In reality, the atheists have presented little by way of a case that there cannot be a God. The semantics is by its nature flawed. Consider the ‘Argument of Evil’ often cited as one of the most persuasive that God (but I note, not any God but a limited understanding of the Christian God) cannot exist. The argument is based on recognising the existence of evil and on the assumption that God is both omnipotent and benevolent.
Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot,
or he can but does not want to,
or he cannot and does not want to,
or lastly he can and wants to.
If he wants to remove evil, and cannot,
he is not omnipotent; (and therefore not God, if God is omnipotent as defined)
If he can, but does not want to,
he is not benevolent; (and therefore not God, if God is benevolent as defined)
If he neither can nor wants to,
he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent;
Finally if God can abolish evil and wants to,
how does evil continue exist?
This (and similar) argument seems to be used successfully by atheists to convert some religious to their creed. The problem with this argument is that it assumes absolute knowledge of the nature of God. It takes a simple fundamentalist view of God and the world, ascribing to God a narrow and simplistic set of emotions and “proves” by simple deduction that God cannot exist. What it in fact proves is that either the limited definitions of an omnipotent God or of a benevolent God are wrong or at least inappropriate, or if the definitions are right, then God cannot logically exist. It is an intellectually weak approach to ignore the possibility that the definitions are inappropriate, particularly since the definitions were chosen to support the argument they are used in. It argues that if God could eliminate evil but chose not to then God would not be benevolent and this would therefore be contrary to the nature of God so God cannot exist. The key assumptions that have to be proven for the above to be valid are that in order to be benevolent God would banish evil and that God is indeed benevolent as defined. I have not seen this argued even vaguely conclusively. But, if the definition is wrong what is the right definition or understanding of God? Well to date I have not found the definitive description of the exact nature and circumstance of God, but not knowing the answer has never been a good scientific reason for abandoning the question.
It is reasonable to ask theists if they have considered this question that apparently simply proves them wrong. A brief exploration of the Christian theist view (the easiest for me to access) shows that they seem to have no problem explaining that their God and evil are likely to co-exist. I understand that there are two threads to the Christian theist argument. Firstly that in Christian terms God created a society based on the exercise of freewill. To proscribe evil in that society would of course limit freewill. Further it can be argued that much of what we describe as evil is the result of inappropriate human exercise of free will. Besides, to me it seems irrational to contemplate a world with no evil – one could do anything and there would be no possibility of negative outcomes. Choice and the possibility of negative outcomes go hand in hand. So we have a conflicting choice for God to make around ‘benevolence’ – no freewill or no negative (evil) outcomes. Not a simple choice, but one that seriously challenges a simplistic concept of benevolence. The second thread, again referring to Christian teaching, is that Satan has been given rule on earth – this thread of argument does not work for me. One can take this literally, as fundamentalist Christians appear to, or one can be a bit more circumspect and try to understand it in context.
Evil, harm or horror, call it what you will, is the product either of misuse of freewill (clearly freewill creates the potential for evil) or the result of natural forces necessary for the working of a world subject to the laws of nature (fire burns). By permitting a world governed by natural laws which we seek to discover and given freewill to exercise that knowledge, evil is a very likely and on occasion the appropriate (or benevolent) outcome . We appear to have the freewill to make good or evil in our world. Looking around, we seem to stuffing it up with enthusiasm.
13 comments:
Hi Akakiwibear,
Excellent post. The problem of evil/suffering is quite a tough subject so well done for tackling it head-on.
What it in fact proves is that either the limited definitions of an omnipotent God or of a benevolent God are wrong or at least inappropriate, or if the definitions are right, then God cannot logically exist. It is an intellectually weak approach to ignore the possibility that the definitions are inappropriate,
Correct.
particularly since the definitions were chosen to support the argument they are used in.
I don't think that's true or relevant. I think the definitions were chosen to match a common concept of God. It doesn't matter where the definition came from though. What matters is whether it's a good one and like you say, the problem of evil shows that this definition is not a good one.
To proscribe evil in that society would of course limit freewill. Further it can be argued that much of what we describe as evil is the result of inappropriate human exercise of free will.
Yes. Clearly it's possible to adjust the definition of God to take this into account. There are forms of evil and suffering which don't involve human choice though: Earthquakes, famines, carnivores, etc...
