Problem of Evil

[liamconnor]

Here from another thread (note: the original thread was not on the Problem of Evil; I simply saw implications for a good discussion):

William wrote:
Jesus said that one didn't have to worry about not having any money as the heavenly father would provide food and clothing and shelter.

The truly amazing thing is that since Christianity began in the first century, not a single faithful Christian has ever been homeless, starving or without suitable clothing. This is a truly remarkable fact. I am constantly astounded that Christian apologists do not make more of this.

I find it more amazing that (in my experience) it is the Christians who have the least--who are hungry, poorly clothed, and oppressed--that do the least complaining.

Is skepticism on the ground of 'the problem of evil' a hypocritical move made by the privileged?

[Justin108]

Here from another thread (note: the original thread was not on the Problem of Evil; I simply saw implications for a good discussion):

William wrote:
Jesus said that one didn't have to worry about not having any money as the heavenly father would provide food and clothing and shelter.

The truly amazing thing is that since Christianity began in the first century, not a single faithful Christian has ever been homeless, starving or without suitable clothing. This is a truly remarkable fact. I am constantly astounded that Christian apologists do not make more of this.

I find it more amazing that (in my experience) it is the Christians who have the least--who are hungry, poorly clothed, and oppressed--that do the least complaining.

Is skepticism on the ground of 'the problem of evil' a hypocritical move made by the privileged?

How is the quote a cop-out? William claims the heavenly father will provide food. In response, McCulloch points out that faithful Christians often go without food. This is not a cop-out, this is a clear demonstration that William's claim that God will provide food is false. This is not bringing up the problem of evil in the general sense, this is pointing out that William's specific claim is blatantly false.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I suppose being more rational could be considered privileged, don't see what's so hypocritical about that though.

[Divine Insight]

You need to keep in mind that the so-called "Problem of Evil" only exists in theology.

The reason this is a problem in theology is because theists claim that their God is is "all good", therefore the fact that there exists unpleasant things in this world is a "problem" for theology.

The fact that unpleasant things exist in this world is not a "problem" for a secular worldview. It might be unpleasant, but it's certainly not a problem for the philosophy. To the contrary in a secular worldview a world where nothing unpleasant ever happened would actually be a "problem".

So while the "Problem of Evil" is a major problem for theists is not a problem for atheists at all.

[Danmark]

The truly amazing thing is that since Christianity began in the first century, not a single faithful Christian has ever been homeless, starving or without suitable clothing.

[emphasis applied]
Only 'amazing' if true. You state this as if it were true. How on Earth do you prove or even support such a claim?

What you are saying, in effect, is that if you were ever starving or homeless or without adequate clothing, you were not a 'faithful Christian.' "Over 40% of people living in sub-Saharan Africa live in absolute poverty."
http://www.our-africa.org/poverty

"By 2060, a plurality of Christians " more than four-in-ten " will call sub-Saharan Africa home, up from 26% in 2015"
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... d-muslims/

If your claim is true, then not a single one of the millions living in poverty in Africa is a 'faithful Christian.' Neither were any of the millions of Christians who starved to death in the Irish 'potato famine,' or in the Soviet Ukraine.
I don't know whether you simply have your facts hopelessly wrong or whether this is another attempt to justify one of ugliest parts of the prosperity gospel, that income is a barometer of one's faith.

Please support your claim that "not a single faithful Christian has ever been homeless, starving or without suitable clothing," or withdraw it.

[William]

Here from another thread (note: the original thread was not on the Problem of Evil; I simply saw implications for a good discussion):

William wrote:
Jesus said that one didn't have to worry about not having any money as the heavenly father would provide food and clothing and shelter.

The truly amazing thing is that since Christianity began in the first century, not a single faithful Christian has ever been homeless, starving or without suitable clothing. This is a truly remarkable fact. I am constantly astounded that Christian apologists do not make more of this.

I find it more amazing that (in my experience) it is the Christians who have the least--who are hungry, poorly clothed, and oppressed--that do the least complaining.

I do not think that this was the thrust of the subject matter quoted.

The point was that Christians since the earliest records have not been known to live without money and serve GOD, as the point was Jesus told his followers to live without worrying about food clothing shelter and health, because they cannot serve two masters, money and GOD, and that GOD would provide.

Specifically they were to trust GOD for these things that other people used money to obtain.

Certainly the statement "not a single faithful Christian has ever been homeless, starving or without suitable clothing. This is a truly remarkable fact." can be taken to mean that there are faithful Christians who do not use money and are not homeless, starving, or without suitable clothing, but I didn't myself take it to mean that, and know of no people calling themselves Christians, who live without money and are provided for.

The underlying point is that Christians believe they follow Jesus, but how many Christians do so without using money, as he told his followers to do?

