these things.

It is not about just saying "therefore, God is a big meaniehead." It's about a logical contradiction showing that a being with {x, y, z, ...} properties instantiated simultaneously is incongruent with observations and cannot exist (but only with those exact properties; the argument leaves any other bundle of possible properties unphased).

That being said:

This is what @The Kilted Heathen 's example does: omnipotence has been dropped as a premise for instance, so the Problem does not obtain.

The conversation then becomes something other than a conversation about what is logically possible and more an argument about suffering as a phenomenon and its place in the world, and humans' and gods' interactions with it. It is a different problem from the Problem. That doesn't make it unworthy of discussion, but it is important to recognize that it's a different category of philosophical discussion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is what @The Kilted Heathen 's example does: omnipotence has been dropped as a premise for instance, so the Problem does not obtain.

Yes I grasped that and appreciated it, and I hope I didn't indicate otherwise. I think that its an interesting difference between the 'Heathen' perspective of the OP and that of some monotheist theology though not all. Many don't have all of those premises.

It is not about just saying "therefore, God is a big meaniehead." It's about a logical contradiction showing that a being with {x, y, z, ...} properties instantiated simultaneously is incongruent with observations and cannot exist (but only with those exact properties; the argument leaves any other bundle of possible properties unphased).

That is very good and carefully thought out, and you have done well to study that system of thought. Its relevant in many ways, particularly for people like me who tend to get lost in the religion and miss out on life. When we drill down into the gears to find three or more together in a way that doesn't turn, then that can free our minds to look outside the box.

What drives normal people to make choices about religion is not usually philosophical arithmetic. I grew up in religion, and I've seen multiple times when people convert. Its been friends, strangers and family. They don't convert because of proofs or because someone says that only God could have made the world. People want the world to be better, and they choose religion for that reason just in the hope of seeing it better. They go in not knowing all of the philosophical details. They don't want the world to be a ****ing cold competition, which it often is. The details and the philosophy are details very often, not that they don't learn and don't enjoy learning. They do enjoy learning, but its not the driver of choices about religion. There is the odd person who has some kind of supernatural experience, but I don't pay much attention when that happens and don't trust it.

I can't promise this, but I think this has also been that case with neopagans whom I've encountered. They like all of the information and studying about priests and cultures, but its not what floats their boat. Maybe they want to see an alternative world and feel monotheism has been restrictive or has in some way been hypocritical. There is often a very personal reason why they go neopagan, and I'm not just talking about people I've met online. I've worked and been in schools and had roomates. I haven't done much else, but that is enough I think to get a feel of what people are doing. As with the monotheists there's the occasional supernatural experience that could affect choices, but its not philosophy generally.

So this is what I mean when I say the Problem goes away if the theist drops one of the premises: the Problem is that there is a contradiction with the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (when we combine it with the observation that there is preventable suffering in the world that God would be culpable for). The argument doesn't say that suffering is bad: it's more just about how preventable suffering is contradictory with omnibenevolence qua omnibenevolence.

I'm not fully familiar with what omnibenevolence is, but as you have described it: it sounds like it might not be as important a premise if we don't impose anthropomorphic feelings onto the divine. Perhaps impersonal benevolence would void the argument, since overall there are good things in the world. Maybe this doesn't satisfy omnibenevolence as defined, but its a tolerable form of benevolence. Does this satisfy everyone: no; and I'm not saying the PoE is an invalid problem. Its definitely a problem given the hardened and particular set of premises.

It's very complicated because there's an entire field of theology called theodicy that consists of responding to the Problem: perhaps preventable suffering is compatible with omnibenevolence because it's not actually preventable, for instance; or perhaps preventable suffering is compatible with omnibenevolence because it's justified for some desirable good thing that can only come about from the suffering that precedes it, etc. (See my "Tale of the 12 Officers" post for parodies of twelve popular theodicies). None of these theodicies work (which is where most arguments about the Problem take place), so the only way to escape the Problem is to drop one or more of the premises: admit that perhaps God isn't omnibenevolent, or perhaps that God isn't omnipotent, or any one of these things.

