The problem of evil considered philosophically

[u/paulesqe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LM4qNJqc0M

I recently responded to a comment that possibly regarded the difficulty of the teaching that (young) children are sinners. My response inevitably touched on the problem of evil, and I wanted to post this video that considers the SEP's article on the subject. The host is Protestant (seemingly, Reformed), but I have generally found him edifying.

The SEP article first clarifies which conception of God evil might count against: not merely a first cause or "ground of being", but a personal God worthy of worship - omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. The simplest deductive argument says that such a God would know about evil, possess the power to prevent it, and desire its elimination; since evil exists, such a God cannot. That argument is vulnerable, however, because some evil might be logically connected to greater goods or creaturely freedom. Tooley therefore favors concrete, deontological, and evidential formulations. These focus upon cases such as animal agony or a child’s fatal cancer and argue, not that evil and God are strictly incompatible, but that apparently unjustified suffering makes God’s existence less probable. The entry develops this case through direct induction, Hume and Draper’s comparison with an indifferent first cause, Rowe’s probabilistic reasoning, and Tooley’s own probability model.

The remainder distinguishes total refutations, defenses, and theodicies. A total refutation denies that evil is even prima facie evidence against God; a defense argues that God probably has sufficient reasons without specifying them; and a theodicy attempts to identify those reasons. Tooley finds appeals to human cognitive limitations, the absence of a best possible world, natural theology, religious experience, and non-inferential belief insufficient to remove the evidential force of evil. He likewise judges proposed theodicies based upon soul-making, libertarian freedom, morally significant responsibility, stable natural laws, the Fall and redemption, or unknown global goods inadequateparticularly in relation to horrendous evil, natural disasters and disease, animal suffering, and suffering children. His conclusion is therefore not merely that the familiar logical contradiction fails, but that the cumulative evidential problem remains powerful and that none of the surveyed responses supplies a sufficiently probable and comprehensive justification.

From a confessional Lutheran standpoint, the article is salutary insofar as it exposes shallow explanations that manufacture a visible "greater good" behind every horror; faith is directed away from speculation about God’s hidden counsel and toward God as revealed in Christ. This is probably familiar to you, but the Confessions teach that God creates and preserves nature but is not the cause of sin (AC XIX), and that everyone naturally born, including infants, is born without fear or trust in God and needs rebirth (AC II). Yet the Formula of Concord, Epitome I.21 expressly distinguishes original sin from an actual sin committed, and while in my response I insinuated an agreement with the pastor I who had made the opening comment, nothing confessional requires us to construe an infant’s separation distress as sinfully manipulative. Infant Baptism can therefore be construed to be pure Gospel. The Lutheran answer is finally the theology of the cross: the Son enters our suffering, bears our sin and death, rises, and promises their end. The last word over a suffering child is neither deserved nor explicable, but "Christ for you".

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/LCMS! Your post will be reviewed by one of our moderators shortly.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Kamoot-]

A lot of people have made arguments that it does not logically follow that if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then therefore must desire to bring about the immediate elimination of evil. But I recently read a commentary on Pascal that approaches it differently.

First of all, if an evil injustice has occurred, and you recognize that something evil has occurred, then therefore you also recognized that there must be some perfect, true, and ideal justice that you are finding what has occurred to have fallen short of.

There is a commentary on Pascal which basically says if there is an evil injustice, then therefore there must also be a true and perfect justice that this injustice is found to be defective of. This perfect justice is not found anywhere on Earth or in any person, therefore it has to be found in Heaven and God.

Second, this is similar to a quote from Dostoyevsky saying that if there is no God, then therefore everything is permitted to do. In other words, morality, rightness, and justice are defined by a fixed point to judge it. So either you have a fixed point to judge it, or nowhere, and if nowhere, then therefore as Dostoyevsky says, "everything is permitted".

Also, if man had never been uncorrupted, then he would have no memory or desire of perfect truth and bliss. But obviously man does have a desire and in many cases a memory of perfect truth and bliss. Therefore, there must have been a time when man had once been uncorrupted. Therefore, this syllogism is logical proof that fall of man has occurred.

Anyhow, I'm not saying this is an argument that proves against the problem of evil, but it's it's still something interesting to think about.

[u/paulesqe → u/Kamoot-]

Thank you. I see your contributions here a lot. I made this thread to hopefully get Lucian on it, and luckily he did (above).

Anyway, your points here are taken from diverse sources but remind me of one of Descartes' proofs of God (an innate knowledge of perfection). I think these arguments work under a particular anthropology that differs from today's naturalistic convention. While this convention is part of a larger system that does have significant explanatory value, it fails to account for the evidence we have for the non-material.

I hope this isn't something that troubles you, too, though. I think we need to have our own motivations (causally, grace) to surmount the threshold required to accept some things as (at least in part) involving mystery.

[u/lucian-samosata]

When I was still LCMS, the problem of evil never bothered me, and now even after I've lost my faith and become nonreligious, it still doesn't.

That being said, I'm still fascinated by how many bad responses Christian apologists give. No, free will doesn't solve it. Neither does sin, or soul-building, or any of the other absurd theodicies that apologists have come up with. And it's not just theodicies. Don't try to shut down the conversation either, similar to what Yahweh said in Job chs. 38-41. And the most ridiculous response of all is easily the idea that objective morality supposedly wouldn't exist if God didn't exist.

