5 ms·

The problem of evil is difficult to answer in an emotionally satisfying way to someone who is hurting. Why did God let this evil happen? Dispassionately, thoug

The problem of evil is difficult to answer in an emotionally satisfying way to someone who is hurting. Why did God let this evil happen? Dispassionately, though, the broader problem begs the question. If humanity is jut a product of time and chance, then evil is as much an illusion as any gods are. But, that being said, some theists see evil as the absence of good. Murder, natural disasters, etc. all result when God leaves the world to its own devices. To some degree a "good" answer to this question is very reliant on emotional and aesthetic components, so it's extremely fair to call it a hard question to answer.

krapp 11y ago
And, other religions might insist that the problem of evil has nothing to do with "God" and everything to do with humanity, and that "God" is beyond good and evil. Or, in the case of some older religions, they just accept that the gods are spiteful and cruel.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  Who decides what is ultimately evil, spiteful, or cruel? The most powerful God? Isn't that just supernatural might-makes-right? For God to be beyond good and evil, someone (probably God) has to have the authority to decide that. This is analogous to the concept of standing in the legal code. So even to say that God is beyond evil, you'd have to admit that there's some ultimate judge out there somewhere. And therefore something that defines what doesn't count as evil.
  - krapp 11y ago
    >Who decides what is ultimately evil, spiteful, or cruel? The most powerful God? Isn't that just supernatural might-makes-right? Basically, yes. In the Book of Job, God's justification for visiting such cruelty onto an admittedly righteous man who didn't deserve it (to win a bet with Satan, no less) was, in essence, "Because I'm God, and you're not." God doesn't have to play by human rules, humans have to play by God's rules. In many old religions, divine beings had no problem killing any mortal they pleased - and the strongest gods tended to be the most petty and violent of the lot. They were manifestations of the wanton and arbitrary power of the natural world. The Old Testament God seems to be cast from the same mold - murder is a sin, but if He commands you to kill your firstborn, you'd better not hesitate. It's not a satisfactory philosophical answer for modern times but it is an answer. The modern version of this seems to be "God works in mysterious ways," but it's a reformulation of the same argument - God is essentially alien, and not a moral being as humans understand morality.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      It's different in monotheistic theology. In pantheism, not all gods create everything equally. And the gods don't (typically) agree on what is fair and unfair. So the conundrum there is that the most powerful gods ends up winning 'moral' arguments, at least while they can. As for the God of the Bible, I don't understand your point. It seems fair to say that people might not understand the whole picture and that it's not fair to judge God with limited wisdom and perspective. This attitude was Job's sin, not merely being weaker than God. Are you claiming specific charges against the God of the Bible? Based on whose measure of morality?
      - krapp 11y ago
        I'm not making any claims, just presenting alternative approaches to the problem. The apparent paradox of the "problem of evil" in Christianity depends upon a specific interpretation of the nature of God which the Bible itself doesn't always support. A being that is beyond understanding cannot be merely good or evil, because those are human concepts, which humans understand.
andrewflnr 11y ago
I wouldn't say it's begging the question. Of course evil is an illusion in an atheistic viewpoint. The "problem of evil" is strictly an attempt to show a contradiction in the theist position. As a Christian, my own answer (in short) is that true "good" requires that people can choose to either do good or evil. The only alternative is a pretty clockwork. This requires accepting a broader definition of "good" for you to accept that God is both good and accepts this tradeoff, but it's not a contradiction. It's just an emotionally significant consequence of believing God exists.
- 6502nerdface 11y ago
  > As a Christian, my own answer (in short) is that true "good" requires that people can choose to either do good or evil. The only alternative is a pretty clockwork. This doesn't really address the problem. If god is omnipotent and created the universe, he could have made things so that evil is simply physically impossible, with no contradiction of free will, in the same way that I am physically unable to flap my arms and fly to the moon, and yet I still have free will. The fact that he didn't means he's either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent (a contradiction for those who ascribe both properties to god). The onus would have to be on the theist to show how "no-evil" somehow logically contradicts free will; and it must be a truly logical contradiction if it is to be any constraint on omnipotence.
  - cjjuice 11y ago
    Or one could answer the problem of evil as saying that much like a dog can't understand physics, we can't understand the complexities of God. In this we could still choose to believe, God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If God created the universe surly he/she/it is beyond western logic.
    - deciplex 11y ago
      "I don't know," in other words. I mean, you must be able to imagine how your reasoning sounds to people who don't already believe in god, right?
zpharer 11y ago
I disagree with your second paragraph. I don't see how humanity being a product of time and chance implies that evil is an illusion. For instance, I think the claim "suffering is bad" is true regardless of whether a God or chance created humans. This is a frequent misconception though. See the Euthyphro dilemma for a rebuttal. TLDR: are things right/wrong because god says so, or does God say so because they are right/wrong. The former implies a completely arbitrary morality. The later implies that morality is independent from God. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/#EutPro http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/#EutPro

krapp 11y ago

And, other religions might insist that the problem of evil has nothing to do with "God" and everything to do with humanity, and that "God" is beyond good and evil. Or, in the case of some older religions, they just accept that the gods are spiteful and cruel.

