The Problem of Evil

[dwaxe]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

To many, the above logic seems airtight. Responses to it are called theodicies, and are the topic of this poll.

The problem of evil is often the tiebreaker for religious debates that get past teleological arguments.

I will give evil a fairly narrow definition for this thread:

Evil - actions morally reprehensible by human standards such as early deaths from natural forces or what would be considered "sin" by whatever religion you are thinking about.

As a theist or non-theist, which of the following justifications of evil do you think are plausible?

1. Free will: God cannot eliminate evil without eliminating free will. Accepting that god cannot eliminate evil without eliminating free will, the main objection to this argument is that it does not account for natural disasters.

2. All part of god's plan: the evil now is necessary for rewards later. The first objection to this is that there is no shortage of gratuitous evil that does not further any "plan", such as malaria's 'relationship' to children in Africa and Asia. The objection to this objection is that humans with our feeble minds not finding a purpose for evil does not mean there is not one.

3. Sin, Karma, and Punishment: evil is punishment for sin, and people get what they deserve. The objection to this is similar to the objection to the God's plan justification.

4. God is not omnipotent and/or not omniscient: this might work for polytheists, but not the Abrahamic religions which preach an omnipotent and omniscient god. Unless that Abrahamic person subscribes to the next one.

5. Satan: there is a god or demigod who brings evil into the world. The way believers in an omniscient/omnipotent god justify the existence of an evil force is usually some form of the God's plan justification.

Edit: Poll now up.

 

[Mowque]

As an unorthodox Catholic. Kinda mix of number 1-2. I don't pretend to have answers but right now i'm leaning towards "Without Evil, there is no good" path of argument...

 

[Defiant47]

To many, the above logic seems airtight. Responses to it are called theodicies, and are the topic of this poll.

I believe it still stands true as a good fundamental basis in which to not believe in a specific God. Theists will come up with excuses, but the issues still remain.

The problem of evil is often the tiebreaker for religious debates that get past teleological arguments.

I will give evil a fairly narrow definition for this thread:

Evil - actions morally reprehensible by human standards such as early deaths from natural forces or what would be considered "sin" by whatever religion you are thinking about.

As a theist or non-theist, which of the following justifications of evil do you think are plausible?

1. Free will: God cannot eliminate evil without eliminating free will. Accepting that god cannot eliminate evil without eliminating free will, the main objection to this argument is that it does not account for natural disasters.

Then God is not omnipotent. Theists will often tout this as the case-closed response to that argument, but it's not. If God cannot create a world such that there is salvation, no evil, but there is still free will, then God is obviously not omnipotent (or all-powerful, what have you).

2. All part of god's plan: the evil now is necessary for rewards later. The first objection to this is that there is no shortage of gratuitous evil that does not further any "plan", such as malaria's 'relationship' to children in Africa and Asia. The objection to this objection is that humans with our feeble minds not finding a purpose for evil does not mean there is not one.

The objection works. So does the omnipotence argument.

You could start saying things like the objection's objection, but then you're starting to theorize about God's and the universe's qualities in that matter. I doubt any of us is qualified to say thing about that (no, being a priest or reading an old book does not qualify you).

3. Sin, Karma, and Punishment: evil is punishment for sin, and people get what they deserve. The objection to this is similar to the objection to the God's plan justification.

Same idea. You start defining God and universal morality. But who are you to claim these things?

4. God is not omnipotent and/or not omniscient: this might work for polytheists, but not the Abrahamic religions which preach an omnipotent and omniscient god. Unless that Abrahamic person subscribes to the next one.

I do not abide by the rock analogy, since that seems very "kiddie" and detracts from the argument. However, my previous point does point out that God might not be omnipotent.

5. Satan: there is a god or demigod who brings evil into the world. The way believers in an omniscient/omnipotent god justify the existence of an evil force is usually some form of the God's plan justification.

Edit: Poll now up.

Now my head just hurts.

 

[innonimatu]

There are non non-atheistic positions. How about god(s) doesn't care about what any human happens to consider "evil"?

 

[Perfection]

As a sadistic monomaniac, I have no problem with evil.

 

[Archbob]

Free will, easily.

 

[Bill3000]

The gods which create the quintessences are collectively omnipotent, but they often battle for control of the universe in an endless battle for quintessential balance. Also, there's a quintessence of evil which specifically strives to create evil within the universe. Not much of a problem for Soloralism; corruption is a far more potent problem.

 

[dwaxe]

Free will, easily.

How do you account for evil that is not caused by humans? It may be a stupid question, but walk me through your reasoning.

 

[warpus]

Simple.

Remove God from the equation and the so-called "problem of evil" disappears.

