Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Storm]

I think it is telling that convoluted arguments have to be made in order to maintain the concept of a benevolent God.

I don't think mine are convoluted. They may not be persuasive to you, but they're fairly straightforward.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think mine are convoluted. They may not be persuasive to you, but they're fairly straightforward.

To tell the truth, I didn't read the entire thread, but was basing this comment on the normal defenses against the problem of evil. I will browse through and see what your particular argument is.

 

[Storm]

To tell the truth, I didn't read the entire thread, but was basing this comment on the normal defenses against the problem of evil. I will browse through and see what your particular argument is.

I'll nutshell the arguments I find satisfactory.

1) The most persuasive to me is the idea that from God's perspective, evil is at minimum necessary, and maybe even positive.

2) The free will defense. Not that free will creates evil, but that evil is necessary for us to have free will at all. What good is the capacity to choose if there are no options?

Please note, I am not making these arguments from the perspective of my own theology.

I may think of more later, but that's enough to get us started.

As for your earlier comment about how the arguments are convoluted (regardless of whether or not it applies to me), I think it's rather inevitable. As someone who has experienced God, I can only say that it's an inescapable conclusion. (My brief stint as a maltheist is more a testament to my abject confusion at the time than anything else.) The sense of God's... I'll go with "goodness" though it's wholly inadequate... is indescribably persuasive. And yet, it must be reconciled to the more unpleasant aspects of being alive. This is not an easy task, and frequently results in mental gymnastics.

 

[sojourner]

I think it is telling that convoluted arguments have to be made in order to maintain the concept of a benevolent God.

How So? Aren't the arguments to maintain a non-benevolent God convoluted, as well?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How So? Aren't the arguments to maintain a non-benevolent God convoluted, as well?

The arguments to maintain any god are convoluted.

 

[sojourner]

The arguments to maintain any god are convoluted.

If so, then the arguments to maintain God's nonexistence are just as convoluted.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If so, then the arguments to maintain God's nonexistence are just as convoluted.

Perhaps, but they are unneccesary in the first place.

 

[cottage]

The "possibility" is called "free will." God gave us the capacity to make choices, whether for good or evil. In fact, some believe that humanity created evil, by making choices that turn them away from God. While I think that's a little too myopic, I tend to be in that camp.

Any attempt to justify evil is simply to argue around the contradiction, while leaving it in place! You will agree that evil cannot exist unless the Creator permits it to exist. And it is demonstrably false to say that an omnipotent, perfectly good and moral God can cause or allow suffering.

The Creator made it possible, because we were created with the capacity for choice. But, we made it happen.

I think that is to confuse imperfect, contingent beings with their Creator?

If we use your POV, then gun makers would be the ones sent to jail, because they made it possible for the shooter to kill someone. There has to be a point at which we stop blaming God for everything and take responsibility for our actions. (BTW, don't we call that practice "ethics?") To blame God for the evil is misplaced.

Well, we do of course take responsibilities for our actions, and to speak of 'blaming God' is, with respect, nonsensical. Believers cannot blame God without becoming unbelievers, and sceptics cannot blame a God that they don't happen to believe in! The essence of the Problem of Evil is both logical and evidential. Logical: (law of identity) good and evil, a thing and its opposite; if it is the one thing it cannot be the other without involving a contradiction. Evidential: God the creator is said to be wholly good - and yet evil exists!

Cottage

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps, but they are unneccesary in the first place.

They are?

 

[sojourner]

it is demonstrably false to say that an omnipotent, perfectly good and moral God can cause or allow suffering.

Not so. God allows all kinds of things. If there were no suffering, there would be no free will, no possibility of a love relationship. For all of these things need free will in order to happen. I don't think that "justifies" evil. But it does help to posit why it may exist.

sceptics cannot blame a God that they don't happen to believe in!

Evidential: God the creator is said to be wholly good - and yet evil exists!

So...what are you saying? That God cannot exist because evil exists? What about the whole "one-thing-and-its-opposite?"

I hear atheists say all the time that they don't believe in God, because God wouldn't allow evil to happen. So, apparently, at least some skeptics do blame a God that they "don't believe in." What's so logical about that. Seems like the only difference in belief between us is the impetus for that belief. Mine is based upon hope. Theirs is based upon despair.