Theodicy can be an entire field of theology, but it isn't the center of theology. We can skip it and still have theology: possibly a better theology or a different or worse theology but a theology.

 

[Meow Mix]

That is very good and carefully thought out, and you have done well to study that system of thought. Its relevant in many ways, particularly for people like me who tend to get lost in the religion and miss out on life. When we drill down into the gears to find three or more together in a way that doesn't turn, then that can free our minds to look outside the box.

What drives normal people to make choices about religion is not usually philosophical arithmetic. I grew up in religion, and I've seen multiple times when people convert. Its been friends, strangers and family. They don't convert because of proofs or because someone says that only God could have made the world. People want the world to be better, and they choose religion for that reason just in the hope of seeing it better. They go in not knowing all of the philosophical details. They don't want the world to be a ****ing cold competition, which it often is. The details and the philosophy are details very often, not that they don't learn and don't enjoy learning. They do enjoy learning, but its not the driver of choices about religion. There is the odd person who has some kind of supernatural experience, but I don't pay much attention when that happens and don't trust it.

I can't promise this, but I think this has also been that case with neopagans whom I've encountered. They like all of the information and studying about priests and cultures, but its not what floats their boat. Maybe they want to see an alternative world and feel monotheism has been restrictive or has in some way been hypocritical. There is often a very personal reason why they go neopagan, and I'm not just talking about people I've met online. I've worked and been in schools and had roomates. I haven't done much else, but that is enough I think to get a feel of what people are doing. As with the monotheists there's the occasional supernatural experience that could affect choices, but its not philosophy generally.

Yes ^.^ I know not everyone goes into religion for the philosophy; nor is everyone (or even many) swayed by the philosophy. However, it's still important for someone to explore for those who get curious. Philosophy actually drove my deconversion from hardcore young earth Christianity. Different strokes for different folks. (My chest tattoo is actually a remnant from these days: it is the Sacred Heart. Not on display in my current avatar but I'm sure my avatar will change, because that's what I do).

I'm not fully familiar with what omnibenevolence is, but as you have described it: it sounds like it might not be as important a premise if we don't impose anthropomorphic feelings onto the divine. Perhaps impersonal benevolence would void the argument, since overall there are good things in the world. Maybe this doesn't satisfy omnibenevolence as defined, but its a tolerable form of benevolence. Does this satisfy everyone: no; and I'm not saying the PoE is an invalid problem. Its definitely a problem given the hardened and particular set of premises.

Omnibenevolence is usually defined in such a way that it is personal, such that God would care about human suffering. If God is just generically benevolent in some other way (that doesn't consider human suffering), that would be a different premise, and the PoE wouldn't apply. Indeed.

Theodicy can be an entire field of theology, but it isn't the center of theology. We can skip it and still have theology: possibly a better theology or a different or worse theology but a theology.

While I agree, in my worldview it's best to make sure that one's own worldview is truth-seeking, avoids error, avoids contradiction, and things like this. I value these things, so I would be concerned with these things. For someone else's worldview where they don't value these things (or as much), that is OK, that's for them.

 

[Stevicus]

Not so much that specifically, but that he's claimed to be the Highest Good.

Yes, although there are those who say (or imply) that "God has a plan for you" or that "everything happens for a reason," which suggests that some all-powerful sentient individual is micromanaging events down to the smallest detail - and all at the same time, apparently.

I would not view them as "all-powerful", but they are believed to have created / continue to create the physical world, as a joint-effort rather than One Above All or some such.

Interesting. I sometimes speculate and ponder about the possibility that our planet and the lifeforms which inhabit were created as a form of entertainment for some race of alien beings, perhaps from a higher level dimension. Maybe the Earth is some giant arena. Or maybe something like Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.​

At least that would explain some things, if there really are such things as gods.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And many get angry. Lose their faith, or at the very least question it. I've seen family members fall victim to this Crisis of Faith often.

Its frequent. Its in books and drama and everywhere.

If you could, just Heathen gods. "Heathen" is a proper noun these days, and the title that we of Germanic Paganism go by. However I'm not quite sure what you mean by leading in to the rest of my post. Did you have a specific area? We don't really have a "Problem of Evil" because we lack the claim that our gods are both "All-Powerful" and the "Highest Good". Neither do we have a "Devil" figure to answer such a conflict.