 

[Danielos]

I miss a "God doesn´t exist" option in the poll!

 

[MagisterCultuum]

4. God is not omnipotent and/or not omniscient: this might work for polytheists, but not the Abrahamic religions which preach an omnipotent and omniscient god. Unless that Abrahamic person subscribes to the next one.

According to Plotinus, omnipotence is a quality ascribed to "the God of Philosophers" not "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." The defining quality of YHWH is not power, but loyalty/love (hesed). Many of the early church fathers argued against the notion that God was omnipotent, at least in a strict sense. There are several definitions of omnipotence, some limiting it to the power to do possible things, things in keeping with one's character, plausible things, and some leaving it open to doing things than make no sense like making square circles. Very few theologians were ever willing to grant that God has the broadest forms of omnipotence, and many denied omnipotence (although maintaining that there is none more powerful than God) without being deemed heretical.

Similar things can be said of omnipotence, although I don't think notions like like Open Theism have as long or accepted a history.


It is rather well known that Mormons don't believe God is omnipotent (but of course it could be argues they aren't really monotheistic, what with its followers believing they will become gods and that the God may have been but one man to ascend from a previous world).

 

[Bei1052]

Evil is the absence of good, and since God is good (In Christian theology), then evil is the absence of God. Since God is considered to be omnipresent, then "evil"-- As humans think of it (i.e., anything bad which happens)-- Doesn't exist. Therefore, the problem of evil becomes moot.

("Evil" is merely those actions which stem from not following God's word/laws.)

 

[Bill3000]

Evil is the absence of good, and since God is good (In Christian theology), then evil is the absence of God. Since God is omnipresent, then "evil"-- As humans think of it-- Doesn't exist. Therefore, the problem of evil becomes moot.

So the holocaust never happened, then? There's still plenty of evil things whether or not it's defined to be an absence of good or not. Presumably since he's omnipotent, he could simply make the entire universe good enough such that it can't be considered evil.

 

[Bei1052]

So the holocaust never happened, then? There's still plenty of evil things whether or not it's defined to be an absence of good or not. Presumably since he's omnipotent, he could simply make the entire universe good enough such that it can't be considered evil.

The Holocaust itself was neither good nor evil. The actions carried out by different men during the Holocaust, however, can be considered good or evil.

...And good only exists because there's evil, and vice versa. Without one or the other, then you have no basis under which to label anything good or evil. To quote Mandy Moore, "Without pain and suffering, there'd by no compassion". It's the same deal.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Simple.

Remove God from the equation and the so-called "problem of evil" disappears.

Yes simple, remove "evil" from the equation and the problem disappears. Often we behave in ways that are kind. Sometimes we behave in ways that are less kind. Every act, whether kind or less kind, provides an opportunity for further kindness. There is no evil.

 

[warpus]

Yes simple, remove "evil" from the equation and the problem disappears. Often we behave in ways that are kind. Sometimes we behave in ways that are less kind. Every act, whether kind or less kind, provides an opportunity for further kindness. There is no evil.

Well, I didn't say remove evil, I said remove God from the equation.

Removing evil from the problem of evil would be silly.

 

[Bill3000]

The Holocaust itself was neither good nor evil. The actions carried out by different men during the Holocaust, however, can be considered good or evil.

The holocaust can be considered to be nothing more than a collection of actions and thus can be considered a net good or evil.

 

[cardgame]

Evil is the absence of good, and since God is good, then evil is the absence of God. Since God is considered to be omnipresent, then evil God doesn't exist.

Fixed that

The Holocaust itself was neither good nor evil. The actions carried out by different men during the Holocaust, however, can be considered good or evil.

The Holocaust could, I suppose, be considered a sum of all the actions of people involved in the Holocaust to fit your argument.

What's your stance on it now?

 

[Xyan]

3. Sin, Karma, and Punishment: evil is punishment for sin, and people get what they deserve. The objection to this is similar to the objection to the God's plan justification.
Edit: Poll now up.

I believe there is a significant difference here. Personally, I subscribe to the idea of karma. In Buddhism, there is no God in the commonly accepted sense. God's plan does not fit into the equation.

Perceiving the entire cosmos as a single living entity, we can perceive each of our individual lives as separate, yet interdependent units (Much like the individual living organs or cells in our body coming together to form us). "Sin" is then viewed as causing harm to this macro-life (That would be like us mutating into virus or cancer cells to hurt body). Karma then comes along to "correct" the situation (like our natural antibodies working to neutralize the virus).

The converse is also true. Doing Good invites positive karma.

 

[Perfection]

The Holocaust was evil (or at least caused by evil or something highly evil-related). anyone who doubts that is either thinking too relatively or a Nazi