Does God cause evil?

[DanieltheDragon]

Does God cause evil?

Some assert that God causes no evil. Is there cause to believe this is true. Can this position be supported. Is the character described in the bible incapable of evil?

I would assert that a position that claims God created everything would make him the original cause of evil. That God cannot escape being the cause of evil since he created any and all situations in which evil would arise.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 35 by Willum]

I don't see how you could see them as two different things.
Can you explain, please?

If I stick with the definitions I supplied (see previous post), then as God does good (i.e., things that support / benefit life), then God creates the possibility of evil in the process, which is inherent to life itself.

Life, as life, can do evil, i.e., things that hinder or are adverse to life. Not to mention human life, which can cause a lot of evil through sin...

Lions eat lambs (life can cause adversity toward itself...). Storms destroy habitats (the fact that life is there, or more life is there, means calamity can fall upon it...).

So the question is, does God, in creating life, and therefore the possibility for evil, hold responsibility for evil?

I don't think so. Creating life, even life that goes awry, is a good thing. Full stop. What that life does, or what subsequently happens to it, is another matter altogether.

Do we hold a parent accountable for the crimes of the child? Usually not. Should we hold Oppenheimer accountable if Trump blows up the world? We would be extremely negligent of our own responsibility if we did so.

The only way God would be culpable, and the possibility of evil and evil would coincide, would be if God was the only actor in this world. If all else was automaton.

But I don't think that's the case. Thus we must keep these things separate.

[marco]

But with this definition of good and evil, again, I can see God causing both.

God will cause evil when life itself is causing evil. e.g., the flood. This is not evil as the result of sin, but evil to correct things and give life - good life - a chance.

I wonder where you got this restriction from. As you say, the destruction or intended destruction of life is evil, so when God told Abraham to kill his son, the command was evil.

We can chatter about the "happy" conclusion, but the command remains evil. And there is no excuse, except to play games with Abraham.

[Willum]

[Replying to theophile]

Ah, you haven't followed your logic all the way through.
Oppenheimer, were it NOT Oppenheimer, who lead the group, would have been replaced with someone else.
Lions being able to eat lambs, is practically an admission of guilt, unless God created spontaneous evolution on a contingency.

So, since God allegedly holds all the cards and knowledge, yes he is responsible in a way a parent can't be responsible for the actions of their children.

To clarify I'll counter point, when are parents responsible for the actions of their children?
In whatever they teach and instill on them.

God instilled everything upon Adam and Eve, and taught them everything too. Their freewill was an illusion of constraints.
In fact I suggested to you that there were not two paths to take. Based on the story, there was only one. It was the righteous path, the one without evil, that was the one that doesn't exist.

Do you see what you have understood, even before me? God did create evil. What he did not create was the possibility that we might resist evil, and be 'good' forever.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 34 by DanieltheDragon]

Is God all knowing(knows the cause and effect of actions)?

Does it say that somewhere? Does the bible lay out a deterministic worldview? I really don't think so.. See Open Theism for a strong academic tradition against such thinking. Or do some research into views of divine foreknowledge. This book is a great source on the matter and includes an open theist's views as well as a view closer to yours: Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views)

I lean very heavily toward it being an open system, and the ultimate end being unknowable, even to God.

Did God create all things?

Again, I don't think so. Look at Genesis 1. All God does is call for things. Light. Separations. Life... These things either self-respond to God's call, or are brought about by others. Note: the sea brings forth fish; the land brings forth things that creep and crawl... This is explicit.

So at most, God is complicit in creation. Creation is not a solo act. That, and we need to be clear what "create" means. It does not mean to make something out of nothing. Rather, it means to fashion, shape, cut, etc, some pre-existing material. (Like a potter "creates" a pot from clay...)

So see also debates about creatio ex nihilo. This is not a closed question by any means, and if you look closely at Gen 1, you'll notice elements already there when God starts. i.e., "The deep" (Hebrew tehom), which God's "wind" hovers over, and "the earth" which is tohu wa-bohu, or "formless and void."

All this points to my view that God does not create all things, if by that you mean out of nothing. There is implied a pre-existing material that God shapes, with the participation of others, in creation. God does not create this pre-existing material.

Does God define what is and is not sin?

I don't think so... Does it say that somewhere? Sin is sin. It's not a random selection of actions by God but a cohesive concept. We can identify what is and is not sin as much as God can.

If God is not the cause of evil or cannot be the cause of evil, then there should not or could not be evil. Alternatively, what we perceive as evil is not evil in this scenario, Hitler, Bundy, Pol Pot, Stalin, the green river killer, Boston strangler, ISIS, etc can't be evil if God cannot cause evil.

Note what I said my view is: God causes evil, but God is not the cause of original evil. God may be responsible for causing the possibility of evil, but the first evil belongs to us.

Human beings, according to the narrative, are the ones who first caused evil (through sin). We are the ones who introduced it into God's creation. Also, from the preceding points I made, I clearly I don't accept your framework, or underlying assumptions here.

As to when God will cause evil, I think we see quite consistently that it is when evil is necessary for good. As it sometimes is. See the flood. Or Egypt, and the evil necessary to free a people from bondage. God will cause evil for the sake of good. But the first evil, that belongs to us.

