Questioning the Problem of Evil once again

[instantc]

Here is what I find slightly baffling about the Problem of Evil.

The argument essentially says that the present world is not what the universe would look like if it were ruled by a loving and powerful ruler. I.e, there is too much evil in the world.

There is too much evil in the world, that strikes me as an odd thing to say. What would be an appropriate amount of evil for an almighty ruler to allow? Is it logically possible to know happiness without knowing any suffering? Some variants of the PoE say that it is the unnecessary suffering that disproves God, but is any suffering completely unnecessary or gratuitous? I don't think so. Some instances of suffering may be highly disproportionate to the potential positive consequences, but every instance of suffering has at least some conceivable positive consequences.

I think that one who wants to endorse PoE also has to define where he draws the line with regard to the acceptable amount of suffering, i.e he should define what amount/type of suffering would be consistent with the God hypothesis. He would then have to show that a world with those conditions would be (1) conceivable and (2) desirable.

To make it short, if you are to claim that this is not how a loving God should act, then you should be able to explain how it is that a loving God should act. If you say that this is not what a universe ruled by a loving ruler looks like, then you should, according to the rules of inference, first have a vision of what a universe ruled by a loving ruler does look like.

What do you think?

[Divine Insight]

Here is what I find slightly baffling about the Problem of Evil.

To begin with, there is no "Problem of Evil", unless you first assume that reality was created by a perfectly benevolent creator. Only then does the "Problem of Evil" arise, because we must then ask, "From whence would evil come?"

It's makes no sense to claim that it came from a perfectly benevolent creator. And therein lies the "Problem".

So this "Problem of Evil" is only a problem for those who wish to hypothesis the existence of a benevolent creator. It's not a problem at all for secularists.

It's a religious problem. Not a secular problem.

The argument essentially says that the present world is not what the universe would look like if it were ruled by a loving and powerful ruler. I.e, there is too much evil in the world.

There is too much evil in the world, that strikes me as an odd thing to say. What would be an appropriate amount of evil for an almighty ruler to allow?

If that almighty rules is said to be "Perfectly Benevolent" then it's not a question of even allowing evil, but rather a question of where would that evil have even come from in the first place?

It would be a oxymoron to claim that it could have originated from a perfectly benevolent being.

So these religions ultimately try to pin the blame for evil onto humans.

But that implies that a perfectly omnipotent and perfectly benevolent creator could have created humans that are not perfectly benevolent like the creator.

So to even try to pin the blame on humans is an oxymoron.

Is it logically possible to know happiness without knowing any suffering? Some variants of the PoE say that it is the unnecessary suffering that disproves God, but is any suffering completely unnecessary or gratuitous? I don't think so. Some instances of suffering may be highly disproportionate to the potential positive consequences, but every instance of suffering has at least some conceivable positive consequences.

That's beside the point. There are mystical philosophies that allow for what we call 'evil'. Although in truth, it's not really 'evil' it's just stuff we prefer not to experience and so we call it "evil". We created that label and judgement on these unpleasant experiences.

I think that one who wants to endorse PoE also has to define where he draws the line with regard to the acceptable amount of suffering, i.e he should define what amount/type of suffering would be consistent with the God hypothesis. He would then have to show that a world with those conditions would be (1) conceivable and (2) desirable.

To make it short, if you are to claim that this is not how a loving God should act, then you should be able to explain how it is that a loving God should act. If you say that this is not what a universe ruled by a loving ruler looks like, then you should, according to the rules of inference, first have a vision of what a universe ruled by a loving ruler does look like.

What do you think?

In your last argument I would simply point to the concept of "Heaven" which is also proposed by these very same religious theologies.

Heaven is said to be a paradise where there is no evil at all. Believers in these religions all want to go to this perfect heavenly paradise where there is no evil.

Therefore they already claim that a pleasant place (i.e. a paradise without evil) can indeed exist and be interesting. After all, they are hoping to spend eternity in this Heaven, it had better not be boring or uninteresting!

So they already claim that it's possible to have an interesting rewarding paradise where there is no evil. Thus refuting your argument that some suffering is necessary to enjoy the pleasant things in life.

So your argument doesn't hold true for religions that declare that a perfect Heaven is possible.

And since Heaven is possible (according to these religions) then we must ask why it was even necessary to create Earth and suffering at all? Why not just jump straight into a creation of heaven and be done with it?

Clearly it's possible according to these religions.