An interesting question is whether God is the sort of God who saves everyone from natural disasters? Well, clearly not because if God did that we wouldn't have natural disasters. Maybe God wants to save everyone from natural disasters but can't. Maybe he can save everyone but doesn't want to. Maybe there are two Gods, one who can't save and the other who doesn't want to.
At this point, we need a better definition of God because I've just described my Mum and the earth. My Mum can't save everyone from natural disasters but wants to. The earth can save everyone (if you're prepared to stretch the point a little) but doesn't want to. In fact the idea of the earth wanting to save isn't really applicable. Without a definition of God, we can't look at something and answer the question: Is this God? How would you define God?
Peace, Neil.
Hi Neil,
Yes this is a difficult topic and I am pleased to see someone rose to it.
There are forms of evil and suffering which don't involve human choice though: Earthquakes, famines, carnivores, etc...
Firstly how can you describe earthquakes as “evil” – they have a persona? The laws of nature work – fire burns it is not “evil”. What does this have to do with God preventing evil? You offer the following
Maybe God wants to save everyone from natural disasters but can't. Maybe he can save everyone but doesn't want to. Maybe there are two Gods, one who can't save and the other who doesn't want to.
I fail to grasp the concept of why we need a world that does not contain negative events to establish that there is a God! Perhaps you are proposing a sort of a “heaven”, a world where the physical laws as we know them do not apply and where …. ????? OR, we could get deeply philosophical about the true meaning of benevolent in a physical and/or metaphysical world. Religion in general does not have a problem with the co-existence of God and evil, and I admit that some of the arguments way too academic for me. But I digress … the real learning lies not in this specific argument but in what the argument establishes, or fails to establish.
You are correct to identify the definition of God as the pivotal point for this and many other atheist arguments. We could play definition semantics until boredom set in. The various arguments stand or fall on the definitions and for me all they prove is that the definitions are imperfect (no surprises there!), they in no way impinge on the existence or not of God.
The key question is if an absolute definition, or complete understanding, of God is a prerequisite condition for God to exist or to believe that God exists. Clearly not – there are a lot of things we do not fully understand yet we believe to exist.
I know atheists are want to cry “foul” when theists back off the classic definitions of God, but theology is an ongoing field of study (especially for amateurs like me).
Pivotal to this argument though, is whether we believe God to exist to fulfil our definition of God or because the existence is a logical conclusion based on the evidence. If the former – you win. If the latter, then we can reach a conclusion that God exists without a total understanding of the nature of God, with perhaps only an appreciation of some aspects, which we may even have got wrong. As an analogy, light or gravity do not exist because we have knowledge of them and the nature of light did not change as our knowledge of its wave/particle quantum characteristics increased.
Hi akakiwibear,
You wrote:
Firstly how can you describe earthquakes as “evil” – they have a persona? The laws of nature work – fire burns it is not “evil”. What does this have to do with God preventing evil?
Maybe I'm going off-topic on this one. I see the problem of evil and the problem of suffering as very closely linked. One says that God would prevent evil and the other says that God would prevent suffering, both based on the omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God. I wasn't meaning to say that natural disasters are evil, but that they cause suffering.
I fail to grasp the concept of why we need a world that does not contain negative events to establish that there is a God!
We don't. My point is that we need to decide what sort of a God we're talking about before we move on to deciding whether that sort of God exists.
I guess the problems of evil and suffering had a powerful effect on me because they showed me that my concept of God was flawed. That in turn showed me that my method of finding out about God was flawed. That method was the evangelical one - look for the answer in the Bible. I can see that someone from a different tradition would have a different response. Out of interest, do you have a better method of knowing about God?
I know atheists are want to cry “foul” when theists back off the classic definitions of God,
Not I. My claim is simply that if God does exist then we don't know anything about him/her/it. If you fail to produce a definition or description of God then you help to confirm that claim. If you do produce a definition then I reserve the right to come to a new view about whether such a being might exist and whether we would know if it did exist.
I can think of a sort of God who might exist. This is a transcendent God who created the universe and then just left it to carry out its laws. He/she/it might be a kind of scientist God who was just trying out a set of physical laws to see what would happen. We can't know if this God exists because he/she/it leaves no evidence in the universe in any way, shape or form. This God could be seen as benign but not omnibenevolent.
I can also think of a sort of God which does exist: the pantheist's God. God is everything and everything is God. This God does exist, but I have more than a little trouble using the word God to describe it. This God is not intelligent and nor omnibenevolent. The words omnipotent and omniscient don't really apply because this God isn't sentient.