Take this for example if I get a pit bull and I know that if it is placed in a bad environment during its developmental stages that it will be aggressive and that it will have the physical capacity to inflict peril to a person. And I take this dog after it has been through such a environment and let it outside unrestrained, would I not be responsible if it bites someone?

So are you comparing human beings to a dog? I think we can be held responsible for things that a dog cannot be. So yes, I would say you are responsible for the dog in that situation. You should have known that your action would be adverse to life (i.e., evil), and because the dog cannot know that, or cannot know what it is doing, your responsibility covers what that dog subsequently does.

But a human being does know better. We do know what we are doing, or what our actions will cause, at least to an extent.

So can we hold God accountable for "letting us loose upon the world"? I think we can hold God responsible for the decision that we lead the world (in Gen 1), and so there may be some culpability there. But what we do with our leadership, I think that is all on us.

Let's look at another, more human example:

Let's say a father who built a company hands it over to his son. And that son subsequently drives the company into the ground, to great adversity (i.e., evil) to its many employees and their families.

Who is responsible there? The father? The son? ...

[theophile]

[Replying to post 52 by marco]

wonder where you got this restriction from. As you say, the destruction or intended destruction of life is evil, so when God told Abraham to kill his son, the command was evil.

We can chatter about the "happy" conclusion, but the command remains evil. And there is no excuse, except to play games with Abraham.

But let's be clear: I said from the beginning that God does do evil. So sure, the call for Isaac's life may have been evil. (I would argue that one, but let's accept it as such for the sake of this argument.)

So that's that. God does evil. Full stop. No question about it.

My contention, however, is that the evil God does is always for good. So we absolutely need to look at the "happy conclusion" of this evil, and why God called for Isaac's life in the first place. We need to see it within a broader narrative.

This doesn't nullify the evil of the act, but it does provide a context where evil can and does find a place. Where things like war, violence, etc., become necessary...

The problem is when there is evil for the sake of evil. Or for the sake of narrow, self-serving interests. Or for the sake of nothing...

My contention is not that God doesn't do evil, but that all of the evil God does is for a "happy conclusion"...

i.e., it is always for the sake of life in the broadest sense possible. It's betterment and support.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 54 by theophile]

o are you comparing human beings to a dog? I think we can be held responsible for things that a dog cannot be. So yes, I would say you are responsible for the dog in that situation. You should have known that your action would be adverse to life (i.e., evil), and because the dog cannot know that, or cannot know what it is doing, your responsibility covers what that dog subsequently does.

But a human being does know better. We do know what we are doing, or what our actions will cause, at least to an extent.

So can we hold God accountable for "letting us loose upon the world"? I think we can hold God responsible for the decision that we lead the world (in Gen 1), and so there may be some culpability there. But what we do with our leadership, I think that is all on us.

Oh we "know" better right? Violence and crime is a more a product of environment than an individual's desire to do evil. Only 2-3% of the populations is estimated to be a sociopath. The majority of abusers were abused as a child. Gang violence mostly occurs in areas of impoverished Socio economics. Even your description of pharoah in the other thread specifies the environment causing pharoahs hardened heart.

Suicide bombers see themselves as righteous. The killers of abortionists thought they were doing the right thing. I am not saying we are dogs that was just an analogy for how the environment effects things and someone who knows how the environment will effect behavior as you suggested in the other thread is responsible for the actions of individuals in the environments he surrounds them in.

A dog isn't acting. Mindlessly when it attacks, in some respects they are very logical. When they are taught violence is the main method of dealing with a problem they will use violence. So if someone walks into their territory they will use violence to anyone who ventures into it.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 53 by Willum]

Ah, you haven't followed your logic all the way through.
Oppenheimer, were it NOT Oppenheimer, who lead the group, would have been replaced with someone else.

Are you saying Oppenheimer would be responsible if someone later used the bomb he created for evil? I'm saying he's not... Nor would the person who hypothetically replaced him be responsible...

The person responsible is the person who actually uses the bomb.

Lions being able to eat lambs, is practically an admission of guilt, unless God created spontaneous evolution on a contingency.

Animals are a tricky one. If we reduce animals down to automatons, and yet still see them as suffering adversity (i.e., evil), then yes, God's creation of animals that would cause evil upon each other would make God responsible for that evil.

But let's poke on that a bit. Are animals automatons? Can an automaton really suffer evil?... Animals aren't robots, right? But part of this analysis assumes they are...

I don't think they are, and I don't think the bible does either. I think the bible takes a stand on this and actually elevates animal-kind (far more so than our modern treatment of them does). The bible actually gives animals a voice and knowledge. See the serpent of Genesis...

Thus we may, in a strange way, hold the lion responsible for eating the lamb. One of those "necessary evils" until we get the world to where it needs to be. One that is necessary in the context of shaping and filling the world with all kinds of life...

So, since God allegedly holds all the cards and knowledge, yes he is responsible in a way a parent can't be responsible for the actions of their children.

