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.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

Yes, but I think you touched on a crucial point, one key in my understanding of evolution as having a definite direction. The trend is toward organisms with higher levels of complexity and then sensitivity. Clearly then, the purpose of evolution is other than mere survival, as the simpler organisms are the least sensitive and the most apt to survive. The direction of evolution is upward, toward greater complexity and beauty, which means greater vulnerability.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 17 by Tired of the Nonsense]

My position is that if there was no God, we wouldn't be here.

The way God makes for freedom is, one, by luring the universe to greater degrees of complexity. As I think I explained before, complexity means freedom. The other way god makes for freedom is by resenting us with creative possibilities, whereby we can transcend the tyranny of teh given, the past.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

Yes, but I think you touched on a crucial point, one key in my understanding of evolution as having a definite direction. The trend is toward organisms with higher levels of complexity and then sensitivity. Clearly then, the purpose of evolution is other than mere survival, as the simpler organisms are the least sensitive and the most apt to survive. The direction of evolution is upward, toward greater complexity and beauty, which means greater vulnerability.

What about blind cave fish? Evolution trends to whatever is suited to the environment... If more complex life is better suited to the environment it will trend to that if less complex life is better it trends to that. There are areas where only bacteriums survive clearly that is not terribly complex.

Do no your wrong.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 43 by DanieltheDragon]

Evolution does more than merely suit creature to the environment. It brings about creatures that can significantly modify the environment. And it's pretty clear that the simpler organisms are the best survivors. If we had a nuclear holocaust, it might well be curtains for us. But I think cockroaches might have a field day. If we had a major power outage throughout the US, it would be very tough on us. But I don't think birds, dogs, and cats would mind much. The more complex the organism, the greater the its vulnerability.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, but I think you touched on a crucial point, one key in my understanding of evolution as having a definite direction. The trend is toward organisms with higher levels of complexity and then sensitivity.

Your understanding of evolution apparently differs from that of evolutionary biologists and geneticists.

How evolutionary biology is being misunderstood

The notion that evolution has a goal/purpose is a widespread misconception that comes in several variations. Many people falsely believe that evolution was working towards humans as a final product. But from a biological perspective, there is really no reason to single out the human species specifically. Evolution produced a “tree of life�, with humans being an ordinary twig among many others. It did not produce a “ladder of life� where humans would throne at the top. Homo sapiens is one species out of many, and all currently existing organisms have an evolutionary history of the same length, leading back to the same origin most likely.

Even if one doesn’t view humans as some kind of “end product�, one might still believe that evolution is operating according to some higher purpose, or that it necessarily strives into a particular direction. More complexity, harmony, progress or some kind of plan that needs to be adhered to. But all of that, too, is mistaken. At most, evolution has certain tendencies – but no goal or purpose.

Why evolutionary biology is being misunderstood

Evolutionary biology is difficult to grasp because it strongly violates some of our basic intuitions about how things work. We have the tendency to favor teleological (“goal-directed�) explanations over causal explanations (Kelemen & Rosset, 2009) even though with regard to nature, teleological explanations are wrong. For instance, when children are asked whether rain happens “for plants to grow� or “because water condenses in the clouds,� they prefer the first explanation. This likely explains, in combination with religious motivations and perhaps also vanity or wishful thinking, why people have such difficulty to properly understand the evolutionary mechanism.

The mechanism behind evolution

Evolution’s mechanism is surprisingly simple. Those variations (alleles) of a gene which give an individual a comparative advantage in terms of biological fitness – in being beneficial for successful reproduction – will automatically become more prevalent in the genepool. Whether a given mutation leads to a fitness advantage depends on the environment of the organism in question. Out of the random variation, which is the result of mutations/copying-errors (which can be the result of exposure to radiation, metals or chemical substances), only a small percentage actually increases the fitness of an individual. Those mutations tend to prevail and become widespread, whereas mutations that lead to a disadvantage will likely be weeded out of the genepool. Even though the variation is originally random, a non-random subset of it – the fitness-benefitting components – ends up conserved through natural selection. This mechanism results in organisms adapting to better survive and reproduce in their environment.
http://crucialconsiderations.org/scienc ... s-no-goal/

Bold added. The article continues . . .