 

[cottage]

Not so. God allows all kinds of things. If there were no suffering, there would be no free will, no possibility of a love relationship. For all of these things need free will in order to happen. I don't think that "justifies" evil. But it does help to posit why it may exist.

Suffering isn't a necessary element of free will (which in this case isn't free at all, since God, in his omniscience has foreknowledge of all that occurs). Evil and suffering can only be accommodated by resorting to circular reasoning: 'If evil wasn't available as a choice, then it wouldn't be free will. [Why?] Because free will includes evil.' Wrong! Evil doesn't have to exist.


So...what are you saying? That God cannot exist because evil exists?

There is no reason at all, as far as I can see, to say a Creator cannot exist because of the existence of evil. But...if it is argued that God is omnipotent, wholly good and benevolent then, no, such a God self-evidently cannot exist.

What about the whole "one-thing-and-its-opposite?"

Evil is a concept, but it does not have to exist. No contradiction is involved in conceiving a world without evil.

I hear atheists say all the time that they don't believe in God, because God wouldn't allow evil to happen. So, apparently, at least some skeptics do blame a God that they "don't believe in."

I'm sorry but that is illogical. If X is an atheist it is because of his/her disbelief. One cannot disbelieve a thing while blaming the object of the disbelief for the cause of the disbelief. :no:

What's so logical about that. Seems like the only difference in belief between us is the impetus for that belief. Mine is based upon hope. Theirs is based upon despair.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with that particular understanding of atheism.

Cottage

 

[rojse]

An interesting discussion has popped up that free will cannot exist unless evil does, and I disagree. I can choose what books I wish to borrow from my local library without choosing the path of evil.

 

[sojourner]

Suffering isn't a necessary element of free will (which in this case isn't free at all, since God, in his omniscience has foreknowledge of all that occurs). Evil and suffering can only be accommodated by resorting to circular reasoning: 'If evil wasn't available as a choice, then it wouldn't be free will. [Why?] Because free will includes evil.' Wrong! Evil doesn't have to exist.

That's not what I said. But, look around you! Obviously, evil exists. And the preponderance of it is humanity-driven. If we made good choices, the evil would diminish. But we don't make good choices. That's one of the points of the creation narrative. Because we have free will, many times, we will choose evil (or at least make poor choices that allow evil to prosper).

Evil is a concept, but it does not have to exist. No contradiction is involved in conceiving a world without evil.

Of course not! Look at the creation narrative again. No problem with the conception of a world free of evil. Evil is a concept. It doesn't have to exist ... but it does! The reality is that evil does exist. and it is largely due to our free will.

I'm sorry but that is illogical. If X is an atheist it is because of his/her disbelief. One cannot disbelieve a thing while blaming the object of the disbelief for the cause of the disbelief.

You're right. It is illogical. But it happens.

 

[Falvlun]

I'll nutshell the arguments I find satisfactory.

1) The most persuasive to me is the idea that from God's perspective, evil is at minimum necessary, and maybe even positive.

2) The free will defense. Not that free will creates evil, but that evil is necessary for us to have free will at all. What good is the capacity to choose if there are no options?

Please note, I am not making these arguments from the perspective of my own theology.

Ok, these were precisely the arguments I was thinking of.

The problem of evil exists because there is obviously something about the idea of a benevolent God and evil that just don't logically jive. The simple, intuitive answer is that God is not perfectly benevolent. To reconcile evil and a perfectly benevolent God, one must reach for the non-intuitive, complicated answer.

No-one would ever think up these arguments if they did not have the concept of a benevolent God to defend. What is more convoluted than thinking that evil is good?

Briefly, in response to the two arguments:
1. If evil is necessary and sometimes positive, then would not God have to have a little bit of evil in him to make him perfect? To put it another way, why is God so anti-evil when it is necessary, and he made is so?

2. Isn't it exaggerating a little to claim that there would be no options to choose from if evil did not exist? Why could not God, in his omnipotence, figure out a way to reconcile free-will with evil? Additionally, is the "good" provided by the existence of free-will greater than the evil its existence (supposedly) necessitates?