So these kinds of religions shoot themselves in their own foot.

~~~~~~

Having said all of the above, there are spiritual and mystical philosophies that understand the need for suffering in order to facilitate achievement, and interest.

They claim that you cannot have pleasure without pain. So it's a necessary trade-off. But typically those religions don't preach about eternal heavens or hells. Instead they talk about eternal reincarnation that is always based on this same principle.

So there are philosophies that have "solved" the "Problem of Evil" without even having to pin the blame for evil on anyone. It's just a necessarily requirement of any creation that is going to be interesting and not boring.

So there is no one to "blame" for something that is absolutely necessary.

They also address the levels of 'evil' (or "suffering")

They begin by pointing out that all emotional suffering is entirely a personal choice. We create our own emotional suffering simply by how we chose to react to things and think about things.

So emotional suffering is an illusion we bring upon ourselves. And we control the degree of that suffering by how deeply we dwell on it and on how tenaciously we cling to it. Some people can almost be sadistic in terms of the emotional suffering they freely chose to put themselves through.

The only true suffering that we don't seem to have any choice over is physical suffering. If we are damaged in an accident, or by an act of crime, or by disease, etc. We can't simply chose not to experience this kind of physical suffering. However there are built-in safeguards. In nature. Our bodies will go into a state of shock where we become numb to the pain or placed in a state of mind where the pain is no longer a focal point of our consciousness. Or we become delirious, etc. So there do seem to be at least some safeguards built-in by nature.

It may even be possible that every soul had already predetermined how much pain they are willing to tolerate before they even became incarnated in this physical world.

If you want to, you can find ways to justify all of this stuff.

The idea of Karma is also a way of explaining these things. No "soul" experiences anymore than they actually deserve to experience based on their own previous actions and lives.

So there are many different ways to address this thing call "The Problem of Evil".

And for secular atheists it's not a problem at all. On the contrary they have their hands full trying to explain how a totally accidentally existence could be so GREAT!

They have just the opposite problem. They have the "Problem of Goodness".

Where did all this goodness come from if reality is just one big accident?

Shouldn't good and evil be 50/50 in a random accidental universe?

Yet the good seems to outweigh the bad by factors of 90% or more.

Life on planet Earth is lopsidedly GOOD.

Secularists explain this in terms of evolution. Creatures that would just kill each other for not good reason would simply kill themselves off. So only the less aggressive creatures that respect one another will survive. And so evolution itself would tend toward what we see as being GOOD, over evil.

So the atheists have an answer to their "Problem of Good".

It's only the religions the preach of a perfect heaven that have a "Problem of Evil" here on earth. They have their own oxymorons to deal with.

[Darias]

Here is what I find slightly baffling about the Problem of Evil.

The argument essentially says that the present world is not what the universe would look like if it were ruled by a loving and powerful ruler.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the problem of evil states that this world in our present universe is not compatible with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevloent creator god. Violence and predatory behaviors (either from poor child rearing or genetic defects and mental illness), along with pain and suffering make sense in a universe absent of that sort of aforementioned deity.

I.e, there is too much evil in the world.

The presence of evil at any level would mean that the idea of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient creator is logically invalid. Ask any father whose child was raped and killed if they believe in a loving god powerful enough to protect the innocent with his angels exists. You likely won't hear an emphatic "YES!" It doesn't disprove the existence of a god, however absurd the concept may be, but it does mean that that being is either not all knowing, not all loving, or not all powerful -- any of which largely takes away from the classical concept of "deity."

There is too much evil in the world, that strikes me as an odd thing to say.

It's only odd when there is nothing to compare it with. In a universe supposedly created and governed by an all loving god capable of protecting and feeding all and not just a few of the countless children who die everyday from starvation or state violence -- it seems that yes, there is indeed too much evil.

What would be an appropriate amount of evil for an almighty ruler to allow?

If the ruler was simply all powerful, and lacking other ethical reasoning skills, evil would not really be a problem for him--or rather, his existence.

Is it logically possible to know happiness without knowing any suffering?

Yes. There are pleasure centers of the brain and there are pain receptors. You don't have to experience childbirth, or amputation, or the loss of a loved one in order to appreciate a loving relationship or a good chuckle every now and then.

If indeed happiness could not occur in the absence of suffering (btw, it's strange how you define evil solely as suffering; instigated aggression is always evil; pain is not necessarily so; in fact pain is often necessary for many things) then does that not make the idea of an infinitely blissful heaven nonsensical, it being absent of the knowledge of pain and anguish?

Some variants of the PoE say that it is the unnecessary suffering that disproves God, but is any suffering completely unnecessary or gratuitous?

An all loving, all powerful, all knowing creator god is supposedly responsible for a world not only rife with violence and agony, but also for another world after that that involves unspeakable, unfathomable torture for eternity. Yet he made life knowing ahead of time his flawed creations would act according to "their nature" and that most would never know of his offer for salvation. The idea of a god is aburd, but the idea of an all loving, all powerful, all knowing god being responsible for this universe doesn't even seem logically possible at all.