As for 'in your experience' this has to do with nowadays rather than whatever went on prior to Rome getting involved - and it may well be that you are a witness to this understanding that it is "the Christians who have the least--who are hungry, poorly clothed, and oppressed--that do the least complaining." but you don't say whether they are worried about their lot and do not use money...but even so, by what you have said, they are hungry (which Jesus said they wouldn't be) they are poorly clothed (which Jesus inferred they wouldn't be) they are oppressed, (which Jesus said they would be?) and they don't complain, which seems odd since what Jesus said, isn't exactly working out that way for them.

Are there any records related to how the pre-Roman followers of Jesus lived their lives free from money? It seems very strange that there is not much more record about them, or stories told of their travels without using money and how GOD provided for them.

Is skepticism on the ground of 'the problem of evil' a hypocritical move made by the privileged?

It may be an invention of the Elitists, yes.

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

The reason this is a problem in theology is because theists claim that their God is is "all good", therefore the fact that there exists unpleasant things in this world is a "problem" for theology.

Only for some theists. Christianity as one example, have created the fallen angels to explain the problem, but that in itself does not solve the problem, because GOD created the angels understanding that there was a potential for them to choose to be evil, and evil in that case is explained as anything which tries to usurp GOD.

This is why it translates into this universe, and evil is seen to be an aspect of this universe through by Christianity, and is seen as the result of a being who tried to usurp GOD - tried to place itself as GOD in relation to human beings, and human beings who accept the usurper - their replacement GOD, whom they believe is the true GOD, are suffering as a result, and that is why good and evil exist side by side in this universe.

The fact that unpleasant things exist in this world is not a "problem" for a secular worldview. It might be unpleasant, but it's certainly not a problem for the philosophy. To the contrary in a secular worldview a world where nothing unpleasant ever happened would actually be a "problem".

I don't think this is the case at all with the secular world. The main differences are that secularism does not assign any conscious agency to good or evil. It still identifies good and evil, and indeed in both cases it seeks to support what it believes is good and sees what it believes is evil to being a problem, and does involve itself in trying to find solutions.

If indeed the secular worldview would consider a world where nothing unpleasant ever happened would actually be a "problem", it would be because all solutions have been discovered and there is no more problem to work on, but that in itself wouldn't really be regarded as a problem because there are still other things which can be done.

But no, not all theists have the idea that GOD as 'all good'. Some think that this is simply where GOD is heading to as part of GODs overall long term plan agenda.

Don't Jewish belief systems have the idea that GOD can cause evil on those who try to usurp him or otherwise seriously get in the way of his agenda?

[bluethread]

You need to keep in mind that the so-called "Problem of Evil" only exists in theology.

The reason this is a problem in theology is because theists claim that their God is is "all good", therefore the fact that there exists unpleasant things in this world is a "problem" for theology.

The fact that unpleasant things exist in this world is not a "problem" for a secular worldview. It might be unpleasant, but it's certainly not a problem for the philosophy. To the contrary in a secular worldview a world where nothing unpleasant ever happened would actually be a "problem".

So while the "Problem of Evil" is a major problem for theists is not a problem for atheists at all.

No, this is a problem for the theist who accepts the good/evil paradigm. That paradigm is subject to what the speaker defines as "good" and "evil" and usually presumes a humanist philosophy. To the theist that views things based on what is acceptable to Adonai, this is not a problem.

[Danmark]

You need to keep in mind that the so-called "Problem of Evil" only exists in theology.

The reason this is a problem in theology is because theists claim that their God is is "all good", therefore the fact that there exists unpleasant things in this world is a "problem" for theology.

The fact that unpleasant things exist in this world is not a "problem" for a secular worldview. It might be unpleasant, but it's certainly not a problem for the philosophy. To the contrary in a secular worldview a world where nothing unpleasant ever happened would actually be a "problem".

So while the "Problem of Evil" is a major problem for theists is not a problem for atheists at all.

No, this is a problem for the theist who accepts the good/evil paradigm. That paradigm is subject to what the speaker defines as "good" and "evil" and usually presumes a humanist philosophy. To the theist that views things based on what is acceptable to Adonai, this is not a problem.

Basing a morality on "what is acceptable to Adonai" is a bankrupt morality because it accepts genocide, the flood as punishment for all, Abraham's attempt to kill his son, capital punishment for touching the wrong object, and a host of other atrocities committed at the order of 'Adonai' as recorded in 'The Bible.'

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

The reason this is a problem in theology is because theists claim that their God is is "all good", therefore the fact that there exists unpleasant things in this world is a "problem" for theology.

Only for some theists. Christianity as one example, have created the fallen angels to explain the problem, but that in itself does not solve the problem, because GOD created the angels understanding that there was a potential for them to choose to be evil, and evil in that case is explained as anything which tries to usurp GOD.