People get on my case if I call them heathen, so I put single quotes around it to bring attention to the fact that its what you call yourself. You're not the only one who reads posts, so I'm just covering my backside.

Such isn't really what I was saying at all. Of course there is "good and evil" in human perception, even in Polytheism. Yet those two moral poles can be found even in individual gods. Odin is often seen as wise and generous, mysterious and benevolent to those with a hunger for knowledge. He is also scheming, selfish, power-hungry, and dangerous.

Ok. He reminds of technology the way you describe him.

A hope that is somewhat dashed when god stands alone, and all evils are at his feet as well. Enter the solution (and subsequent construction) of the "Devil". The Christian god can stand as the Highest Good, a beacon of hope, and all evils are swept under the rug as influence of the Devil, a prowling lion at the gate.

Yes. I dropped belief in that very early on, but most Christians haven't. Personal experience leads me to believe that many just cannot accept an impersonal God. It would go beyond the scope of the thread.

I really don't see how, and don't appreciate our faith being relegated to nothing more than rebellion against "the royalty".

I'm talking about why I think people convert to things. I think its often about guessing at a good future for their kids.

 

[PureX]

Let's restate the question, and keep in mind this "problem" is really just our inability to answer our own question: why do life forms need to destroy each other to continue their own existence? Because this does seem to be the root cause of suffering, or of "evil", while "God" is just the ideological representative of this predicament.

Asked in this manner, we can clarify "evil" somewhat, and render it a universal, rather that a subjective value assessment. And we can eliminate the emotional personification of an existential circumstance.

So, what say ya'll now?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yes, although there are those who say (or imply) that "God has a plan for you" or that "everything happens for a reason,"

Indeed, which is one of the myriad "solutions" to the POE that calls into conflict Yahweh's Benevolence, whereas the solution of "The Devil" conflicts with both Benevolence and Omnipotence.

I sometimes speculate and ponder about the possibility that our planet and the lifeforms which inhabit were created as a form of entertainment for some race of alien beings--

I tend to think of Earth - and all creation, really - as a Community Garden. Everyone's got their part to play in it, and even sometimes pests show up and things go wrong. The gods are simply (metaphorically) better Gardeners than we are, and even some who maintain the order of the Garden when it falls into disrepair.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Personal experience leads me to believe that many just cannot accept an impersonal God.

This touches on another issue of the Problem of Evil as a whole; it hinges as well on Humanity being the center of everything. Woes and evils happening to us because we're somehow "important".

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So, what say ya'll now?

That's not really the "Problem of Evil". The POE - specifically - is simplified as "Why does evil exist if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent?" Remove either of those claimed traits, and it becomes more a philosophical discussion on the nature of evil, rather than a problem presented by.

I know I didn't make it too clear in the OP, but from a Heathen perspective (and quite often Polytheism in general) there is no "Problem of Evil". Evil simply is, as Summer is to Winter.

 

[PureX]

That's not really the "Problem of Evil". The POE - specifically - is simplified as "Why does evil exist if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent?" Remove either of those claimed traits, and it becomes more a philosophical discussion on the nature of evil, rather than a problem presented by.

I know I didn't make it too clear in the OP, but from a Heathen perspective (and quite often Polytheism in general) there is no "Problem of Evil". Evil simply is, as Summer is to Winter.

There is, however, the problem of the existence of "evil", remaining. Heathen or not. That's why I shifted the focus onto it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Of course, but again that's simply the existence of "evil". (Or rather maliciousness, maligned events, etc). The "Problem of Evil" is a specific theological issue.

In regards to "Evil" in Heathenry, shifting to that, there's... not really that. There isn't one (or even many) "Villain" entity/entities, not even Loki (as he is commonly accused of). Evil and maliciousness is found in individual or subsequent actions, and while a god or individual might have a stint of malicious actions, "Evil" isn't seen as an inherent trait that cannot be changed, unlike the Christian "Devil" where he is irredeemably evil intrinsically and forevermore.