I don't think so. Some instances of suffering may be highly disproportionate to the potential positive consequences, but every instance of suffering has at least some conceivable positive consequences.

The initiation of force is never justified. The ends are not justified by barbaric means, firstly because instigated aggression is objectively unethical. And violence always produces inefficient ends.

Besides, there is no benefit to humanity by the thousands of children who die every year from drinking dirty water. And there is no point for that. Given the resources, I, a depraved godless sinner, wouldn't let that happen--and I wouldn't even need any supernatural powers. The god being discussed supposedly has the entire universe at his disposal and the power to do any and all things. How is free will an obstacle to feeding starving children who ask god to provide their needs?

To make it short, if you are to claim that this is not how a loving God should act, then you should be able to explain how it is that a loving God should act. If you say that this is not what a universe ruled by a loving ruler looks like, then you should, according to the rules of inference, first have a vision of what a universe ruled by a loving ruler does look like.

What do you think?

I think that even the Bible describes how Yahweh should behave to those who call on him, but even that doesn't occur in the real world. And no, a perfectly loving god, who is also all powerful, would not take pleasure in genocide, would not order genocide, and would not allow genocide to occur. If a god exists and he is the god of the Old Testament, then he has done all these things. Therefore he cannot be said to be omnibenevolent. If your god is perfectly loving and all powerful and all knowing, then he certainly cannot be said to have authored this universe.



-

[keithprosser3]

I think it is not so much the amount of evil in the world but its lack of fairness that strikes people. We seem to have - inborn or learned I don't know - the idea that bad things happen to bad people. An obvious example comes from films which (with very few exception) always end up with the bad guy coming to a sticky end. Anything else would not 'feel right'. Another is 'poetic justice' where some natural law seems to operate to bring justice.

But there are obvious exceptions to the rule. To choose one out of thousands, Idi Amin was responsible for countless deaths during his despotic rule of Ugnda, but ended his days in comfort in Saudi Arabia. The idea that what is not put right by human justice will be put right in the next world is therefore a very attractive one.

Christianity is quite explicit; it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Many of Christians were of course poor, their contact with the rich being largely only such people as landlords. The idea that the situation would be reversed in the next world seems to act as a comfort.

So perhaps the complaint of 'too much evil' is really 'not enough justice'. With religion, it doesn't matter if justice doesn't happen on earth because justice will operate afterwards - god will put things right. So it doesn't matter if evil dictators live a long and happy life or if a baby dies in its cot. God will make things right.

Atheism means having to take responsibility. If we want justice we have to make it for ourselves. We have to punish evil dictators no matter how rich they are or what friends that have. We have to find cures for what kills young babies. Theists can take it easy and leave things to the gods - atheists don't have that luxury.

Religion - far from giving us a more just world - actually produces a more unjust one by delegating the dispensation of justice to a non-existent god in a non-existent afterlife. Atheism is just as much about taking on the responsibilities of the gods as it about giving up belief in them.

[keithprosser3]

xx

[Philbert]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the problem of evil states that this world in our present universe is not compatible with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevloent creator god.

I think it's a mistake to think of god as a this or a that, in the same way it's a mistake to think of nature/reality as a this or a that.

More likely, it's our highly dualistic minds, built of the inherently divisive nature of thought, that insist on making everything in to a this or a that, ie. divided from everything else.

If you're wearing pink tinted sunglasses, all of reality looks pink. If you're wearing a dualistic mind, everything looks divided, a this or a that.

[pokeegeorge]

[Replying to post 3 by Darias]

it seems that yes, there is indeed too much evil.

It seems to a God-pessimist, okay...yet the Adam and Eve story addresses this and you missed the moral of the story Darias.

then does that not make the idea of an infinitely blissful heaven nonsensical, it being absent of the knowledge of pain and anguish?

Again, you missed out when you discounted the very first story in the Bible:

"You will know both good and evil as God does..."

See, the Garden of Eden wasn't dualistic. We cannot imagine what it is, because we have a dualistic world NOW.

Just because you and I cannot imagine it, the Story told us what was and what can be. A truly good world which is not dualistic. The lamb will sleep next to the lion.

[keithprosser3]

But only the lion will wake up.

[keithprosser3]

But only the lion will wake up.

[Philbert]

See, the Garden of Eden wasn't dualistic. We cannot imagine what it is, because we have a dualistic world NOW.

You're heading in the right direction, but not quite there yet, imho.

First, we don't have a dualistic world now.

What we have is a dualistic mind. Reality isn't a bunch of separate things, it just looks that way when seen through the inherently divisive medium of thought.

We can imagine the Garden of Eden, by turning down the volume of the dualistic mind. We can imagine the Garden of Eden by putting our full focus on reality.

Not a focus on our thoughts about reality. Our thoughts about reality will always be dualistic, because they're made of the inherently divisive medium of thought.

By putting our full focus on reality itself.

The Garden Of Eden is still there, we're just not paying it much attention, distracted as we are by the cardboard symbolic replica of reality we are constructing inside our heads.