humanrebar 11y ago
Who decides what is ultimately evil, spiteful, or cruel? The most powerful God? Isn't that just supernatural might-makes-right? For God to be beyond good and evil, someone (probably God) has to have the authority to decide that. This is analogous to the concept of standing in the legal code. So even to say that God is beyond evil, you'd have to admit that there's some ultimate judge out there somewhere. And therefore something that defines what doesn't count as evil.
- krapp 11y ago
  >Who decides what is ultimately evil, spiteful, or cruel? The most powerful God? Isn't that just supernatural might-makes-right? Basically, yes. In the Book of Job, God's justification for visiting such cruelty onto an admittedly righteous man who didn't deserve it (to win a bet with Satan, no less) was, in essence, "Because I'm God, and you're not." God doesn't have to play by human rules, humans have to play by God's rules. In many old religions, divine beings had no problem killing any mortal they pleased - and the strongest gods tended to be the most petty and violent of the lot. They were manifestations of the wanton and arbitrary power of the natural world. The Old Testament God seems to be cast from the same mold - murder is a sin, but if He commands you to kill your firstborn, you'd better not hesitate. It's not a satisfactory philosophical answer for modern times but it is an answer. The modern version of this seems to be "God works in mysterious ways," but it's a reformulation of the same argument - God is essentially alien, and not a moral being as humans understand morality.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    It's different in monotheistic theology. In pantheism, not all gods create everything equally. And the gods don't (typically) agree on what is fair and unfair. So the conundrum there is that the most powerful gods ends up winning 'moral' arguments, at least while they can. As for the God of the Bible, I don't understand your point. It seems fair to say that people might not understand the whole picture and that it's not fair to judge God with limited wisdom and perspective. This attitude was Job's sin, not merely being weaker than God. Are you claiming specific charges against the God of the Bible? Based on whose measure of morality?
    - krapp 11y ago
      I'm not making any claims, just presenting alternative approaches to the problem. The apparent paradox of the "problem of evil" in Christianity depends upon a specific interpretation of the nature of God which the Bible itself doesn't always support. A being that is beyond understanding cannot be merely good or evil, because those are human concepts, which humans understand.

andrewflnr 11y ago

I wouldn't say it's begging the question. Of course evil is an illusion in an atheistic viewpoint. The "problem of evil" is strictly an attempt to show a contradiction in the theist position. As a Christian, my own answer (in short) is that true "good" requires that people can choose to either do good or evil. The only alternative is a pretty clockwork. This requires accepting a broader definition of "good" for you to accept that God is both good and accepts this tradeoff, but it's not a contradiction. It's just an emotionally significant consequence of believing God exists.

6502nerdface 11y ago
> As a Christian, my own answer (in short) is that true "good" requires that people can choose to either do good or evil. The only alternative is a pretty clockwork. This doesn't really address the problem. If god is omnipotent and created the universe, he could have made things so that evil is simply physically impossible, with no contradiction of free will, in the same way that I am physically unable to flap my arms and fly to the moon, and yet I still have free will. The fact that he didn't means he's either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent (a contradiction for those who ascribe both properties to god). The onus would have to be on the theist to show how "no-evil" somehow logically contradicts free will; and it must be a truly logical contradiction if it is to be any constraint on omnipotence.
- cjjuice 11y ago
  Or one could answer the problem of evil as saying that much like a dog can't understand physics, we can't understand the complexities of God. In this we could still choose to believe, God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If God created the universe surly he/she/it is beyond western logic.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    "I don't know," in other words. I mean, you must be able to imagine how your reasoning sounds to people who don't already believe in god, right?

zpharer 11y ago

I disagree with your second paragraph. I don't see how humanity being a product of time and chance implies that evil is an illusion. For instance, I think the claim "suffering is bad" is true regardless of whether a God or chance created humans. This is a frequent misconception though. See the Euthyphro dilemma for a rebuttal. TLDR: are things right/wrong because god says so, or does God say so because they are right/wrong. The former implies a completely arbitrary morality. The later implies that morality is independent from God. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/#EutPro http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/#EutPro