The Problem of Evil - Whose Problem is it Really?

[eyallev]

thier answer to it is basiclly "you don't belive in god, so you can't say what he can or can't do, and don't even think about quoting what I saw about god to counter what I say about god".

stupid, I know.

[ReinaValera1865]

Agnostic means ignorant....just because your puny little mind does not believe it or can't see past your nose does not mean it's right...God created the heavens and the earth and gave life to every living being and created all of us for his good pleasure...unfortunately for all of us Sin and Death came into God's perfect world because of disobedience from Satan, a third of the angels and then Adam and Eve...God died on the cross to pay for sin and only through obedience in him can you be freed!

[myintellectualjourny]

@ReinaValera1865

AKA: What I use to believe in a nutshell.

Of course it was learning things that I use to be IGNORANT of as a believer that changed that.

Faith means assuming you know more than you do. Maybe that's why you seem to assume that I am in need of hearing things that if you actually did know me you'd know I was already familiar with ;)

(But why learn when you already "know" ?)

I'll take being honest with myself about where I do lack knowledge over THAT approach to life any day.

[TipoftheSlung]

Excellent video. The vast majority of theists i speak to constantly sidestep this question. It is easy for them to deal with the evil that men do, what they never seem to be able to come to terms with is the evil that God does.

I like to pose a question to them, an old one but a great one..

"Why isn't your belief in a benevolent creator shattered by the fact that He created the parasites that lay their eggs in starving children?"

Non of them can answer it without eroding their Lord.

[myintellectualjourny]

Thanks TipoftheSlung.

And great question. I assume most believers (and even many non-believers) never ask it, because of how science illiterate our culture is (and I don't place myself above that).

Are those parasites in fact particular to the starving... only nest / lay eggs in those w/ empty stomachs?

If so, that certaintly is challenging. Else, I'd think believers would just blame it on "the Fall" / the effect of human "sin" on the natural world.

[TipoftheSlung]

I think it hits them on anemotional level. I am not sure that the specificity of the parasites in question is really an issue, and the fall and sin/free will are just misdirection.

[alainnmusic]

Evil in itself has no essence but is only the absence of good.

If God is all-loving, he would make creatures with free-agency, i.e. the ability to choose. There is no love relationship unless the creation can choose to love the creator also. The ability to choose evil, i.e. to not choose good, must exist for God to be all-loving. Also, if God exercises his omnipotence to exterminate evil immediately, that also is not loving.

[alainnmusic]

How then can God be just? Does he allow evil to go unpunished? No, he is merciful, not giving us the punishment we deserve. He is also gracious, giving us a way to have a relationship with him again. It is only when this offer is not taken that the sentence will be passed.

[alainnmusic]

A question for you:

How do you differentiate between good and evil?

[myintellectualjourny]

For a basic gist of my understanding of morality, take a quick look at the video "The Goal theory of Morality" by KT45. Though I've only discovered this video recently, I find that it spells out the understanding of morality I've held for about as long as I've no longer considered myself a Christian.

After you take a look at the video, please let me know if you have any additional questions about my view of morality and I'll do my best to answer them.

[alainnmusic]

The question I have is this: by what standard is this sense of "better" and "worse" measured? Why is it better to live than to die? Why is it better to be in comfort rather than pain? What quantifiable source makes one thing better than another? It seems that the claim proposed here is that morality is based on happiness which is determined by personal preferences which vary from person to person. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

[alainnmusic]

If morality is objectively based on what ultimately makes a person happy, how can one determine what creates happiness by nature? Abiding contentment that makes life worth living? By what measure is it determined that something makes life worth living? How is it also measurable that suffering is bad? Here, I think, is the underlying issue: in all these ideas and theories is still the inescapable theme that one way of living is better than another.

[myintellectualjourny]

Morality is objectively based on what makes people happy. The value judgment that says happiness is better than suffering comes from us - our nature. While its true that people have preferences that vary on particulars, in general the things that maximize happiness and things that impair it are universal for people because of our shared nature. Even if you could find a rare exception, the preference of well-being over suffering is normative for most people by our very nature all the same.

[myintellectualjourny]

Morality as understood as natural for humans also comes to involve the human capacity 4 rationality. Here, rationality is applied to the question of how to most effectively achieve happiness - the universal human goal. That cooperation is key 2 achieving happiness is true by our very nature (people are most happy when their happiness is shared w/ others.) Being moral is not only important 2 happiness in general, but being consistently moral is of value therein by our being creatures of habit.

[droptozro]

A simple understanding... is to use Genesis(whether literal or metaphorical) it blatantly says humans were given control of the world... then somehow through the fall, the devil was given control of the world. It also blatantly states God created the perfect world(garden of Eden) until Lucifer sinned and then man

A love so great we can't understand it, is a love that lets you do what you want.. but still gives instruction on how to follow if you choose. Like children...this could go on... eh

[myintellectualjourny]

Hi droptozro.

Thanks for the response. Would I be correct in taking it that you're referring to The Free Will Theodicy?

Both this & the other common response - the one relating to Virtue - I will be responding to in a future video series.

The gist of my response on this particular explanation is to question that its good for God to have given us the ability to reject relationship with him & bring evil and suffering into the world. Our having freedom like God would not require this ability.

[droptozro]

I don't see any way around it... in order to believe you can justify anything... anything must be possible.

An argument I often hear is that "I could never think of killing my family, so I must not truly have free will"... but that's simply not true, I promise you---with enough thought, that can manifest. This type of belief comes from the existential nihilism... but trust me when I say, anything is possible. To limit us in our thoughts would not give us full range to reject or follow.