I'd guess that neither of those concepts of God fit with your idea of what God's like.
Peace, Neil.
Hi Neil,
Sorry it took a while to get back to you on this one – as usual, meaty stuff, I will try to respond to the same standard. So brace yourself for a long read – I won’t blame you if you get bored.
One says that God would prevent evil and the other says that God would prevent suffering, both based on the omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God.
Your whole comment really relates to the nature of God and how we get to know that nature – oh that I could truly answer you! But I will treat this as point (1)
The question of God “allowing” suffering – point (2)
There is also an implicit question that relates to the extent of God’s intervention in our lives – be it BIG, preventing wars scale or little, helping to solve a personal problem. You allude to this in your description of a God that created it all and then leaves us to get on with it. Point (3)
(1) The literal bible picture of God does not seem to work all that well – what after all does omnipresent mean (perhaps that we can find God wherever we want to) omnipotent (perhaps that compared to what we consider powerful God is ‘infinitely’ more powerful) omniscience (as for omnipotent) – the traditional definitions only seem to produce silly semantic arguments like the argument against evil. In proposing alternative meanings I am not presenting a definitive, but rather a qualified, “what if the definition were …” . I can live with these or similar definitions and more importantly they describe a God I personally can understand.
This answer is way too short, but it points in the direction of my thinking, my “bottom up” approach – if there is a God what is he like? – rather than the church/bible says God is …. does this work?
(2) As for God “allowing” suffering, this is a hard one for all of us I think. The best I can come up with is that there are natural consequences to our actions – don’t skydive without a parachute etc. But we also bring about suffering through our own actions – war etc. BUT God has intervened to avoid the suffering - through the various religious teachings we are presented with a way of life that would eliminate (?) human induced suffering and would move us to minimize the suffering due of natural events. We (collectively) choose not to follow this path, hence suffering on a grand scale.
This is an acceptable balance (for me) between our free will and God acting to protect us from suffering. Is this a true understanding – I don’t know for sure but it comes to me as a result of a non-literal reading of the bible – what is the underlying message, rather than the words – and texts from other religions, philosophers and even atheists. I get there however as an answer to the question you pose – how could God allow suffering? - rather than focusing on is there a God that would allow this? Your question challenges my “yes there is a God” position, but I admit to having got to a very high level of confidence in the existence of God before I could try to answer the “allow” question.
(3) The extent of intervention is often seen as a parallel question to the answer to prayer question. The fate of the (I think) Donner family recently the topic on debunking Christianity dealt to this point. My personal belief is that prayer is primarily about relationship building with God and about forming ourselves into better people – prayer is firstly about our metaphysical selves and on that level I believe it is answered within the bounds of faith.
What about the here and now? There is a lot written about prayer, perhaps the best single source I have found is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Part 4 focuses on prayer) AGAIN READ THE CONTENT RATHER THAN THE WORDS – it too is neither literal nor inerrant. Unfortunately for most of us looking for “this world solutions” it stresses the spiritual aspect of prayer and downplays what I refer to as the “magic wand” of prayer. That said I do believe that prayer for interventions in our daily life are answered, I see this not so much in my own life as in those I respect for their faith. I see the answered prayers. Initially sceptical, I looked for the big and obvious and the tested cases (like the St Faustina miracles) but when I really looked the volume of credible evidence (not just healings) I was overwhelmed and convinced. Then gradually I came to see “Gods” hand in the little miracles of every day. But more I am convinced that the prayers most answered are the spiritual ones – the ones that get our spirit through the suffering.
my method of finding out about God was flawed.
At risk of pushing my new found affiliation to much of the Catholic thinking I will point out that unlike some of the other denominations the Catholics do not believe that the Bible is the only source of revelation of God’s word. They include the “tradition” or teachings of the Church and I personally also include other learned writers.
If you do produce a definition then I reserve the right to come to a new view about whether such a being might exist
The definitions above are clearly incomplete and I can live with that (I don’t need all the answers to believe) plus I have my working overall description of God as a collective consciousness acting with common purpose.
Peace to you too.
Hi Akakiwibear,
You certainly got going on this one. I'll try to respond as best as I can.
You wrote:
"the traditional definitions only seem to produce silly semantic arguments like the argument against evil."