Let's look at it this way: God starts shaping and filling a formless, empty world. It is a work in process. We all know the biblically declared end is such that lions will lay down with lambs. But getting there is going to take a lot of shepherding (from God, from us, who God put in charge of the task).

So the fact that much of the world is still wild, and we haven't yet reached our end yet, means there will be some necessary evils along the way. Animals will need to eat animals. Humans will need to eat animals. Even greater evils may be necessary to get things back on track (the flood)...

I don't think God is blamable for that. God is only blamable if we assume God is all knowing and powerful, etc, etc, which I don't accept.

All God is doing is the best that can be done with the pre-existing materials that are there... To shape a world out of them. To fill that world with life...

The real question is, should God have left everything formless and void as God found things in Genesis 1?

That, I think, would have been the greater evil than all the necessary evils along the way of getting things to the ultimate end. Where lions lay down with lambs.

In fact I suggested to you that there were not two paths to take. Based on the story, there was only one. It was the righteous path, the one without evil, that was the one that doesn't exist.

Let me further refine that... If we think in terms of the grand trajectory from formless and empty world to a world fully formed and filled with life, then yes, there is going to be some necessary evil along the way to get it there. Lions will need to eat lambs. Natural events such as storms will destroy things... (There is a chaos, Hebrew tehom / the deep, that God did not cause but that nevertheless needs to be organized and "tamed"...

But I think that is different from the evil that results from sin. The former is necessary evil. A pre-existing potential for evil.. Evil that will continue to take place until we get further along the path toward its end... The latter was never necessary. There were still two paths in Eden for Adam and Eve to take...

Path one would have been a world without sin, where sin (and the evil it causes) was always possible, but never taken. But where there would still be necessary evils as we continue shaping and filling the world due to the chaos inherent in the world.

Path two would have been a world with sin, where sin introduces even greater evil than was ever necessary, and takes the world on a track away from the end God envisioned and set us on (i.e., a fully formed world filled with life...).

I will happily refine / change my earlier positions to that.

Do you see what you have understood, even before me? God did create evil. What he did not create was the possibility that we might resist evil, and be 'good' forever.

I see where you are going, but I think we need to refine this based on the above. Then I think we are in happy agreement.

There is necessary evil along the way (which was always going to happen) as we continue shaping and filling a world that has chaos at its heart.
There is evil due to sin which takes us from this way and greatly amplifies the evil in the world.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 56 by DanieltheDragon]

Oh we "know" better right? Violence and crime is a more a product of environment than an individual's desire to do evil. Only 2-3% of the populations is estimated to be a sociopath. The majority of abusers were abused as a child. Gang violence mostly occurs in areas of impoverished Socio economics. Even your description of pharoah in the other thread specifies the environment causing pharoahs hardened heart.

Suicide bombers see themselves as righteous. The killers of abortionists thought they were doing the right thing. I am not saying we are dogs that was just an analogy for how the environment effects things and someone who knows how the environment will effect behavior as you suggested in the other thread is responsible for the actions of individuals in the environments he surrounds them in.

A dog isn't acting. Mindlessly when it attacks, in some respects they are very logical. When they are taught violence is the main method of dealing with a problem they will use violence. So if someone walks into their territory they will use violence to anyone who ventures into it.

The last thing I want to do is treat animals as automatons. See my last response to Willum where I try to unpack this complexity a bit more.

But the less and less we treat things (animals, humans, etc) as automatons, the more and more they become responsible for their actions. And the one who created the environment less so.

Either that, or everyone is responsible for everything. And we might as well stop talking about it and mutually assume the mantle of responsibility for all things.

I'm good with that approach too.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 45 by Zzyzx]

Yes, of course, my POV challenges what many biologists have had to say on the matter. However, seeing as how evolution does go from the vary simple to the more complex compels me to see a definite direction. As Whitehead observed, the trend has always been upward, toward greater complexity and sensitivity. And that cannot be explained purely by the need for survival, as I explained earlier.

Science has always had trouble dealing with the realities of value, meaningfulness, purpose. They really aren't in the scientific vocabulary. So I am not surprised by what biologists have said. And it is interesting how they argue there is no purpose in evolution, then say the whole thing is based on the survival of teh fittest, which then serves as the ultimate purpose. And it is particularly interesting how so many want to claim the whole process is governed by the purely mechanical workings of passive, inert dead matter, never stopping to wonder why such matter should care, indeed, how it could care about surviving. Of course, it also find it curious how so many scientists will say that complex order is something just random, requires no mind, and then turn around an say a few simple, organized beeps from out there would give proof of intelligent life elsewhere.

Where did you get your PhD in biology?

" claim the whole process is governed by the purely mechanical workings of passive, inert dead matter," You do know when discussing evolution we discuss living things? Did you study Zombies or watch to many Zombie moves and think of dead thing evolving?

[ttruscott]

As you say, the destruction or intended destruction of life is evil, so when God told Abraham to kill his son, the command was evil.

We can chatter about the "happy" conclusion, but the command remains evil. And there is no excuse, except to play games with Abraham.

The command was only evil if it actually meant an innocent should die. Nothing leads me to think that YHWH expected an innocent to die that day...