[droptozro]

*errr sorry meant Epistemological nihilism.*

Walk around with this (dis)belief for a while and you'll know where I've been, it's not pretty... I'm still fighting the damage it's done out of me to this day.

[myintellectualjourny]

I know a little bit about how that is. I spent most of the year 2000 as a Nihilist (I had walked away from my faith at the time.) I returned to my faith and then deconverted more holistically by 2006. The way I see things now, I could never embrace Nihilism again.

As for the theological concept of free will justifying the way the bible describes God having set things up, I don't see any value in our having freedom to do more than be creative in making good choices like God.

[droptozro]

ah, nice. haven't met anyone else who understands. I couldn't be a nihilist again either, but I still remember many of the things that flash up once in a while and bring me doubt.

Yes, because we don't really know if we truly have a full range of free will... all we know is what we have/know, I understand if that's what you're getting at. Just like eating as an example... we can eat freely, but we really don't choose to, because we have to eat--if we don't, we will die.

[myintellectualjourny]

(1 of 2)

I hear ya. Given my own experience with it, conversations with several believers, and what many Christian voices say about this (in books / from the pulpit), I see Christian-Nihilism as a major issue for the Christian subculture.

[myintellectualjourny]

(2 of 2)

On free will, I mean to bring up the "range" of the free will like for example, we don't have the freedom to choose to fly rather than walk or run. There's a limit to the range - whatever it may be. So the question would be, what value is there in God's including in the free will he gave us, the ability to reject relationship with him - something that would have been nothing but rewarding and fulfilling for us.

[myintellectualjourny]

(3 - oops)

How would it not have been good for God to bring us into existence & a trusting loving relationship with him, just as its good when two loving parents bring a child into this world and a loving relationship with the - W/ NO CHOICE OF ITS OWN ON THE MATTER.

If one says, that ideally a loving relationship is chosen, one has to show why this is the case w/ a relationship w/ the God of the bible - given the reasons this is important in the realm of human relationships don't apply there.

[droptozro]

I may be getting somewhat lost in the responses you looking for. So you want me to explain why love must be a choice and not a feeling based on the way humans interact?.. in comparison with how God does it?

Meaning...how humans think love is a feeling(or choice) and have parents that love them from the beginning and they know of it, but don't have that same relationship with God from the beginning?

Now, I can't explain this in such a way you may/may not understand it until you've gone (cont)

[droptozro]

(cont) through it.

This culture(at least ours) embraces love as a feeling. But many don't know that's not entirely true, and this is a reason that many marriages/families fall apart and fail in the current day.

I personally see love as a choice, not as a feeling. All feelings fade in time, some may not fade completely, but most do. Like a roller coaster ride can bring excitement, but ride it 1000 times... it'll eventually not be as exciting. This is just my take on it.

cont..

[droptozro]

Based on the Bible... we're not born with a relationship with God and knowing Him right off of the bat. Some use the argument we're born into sin, some say we're born blameless until we first sin... that's another entire belief I don't know much about though.

What I can tell, is based on the Bible, God wants you to seek Him... and He says He will be found. I see this as a choice.  There are many other passages to claim God wants you to accept Him, I suggest googling to find the exact ones.

[myintellectualjourny]

(A - 1 of 2)

Thanks droptozro. I'm familiar w/ what you're saying about longerm love (commitment) being a choice not a feeling (sense feelings fluctuate.) The question I'm asking however is regarding how God setup things up regarding are relationship with him, not our relationships with one another (let alone our relationship with one another today... which is presumable not as it was originally before "the fall".)

[myintellectualjourny]

(A - 2 of 2)

I'm asking why God give us freedom including in the range of that freedom the ability to reject relationship with him; what is it about a relationship w/ an all-loving perfectly trustworthy God that makes having an exit from the relationship of essential value? What's not to love that he'd be doing some wrong by not included this? That's the question about the biblical worldview I'm asking. For me, its a question about that view & not reality.

[droptozro]

Ah, MIJ... if you get a chance... pick up "Don't Blame God" and check out truthortradition(dot)com and their articles --you can buy it there

this question is easily answered once you understand the Greek philosophy interjection of omniscience/omnipotence... and also how "God is in control" was turned into "God controls everything"---which is obviously not true when using basic common sense reading the Bible.

If you want me to elaborate further I can, but that book covers it all.

[CousinoMacul]

I'm amazed at how many Christians think that TPOE is an argument *for* atheism. It's merely an argument against a specific theistic world view. Theists who are polytheists, or who believe that their god is a ripe bastard, or think that evil is just an illusion and doesn't actually exist, have no problem of evil any more than atheists do.

[myintellectualjourny]

Thanks Cousino. It is indeed amazing the way Christians tend to fail to understand the worldviews of others - particular atheists. You'd think they'd want to better understand those they feel the need to evangelize to. Ever since I took sociology, a word has stuck with me that I find myself needing to apply over and over again in regards to common Christian attitudes and behavior - Ethnocentric. Hey, when you've got the "truth" on your side, who cares about understanding other views ;o)

[owheydusoapsk]

Christians justify their theology like the mother of a criminal justifies his behavior and claims he's really a good boy. There must be a word that captures this phenomonon. No matter what, no matter how glaring the inconsistency appears, there's an explaination.

[myintellectualjourny]

I agree Owhey. Maybe a term like "Total Denial" wouldn't be too far off the mark here? ;o)

I think the analogy - you suggest - of the mother of the criminal is spot on given its the underlying emotional attachment to faith that has Christians doing intellectual acrobatics to maintain it.

How to set Christians free from this attachment... can be perhaps as complicated an issue to resolve.

Thanks for your comment - I always appreciate what you bring to the table ;o)