I think the problem of evil is far from being just a semantic argument. Consider a being who is as loving as the most loving human, as aware as a breakfast show presenter and as powerful as a large nation. Such a being would know about the many innocent children being exploited around the world and have the ability and compassion to do something about it. In short, it would do something about it, so if such a being existed, we would know about it. The closest we've got are the humanitarian aid agencies. They do a great job, but I wouldn't call them God. I've reduced your definitions to a human scale, but the problem of evil is still an issue.
"This answer is way too short, but it points in the direction of my thinking, my “bottom up” approach – if there is a God what is he like? – rather than the church/bible says God is …. does this work?"
I think it needs to be an iterative process. Ask yourself "what is God like?" and then ask "does this work?". If it doesn't work then figure out why it doesn't work and then with the understanding you've gained, move back to "what is God like?".
"The best I can come up with is that there are natural consequences to our actions – don’t skydive without a parachute etc. But we also bring about suffering through our own actions – war etc."
Indeed. I think we can agree on the skydiving. In the case of war, we see humanitarian agencies trying help the innocent people who were caught up in the conflict. I don't see God doing that. When the humanitarian agencies can't make it, nobody steps in.
"BUT God has intervened to avoid the suffering"
Was it God or Man who did that? Isn't it possible that Man would say "how about we stop killing each other now" and things of that nature? How do we know it was God? How do we identify which writings of philosophers and atheists are really from God? How do we tell them apart from good human writings?
"We (collectively) choose not to follow this path, hence suffering on a grand scale. This is an acceptable balance (for me) between our free will and God acting to protect us from suffering."
The problem I see with this is that the victims often don't get the benefits of free will. The child who is raped... the old man who is mugged... the charity worker who is kidnapped. They didn't choose their fate. The powerful get free will and the powerless are forced to comply. God could intervene, couldn't he? Maybe he can't. Maybe that's the solution.
"Is this a true understanding – I don’t know for sure but it comes to me as a result of a non-literal reading of the bible – what is the underlying message, rather than the words"
The underlying message of the Bible is something which is heavily disputed. How do you decide what you think the underlying message is? Do you come up with your own ideas about what it means? What happens when you disagree with your religious authorities?
Actually, I don't understand what it means to be a liberal Catholic. The Catholic Encyclopedia says "The newest phases of this Liberalism were condemned by Pius X as Modernism.". Doesn't that mean that you're in conflict with your religious authorities?
"Your question challenges my “yes there is a God” position, but I admit to having got to a very high level of confidence in the existence of God before I could try to answer the “allow” question."
That's where we differ. If I had I high level of confidence in the existence of God, I would have to find a solution to the apparent contradiction. I might conclude that God is weak or didn't care a great deal. I'd compare the evidence which I did have with an aid agency and figure out the nature of God from that (at least to an approximation).
"My personal belief is that prayer is primarily about relationship building with God"
I used to think that I had a relationship with God and that he responded to me. I later found out that I was just talking to myself and fooling myself into thinking it was God. At that point, my relationship with God went down-hill because I can't really relate to someone who doesn't talk to me. Do you think that God responds to you? If so, how do you know that it's God who's responding? If not, how do you have a relationship with someone who doesn't respond to you?
"and about forming ourselves into better people – prayer is firstly about our metaphysical selves and on that level I believe it is answered within the bounds of faith."
Ah. Now, I can understand prayer forming the person doing the praying and I can testify to its effectiveness in some cases. That could easily be a psychological effect though, a bit like meditation.
"There is a lot written about prayer, perhaps the best single source I have found is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Part 4 focuses on prayer)"
Ah, excellent. There's a copy online.
"AGAIN READ THE CONTENT RATHER THAN THE WORDS"
I'll try to tell the difference...
"Unfortunately for most of us looking for “this world solutions” it stresses the spiritual aspect of prayer and downplays what I refer to as the “magic wand” of prayer."
I do too.
"Then gradually I came to see “Gods” hand in the little miracles of every day."
When you get an answered prayer, is it something which could have happened anyway? Do you also find that sometimes your prayers aren't answered? Do you find that sometimes you have to change your prayer before it's answered? If it was random chance, then I'd expect the answers to these questions to be yes (although you might never change what you pray for - that would be a decision on your part). How do you know that your prayers aren't answered by chance? Do you sometimes pray and God doesn't do anything but the prayer seems to be answered by chance anyway? Would you be able to tell the difference between God answering the prayer and it just happening through chance?
"At risk of pushing my new found affiliation to much of the Catholic thinking I will point out that unlike some of the other denominations the Catholics do not believe that the Bible is the only source of revelation of God’s word. They include the “tradition” or teachings of the Church and I personally also include other learned writers."