The sense of God's... I'll go with "goodness" though it's wholly inadequate... is indescribably persuasive. And yet, it must be reconciled to the more unpleasant aspects of being alive. This is not an easy task, and frequently results in mental gymnastics.

What exactly provides this overwhelming sense of goodness? I suppose that is, afterall, what this thread was about.

Personally, I see evil/suffering, and I don't say "Whoa. This needs to be reconciled with the idea of a perfectly good and benevolent God." I say "Whoa. This seems to provide overwhelming evidence that if God exists, s/he/it is not perfectly good and benevolent.

 

[Quagmire]

Life isn't supposed to be a vacation, it's supposed to be an adventure. Can't have an adventure without a little danger. Otherwise it's just a field trip, and I always hated those when I was a kid.

 

[rojse]

Seeing the word "evil" pop up so often in my head, I suddenly can't get the phrase "Eeeevil!" out of my head. I don't know the character or actor who said it, whether it was in a television show or movie (or even if it was in an animated show I once watched as a kid) but it seems oddly appropriate right now.

 

[Falvlun]

How So? Aren't the arguments to maintain a non-benevolent God convoluted, as well?

There really needs to be no argument to maintain the idea of a non-benovelent God. That is the intuitive response to evil in the world. That is why the problem of evil has plagued defenders of a benevolent God for ages.

Could you explain how seeing evil in the world and coming to the conclusion that God is not perfectly benevolent is convoluted?

That's not what I said. But, look around you! Obviously, evil exists. And the preponderance of it is humanity-driven. If we made good choices, the evil would diminish. But we don't make good choices. That's one of the points of the creation narrative. Because we have free will, many times, we will choose evil (or at least make poor choices that allow evil to prosper).

You didn't really answer Cottage's point that evil doesn't have to exist.

 

[Storm]

Ok, these were precisely the arguments I was thinking of.

The problem of evil exists because there is obviously something about the idea of a benevolent God and evil that just don't logically jive. The simple, intuitive answer is that God is not perfectly benevolent. To reconcile evil and a perfectly benevolent God, one must reach for the non-intuitive, complicated answer.

No-one would ever think up these arguments if they did not have the concept of a benevolent God to defend. What is more convoluted than thinking that evil is good?

Just because you find them unconvincing doesn't make them convoluted.

1. If evil is necessary and sometimes positive, then would not God have to have a little bit of evil in him to make him perfect? To put it another way, why is God so anti-evil when it is necessary, and he made is so?

In my theology, God is our reality, including us, so this idea doesn't touble me.

Arguning a more typical God, I see it as possible, but not necessary.

2. Isn't it exaggerating a little to claim that there would be no options to choose from if evil did not exist? Why could not God, in his omnipotence, figure out a way to reconcile free-will with evil? Additionally, is the "good" provided by the existence of free-will greater than the evil its existence (supposedly) necessitates?

Maybe for the same reason He can't make a square circle. For us to have a real choice, their must be real options. It's definitive.

What exactly provides this overwhelming sense of goodness? I suppose that is, afterall, what this thread was about.

If I could answer that, I wouldn't be hear to have this conversation.

Personally, I see evil/suffering, and I don't say "Whoa. This needs to be reconciled with the idea of a perfectly good and benevolent God." I say "Whoa. This seems to provide overwhelming evidence that if God exists, s/he/it is not perfectly good and benevolent.

I can only assume that's because you haven't experienced it. Once you have, it's undeniable.

 

[Storm]

There really needs to be no argument to maintain the idea of a non-benovelent God. That is the intuitive response to evil in the world. That is why the problem of evil has plagued defenders of a benevolent God for ages.

What is intuitive isn't always correct. Geocentrism and a flat earth are intuitive.

 

[Katzpur]

I'll nutshell the arguments I find satisfactory.

1) The most persuasive to me is the idea that from God's perspective, evil is at minimum necessary, and maybe even positive.

2) The free will defense. Not that free will creates evil, but that evil is necessary for us to have free will at all. What good is the capacity to choose if there are no options?

Well put.

Please note, I am not making these arguments from the perspective of my own theology.

I know. You're making them from the perspective of my theology. I bet you didn't realize that.