This is why it translates into this universe, and evil is seen to be an aspect of this universe through by Christianity, and is seen as the result of a being who tried to usurp GOD - tried to place itself as GOD in relation to human beings, and human beings who accept the usurper - their replacement GOD, whom they believe is the true GOD, are suffering as a result, and that is why good and evil exist side by side in this universe.

But everything you've just given here is nothing more than an apology for a theology that claims to have both an all-good God and evil existing in the universe. In other words, all you've done here is attempt to provide and "excuse for the problem". You haven't eliminated the problem at all.

So this is still a "problem" for the theists.

Not only this, but the specific proposed solution to this problem that you gave is utterly absurd. The idea that any created entity could "usurp" an omnipotent magical creator is quite literally ridiculous.

The whole idea of an angle or devil trying to take over an omnipotent God's ultimate authority actually stems from the quite silly idea that this God obtains his power in a very similar way as a mortal king (i.e. in maintains his power via armies) and all that needs to be done to usurp the God would be to defeat his army and take over his kingdom.

This whole religious paradigm is basically based on the human idea of a monarchy. Especially Christianity where Jesus is said to be the "King of Kings" and the "Lord of Lords" and that it is extremely important for people to be loyal to Jesus. That's a human concept of monarchy. A truly magical omnipotent God would have no need for anyone's loyalty or devotion.

So this whole apology, while appearing to be compatible with the overall paradigm, actually makes no sense the moment it is thought about seriously. The idea that anyone could usurp an omnipotent God is nothing short of absurd. Anyone who even thinks they could do such a thing would need to be dumber than rocks. And therein lies a huge problem itself. If anyone was that dumb (say Satan for example) that could only be because the creator God decided to create Satan to be that stupid.

So there's no way that this sort of apology could ever be made to work. For it to even be defended at all would require that the creator God creates extremely stupid creations, but that would then be a problem with the creator, not the created.

The fact that unpleasant things exist in this world is not a "problem" for a secular worldview. It might be unpleasant, but it's certainly not a problem for the philosophy. To the contrary in a secular worldview a world where nothing unpleasant ever happened would actually be a "problem".

I don't think this is the case at all with the secular world. The main differences are that secularism does not assign any conscious agency to good or evil. It still identifies good and evil, and indeed in both cases it seeks to support what it believes is good and sees what it believes is evil to being a problem, and does involve itself in trying to find solutions.

But secularists don't actually view the terms "good and evil" in the same way that a theist does. They actually recognize that all that exist are things we like and things we don't like. Most secularists also recognize that even these things have a huge subjective aspect to them and cannot be said to be absolute or objective in any concrete way. Obviously, almost everyone will agree on fairly obvious things, such as the idea of torturing innocent babies is "not good". But clearly there are people who do this, so apparently not everyone is even in agreement with this assessment.

None the less, the moment we get into the more subtle concepts of morality the subjective and non-objective nature of what we call "good or evil" becomes quite profound. So just because secularists may use these common terms doesn't mean that they are using them in the same way that theists use them.

If indeed the secular worldview would consider a world where nothing unpleasant ever happened would actually be a "problem", it would be because all solutions have been discovered and there is no more problem to work on, but that in itself wouldn't really be regarded as a problem because there are still other things which can be done.

Most secularists recognize that there will never come a time when all possible solutions to all unpleasant things could ever be achieved. Our physical reality simply doesn't allow for that type of perfection to exist. So this is a hypothetical situation that isn't realistic.

But no, not all theists have the idea that GOD as 'all good'. Some think that this is simply where GOD is heading to as part of GODs overall long term plan agenda.

In Christianity (and all the Abrahamic religions) God is necessarily perfect without flaw. It's not a paradigm of a God who is evolving to become better as time goes on. In fact, that would make absolutely no sense in a paradigm where this God is supposedly eternal. How could an eternal God STILL be evolving???

Don't Jewish belief systems have the idea that GOD can cause evil on those who try to usurp him or otherwise seriously get in the way of his agenda?

Again, the idea of anyone attempting to usurp an omnipotent God is absurd. This idea comes from the fact that the Abrahamic religions are modeled after human monarchies where a King can be overthrown. It would not be possible to overthrow an omnipotent creator.

So the whole idea of anyone thinking they could usurp God actually reduces to the idea of a person basically being stupid beyond belief. And if that were the case, no one could be blamed for that but the creator himself.

After all, are we responsible for our intelligence? If we are, then we must be the creators of our own intelligence, and thus no need for a creator God. And if we're not, then who would be responsible if we're not intelligent? Obviously only are creator could be responsible if we are stupid because he would be the one who designed our brain.

Clearly this idea that evil comes from people who are trying to usurp God gives this religion away as being clearly false. It's simply not possible to usurp and infinitely omnipotent God. So that apology doesn't fly in this religious paradigm.

But, for the record, I do understand that millions of people fall for that apology anyway. Why they can't see though it is beyond me.