I certainly appreciate what various learned writers have written, including some from Christian sources. I've also seen some supposedly scholarly writings which have been of very poor quality. What should I expect of something which is a revelation of God's word? Should I call it God's word if I agree with it personally?... or if it seems like good moral instruction? I guess you say that it's not inerrant in a literal sense, but is the underlying message inerrant? Do I only accept it as God's word once I've decided that the message is true?
Peace, Neil.
Hi Neil,
As always you challenge me – thank you.
My comment & your reply are getting too long for point by point discussion. I will try for key issues then
1) Innocent suffer – why, God’s role etc
2) God or man intervenes
3) Iterative process – level of confidence
4) Relationship, answers and chance
5) Learned – so what? Poor scholarly works
1) I really appreciate your position ” I would have to find a solution to the apparent contradiction. I might conclude that God is weak or didn't care a great deal.”
For me the solution that makes sense is a God that operates on a level that is characterised as:
a) Gave you free will
b) Told you how to use
c) Consequences are yours & if you cause the innocent to suffer don't blame me.
While this seems harsh from a ‘this world’ perspective as I think about it I am drawn to the conclusion that what is really important is not this world and its suffering/joy, but the next.
Suffering of innocents is not outside religious teaching – Christ, an innocent suffered. Christ taught that there would be suffering to come (can’t recall the references, but the father against son passage is an example). Lord's prayer ".. may your kingdom come on earth .."
If the objective of our life lies in the next world then it is how we deal with a natural world (disasters and all) with an excess of greed etc that matters – I like to think that God is there to help our individual spirits through our suffering. Let’s face it no easy answers.
While this answers the BIG intervention question it actually creates questions around the little (day to day) interventions. Why does God not escalate the level of intervention? I have to think that God’s day to day interventions (healing miracles excluded?) are at a level that individually does not contradict the overall working out of our collective free wills.
Healing miracles tend to upset the progress of nature and challenge what I have just said – not sure how to deal with that other than to say that there must be something in it I don’t see as yet.
2) I think there is a clear distinction between our human nature and God’s teaching. As evolutionary beings we are programmed for survival. While we see benefits in co-operation we do, when we are under threat or see benefit in selfish behaviour we go for it – that is our nature and example abound in a materialistic world. Free market economics leads to a concentration of wealth etc etc – don’t get me started on this one.
Religious teaching is contrary to that nature and asks that we overcome our survival instinct and be selfless. C.S Lewis put it well “"When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."”
Now I don’t believe that one has to be actively religious to overcome ones nature. I believe that whether we acknowledge it or not we have the potential to be influenced God’s teaching – we are all potentially in touch with the ‘collective consciousness’ and some go with its guidance and some choose not to. So I would say all people of good will are, for lack of a better phrase, “God’s children”. So some good people intervene but the intervention has its origins somewhere other than our basic human nature.
3) Yes it is iterative.
4) Can’t rule out chance or the physiological benefits of meditation. Also can’t rule out the God’s presence. Perhaps it reflects a point in endless loops of iterative cycles. It is why I don’t really like to focus on personal experience in talking about the existence of God, but ultimately the debate is only relevant at a personal level – another contradiction!
5) Learned – so what? Poor scholarly works – yes lots of it and hard to sort it out. Oh and yes my views may be regarded as heretical by sectors of the Catholic Church but I have some hope as Pius X was pre Vatican II. I am drawn to Catholics not so much as a “Wow this is for me, the answer to everything” but rather that I find the fact that they have debated it all before and are still debating it all refreshing. Unlike some of the evangelicals they don't pretend to have all the answers. Also I don’t have to accept their answers and I certainly recognise a good measure of self-interest present in some of it (only male priests would be an obvious example - infallibility of the Pope even better). While I have some big differences with Catholicism it works as a vehicle for my learning and growing faith.
Neil, a new thought on the "Why does God permit evil?" point.
Consider the current position in say Darfur. No doubt from a suffering point of view we would agree that this is a classic situation that prompts the 'argument of evil'.
OK so what would God have to do to be benevolent?
Should God "smite" the militia that are doing the harm? (I can see the atheist sites rush to condemn God's brutality towards the militia).
Should God provide food - 'mana from heaven'? Well would not the militia steal it as they do with the food aid?
Should God have prevented the situation in the first place? OK - How? By favouring one group in the power struggle over another? What would have been the long term outcome, people etc slipping into corruption.