Clearly then, the purpose of evolution is other than mere survival, as the simpler organisms are the least sensitive and the most apt to survive.

Clearly, evolution has a 'purpose' ONLY if one assumes a purpose-giver – which is mere conjecture unless the decision making entity can be shown to influence evolution.

The direction of evolution is upward, toward greater complexity and beauty, which means greater vulnerability.

I disagree. Evolution progresses in whatever direction leads to survival and successful reproduction in the environment. Organisms that are more 'vulnerable' are LESS likely to survive and reproduce.

Speaking in favor of 'upward' and 'complex is the goal' (or similar) is an anthropomorphism of the concept – assuming that humans are the 'goal' of evolution (or its end product) and that they are the organism to which others should be compared.

While a tendency for humans to think highly of humans may be expected, it is not a valid assumption based upon evidence. Yes, humans are a (or the) dominant species presently (at least in some ways); however, that is a very recent development which is NOT assured to continue as environmental conditions change over tens (or hundreds) of thousands of years – or millions (or much more rapidly if there are drastic or catastrophic changes in the environment).

In some ways of thinking, bacteria are the most successful organisms.

[hoghead1]

[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.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 43 by DanieltheDragon]

Evolution does more than merely suit creature to the environment. It brings about creatures that can significantly modify the environment. And it's pretty clear that the simpler organisms are the best survivors. If we had a nuclear holocaust, it might well be curtains for us. But I think cockroaches might have a field day. If we had a major power outage throughout the US, it would be very tough on us. But I don't think birds, dogs, and cats would mind much. The more complex the organism, the greater the its vulnerability.

Evolution doesn't do anything it's not something that does but a description of a series of processes that occur in nature. Namely reproduction and genetic change. The more complex the organism is the greater its vulnerability? Tell that to all the bacterium that are extinct. There are countless rare parasites that have all but been eliminated. What about celocamps that have been around for a long loooong time.

How are we more complex than birds dogs and cats? Sure we Have bigger brains but they have other adaptations that are more keen than our own. A nuclear holocost would wipe out many types of single called organisms and cockroaches are multicellular so that also throws bunk to your claims.

This is why I don't take an apologists perspective on biology very seriously. Apologetics finds biology inconvenient so the best way to deal with it is misinformation and falsehoods.

Your hot take on evolution needs to be retooled.

[marco]

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.

The problem we have is that the attribution of blame to God contradicts the working definition. If God does X, then X is good because God did it. When we see something as bad, we don't view it through divine eyes. Our wisdom, remember, is foolishness with God. Or so it seems.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 26 by ttruscott]

And since it is God, you should assume it means all of them, because, primitive languages are contextual languages.

Without context you assume the broadest possible interpretation.
So all those definitions, without an indicator, means you can use all of those definitions.

Therefore God created most, if not all of the things on that list, and certainly the most prominent ones.

Therefore God created evil - as it is not at all a subtle use of the word.

[theophile]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

We need to first come to an understanding of what evil is. Believers often conceive of evil as a physical force in the world. This force is represented, according to common Christian belief, by Satan. But evil has no such physical existence. Evil is an opinion... a concept. And the concept of evil revolves around the hideous things that humans do to other humans. Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions. He was evil according to common modern opinion. I doubt that his opinion of himself was that he was evil. Opinions differ.

I gave a short definition before.

Good is that which supports or benefits life.
Evil is that which hinders or is adverse to life.

Thus we see God doing self-declared good in Genesis 1 in the shaping and filling of the earth.

Thus we see evil enter the picture in Genesis 3 (through sin) as adversity to life - laborious farming, marital discord, painful childbirth, enmities with animal-kind...

These are all evil. The fruits of sin.

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.