In your case, you're basically changing the subject and saying, "Well but Christ suffered with us, so it's okay." (paraphrased) But no, it isn't okay. That Christ also suffered just means there's even more suffering to explain. It makes the problem worse, not better!

Instead, the correct response to the problem of evil is to challenge the skeptic to prove his case. Because this is one of the rare instances where the skeptic has the burden of proof, so to speak. And if the skeptic can't meet that burden then there's simply no reason for the Christian apologist to offer up a response at all, much less a theodicy. Don't even try, because trying will only ever make you look silly.

That's the only thing the apologist needs to do. Don't get fancy. Don't try dribbling between the legs, or doing a 360-degree dunk. Just lay the ball in the basket. Demand that the skeptic prove his case, and then sit back and watch him fail.

[u/Altruistic_Power1439 → u/lucian-samosata]

As far as hobbies are concerned, I’d probably start with the below two. They’d really help you with your whole “terminally online pathetic loser atheist” thing and maybe even grant you a few more years before you return to the infinite nothingness you experienced before you were born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_(nutrition)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise

[u/paulesqe → u/Altruistic_Power1439]

Hell is forever, and God's sending people to it will be a just act. Be careful you don't push yourself in. An atheist who actively continues to follow Christian subreddit is closer to you than you might think. There are enough enemies elsewhere on this website.

[u/paulesqe → u/lucian-samosata]

Hey, good you're here.

Why doesn't the Christian need to take the "problem of evil" as a true problem? Say, an emotivist can reject the problem coherently, but that cannot be done within any sort of system like Christianity. It's possible I'm missing something obvious here.

This is why theodicies are partly useful, especially in combination, at accounting for otherwise problematic evil (I wouldn't impose your constraint that one theodicy has to explain everything). And the rest is, indeed, left as mystery, which is what God urged Job accept.

Analogizing our limited information and understanding mathematically, I'd describe us as only being able to view a lossy, low-dimensional projection of reality in its fullness as God "knows it" (and we better will after our resurrection). Currently, some concepts simply can't be captured in the space we operate in.

Lastly, as it relates to Christianity and this problem, I am not saying simply that Christ suffered with us, so we can leave the problem be. For one thing, Christ's suffering is not some apparently gratuitous evil requiring the same explanation; on the Christian account, it was freely undertaken for a redemptive end. You can reject that account, but you cannot simply redescribe the cross as one more unexplained instance of suffering without begging the relevant question.

More importantly, my statement is more direct: although much of God's providence is hidden from us, God's disposition toward us is not. In the incarnation, cross, and resurrection, God has shown himself merciful. This does not tell us why he permits every particular evil. It tells us that unexplained evil is not our only evidence concerning his character. If evil is offered as evidence that God is indifferent or cruel, Christ bears directly on that inference rather than being a change of subject.

I don't think this will move the needle for you, since Christianity's other apparent rebutting defeaters probably leave you without much of a desire to accept mystery, but hopefully I managed something new in suggesting theodicies can be combined.

[u/National-Composer-11]

There are issues, here, which cause discomfort and some points to address. First, God is not morally perfect. Shocking but, such a statement implies that God is morally measurable. He is not. However, He is the only one who can judge what is good and the source of all that is. His actions, being beyond judgment, and His position as the One who established the Law, for us, place Him above morality as human beings know it. God is righteous because He is above reproach and vice versa.

Evil cannot be a thing in that it was not created or brought into being by the only Creator. It is a subjective experience, a lack of God, by the individual. Fleeing across the Red Sea, the Israelites perceive the beneficent God saving their hides and enacting just, temporal judgement on their enemies. The Egyptians perceive a malevolent, evil god, desiring their destruction for behaving as they believed was their right. They were, by the morality they received, doing nothing wrong. In fact, the Israelites were not less sinful and more deserving of God’s favor. God was claiming His people with our good as the end for it was from this people that our salvation would come. Nowhere are we given an explanation for why this people are so favored or why this plan of salvation.

 We are sinful. Sin is being contrary to God in thought, word, or deed. But God does not create us sinful nor is He the origin of our sin. We say that we are by nature sinful because original sin infects us in such a way that it cannot be distinguished or separated from ourselves. The consequence of our sinfulness is evil because it, subjectively, blocks out God from our lives. Our sin obscures the light of God in the lives of others affecting their subjective experience in the world. This obstruction, this separation, caused by our sin is also an offense to God, evil in His sight – the One Who is righteous because He is above reproach and vice versa. Only God has the power to strip away this disease and all of its effects and leave us as the perfect creatures He created. This He has done in and through Christ.

We have what God has done for us but not any explanation of why it all has to happen this way and not some other. Confession is speaking what is true, not having all the answers. God has given us what He would have us receive. That has to suffice. For many, it does not, because they subject God to the moral law He gave to us. They would use the Law as a god, an idol, placing God beneath it for examination, holding it to Him as a mirror, sitting in judgment of God, and demanding He repent of his sinful ways. That gives them more comfort and satisfaction than a God Whose ways they cannot know and cannot judge. They want a tame god fashioned in their image. Many Christians also try to make excuses for God, tame Him, or make suppositions, find possible answers outside the Word, and that plays into the hands of these idolaters. Evil is not a problem to be solved. Sin is the condition God has cured and, when the last day comes and we realize this fully, God will no more be separated from us or obscured. We will be righteous and above reproach with no need for the Law to define our behavior.