Should God have prevented the situation from ever being able to arise by manipulating the world so that it was all like the popular conception of heaven? Implies no free will and a finely orchestrated life for us all! As you may guess I am not really happy with the popular conception of heaven & hell.
With this practical example I see a no win situation for God vis-a-vis the argument for evil. It seems to be a choice of life with consequences or no free will.
Hi akakiwibear,
You wrote:
"OK so what would God have to do to be benevolent?"
What should people do to be benevolent? To be honest, I don't know the answer, but I'm certain that the answer isn't to sit around and watch to see what will happen.
"Should God "smite" the militia that are doing the harm? (I can see the atheist sites rush to condemn God's brutality towards the militia)."
I don't think smiting gets anyone anywhere. Perhaps some direct and immediate form of punishment which is non-fatal. Ideally, such action should be a deterrent, should protect the innocent and should make amends.
"Should God provide food - 'mana from heaven'? Well would not the militia steal it as they do with the food aid?"
Good point, but people still provide food aid even if some of it is going to be stolen, so I'd expect God to do likewise.
"Should God have prevented the situation in the first place? OK - How? By favouring one group in the power struggle over another? What would have been the long term outcome, people etc slipping into corruption."
Acting ahead of time would require quite a bit of forethought to get it right. I don't claim to have anything like that sort of forethought, so I'm not going to assume that God does. Of course, if God did have such forethought, I would expect him/her to use it.
"Should God have prevented the situation from ever being able to arise by manipulating the world so that it was all like the popular conception of heaven? Implies no free will and a finely orchestrated life for us all! As you may guess I am not really happy with the popular conception of heaven & hell."
I'll agree with you on that one, but there's not need to go to that extreme. I just think that some intervention would be better than none.
"With this practical example I see a no win situation for God vis-a-vis the argument for evil. It seems to be a choice of life with consequences or no free will."
Only if you insist on going for an extreme. Can I describe the perfect world? No. Could the world be a better place? Yes.
You seem to be promoting a very strange morality. Do you really think the best thing to do in Darfur is to just sit by and wait? Doesn't the parable of the sheep and the goats speak to you at all?
The problem of evil wouldn't be half as effective if it was clear that God was acting in the world. Perhaps we could always ask "Why didn't God do that?" but that would only be a problem if we were expecting God to be perfectly good. If we were just expecting God to be fairly good, we would expect a slip-up every so often.
Peace, Neil.
Hi akakiwibear,
I wrote:
"Do you really think the best thing to do in Darfur is to just sit by and wait?"
I don't mean that. I mean: Do you really think sitting by and waiting is anywhere near the best thing to do in Darfur? The way I wrote it sounds like I'm talking about an all-good God. I'm not; I'm talking about a fairly good God.
Peace, Neil.
” Doesn't the parable of the sheep and the goats speak to you at all?” You bet it does and I think you got to the core of the issue with reference to the “sheep & goats”. The parable does not call for faith or commitment to religion but only for good works. We should all be moved by the horrors, should all feel compassion and be moved to help. More importantly we should all conduct ourselves to avoid these situations. If this behaviour is what the various religions seek to teach us as the revelation of God’s will then achieving it (i.e. overcoming selfishness for the greater good) then that is where I would expect God’s intervention to be directed.
”The problem of evil wouldn't be half as effective if it was clear that God was acting in the world. ”
I agree! But it all depends on where we look for signs of God’s interventions and what we look for.
”I'll agree with you on that one, but there's not need to go to that extreme. I just think that some intervention would be better than none. ”
Let’s say that there was prior intervention in the form of revelation on how to use free will to avoid these situations in the first place.
Now it appears to me that there is still the small intervention you call for, but that we don’t necessarily recognise it as such.
It is important to draw a distinction in how the intervention takes place. Mana from heaven (a good intervention) would be massive direct intervention to overturn the situation – very visible and leave no doubt as to the existence of God.
The intervention level I am talking about may well be invisible by comparison … say increased success of food convoys getting through, increased response from donors – perhaps even increased compassion in the community and more field workers. Certainly that would qualify as “some intervention”.
There is an abundance of examples of small interventions, few are publicised I suspect due to the sceptical response they would receive. I recall once seeing a video about one such instance in Juarez where the hungry were being fed and the food extended to feed double the number (http://www.handsforchristministry.org
/thechristmasmiracle.html ) but there are many stories like that of Heidi Baker in Mozambique (Heidi Baker interview link set to me as http://www.glorybridesglobal.com
/viewdesk.cfm?ID=101) where their work was supported by what appeared to be miracles (including one of food multiplication) – certainly it was easier than circumstances dictated. Interesting is that there are similar stories from various religions and even seen as “unexplained” by non-religious.
Now I am not presenting these anecdotes as proven miracles, but rather as examples of how God may intervene – by working through people, helping them to help others, irrespective of their religion.
The problem with direct and visible intervention is, in my mind, twofold.
1) Any intervention that diminishes the consequences of free will undermines the free will itself and reduces the need for us to exercise the free will responsibly. If there is a safety net, we can act with impunity to further our own self interests without being held accountable – the war lords & government of the Sudan would not have to face the horror of what they have brought about … and we would not be moved to compassion.
2) Whatever the “some direct intervention” it is never likely to be enough. I can see the perpetrators of horror having the capacity to create mayhem that absorbs “some direct intervention” like rain into drought parched soil. One very small intervention will lead to another, perhaps bigger and sooner or later we are totally manipulated and devoid of free will. I think the slightly pregnant analogy applies.
Unfortunately I do see it as a choice between free will and overt direct intervention.
You seem to be promoting a very strange morality. Do you really think the best thing to do in Darfur is to just sit by and wait? … The way I wrote it sounds like I'm talking about an all-good God. I'm not; I'm talking about a fairly good God.
Am I promoting a strange morality? I would like to think not. I am not suggesting you or I sit back and wait – nor do I imply that God should. As I said, I think God is intervening by encouraging perhaps even facilitating people of good will (who I think are “close to” God whether they are theists or not(?)) to assist – to be active in our concern!
By helping people to see the consequences of our selfish actions and helping us to sort out the messes we make, to learn and to avoid it happening again, I can see a God who is genuinely benevolent within a free will context.
As an aside, it is through this approach I see a point in praying for world peace and food for the starving because I can see an answer in God motivating, facilitating and enabling people to help. I surly see no point in praying for relief from God and doing absolutely nothing practical yourself – that in my mind is hypocrisy (can’t find it but I am sure there is even a scripture to that effect).
Hi Neil,
A quick aside on this topic. We have tended to dwell on the practical implications of the argument from evil - I still think that is the important consideration - but being under time pressure at the moment I offer you the philosophical view of the argument on http://www.iep.utm.edu
/e/evil-log.htm
being the internet encyclopaedia of philosophy I guess it gives the abstract reasoning perspective. I found it a bit dull but worth a read.
Hi Neil, again a re-reading of the thread has clarified the issues for me. Certainly I no more validity in the argument than I did before.
Argument from evil says an all powerful, all knowing and all benevolent God could not co-exist with evil.
My first reaction to this on re-reading is that the tri-omni God is perhaps a flawed premise rendering the whole argument moot. There is no real reason to assume that God is omni-benevolent as seen from our perspective. Certainly if we actually attribute some of the OT stories to God, he is not benevolent in our sense. In fact if we accept the suffering of Christ or his predictions of suffering then it would be wrong to base any argument on the premise of a simple benevolence. The valid conclusion is that God accepts that we are to suffer, be this part of a divine interpretation of benevolence or a practical consequence of freewill is not the point – the point is that it invalidates the argument even if it does not provide an alternative characterisation of God.
My second reaction is a little more complex. This relates to your main point of why does God allow the suffering anyway – aside from the intellectual wizardry of the argument of evil. My re-read may have clarified the issue, but not necessarily solved it, as the apparent solution seems to lead to the mire of creation that I try to avoid.
If I follow the two negations of the argument from Plantinga I get (i) freewill is valued more highly than eliminating suffering as the negation of human induced suffering and (ii) that suffering from natural causes is a result of the necessary functioning of the physical world.
Now I can fully appreciate the freewill argument and feel a bit smug that I had earlier identified myself. The physical world argument begs the question – could God not have designed it better. Having raised the question for the physical world why not also apply it the human one. This is where I get drawn into the creation argument. The possible response to (i) & (ii) is that overall God could have done a better job of designing us the world et al. A design job that produced all the benefits but none of the drawbacks.
Such a response, while implying a creator God (I am still not sure where I am on that one) would imply a much lesser God (perhaps not even a God at all, but none the less a creator ??? my mind boggles a bit on this one) if we could readily demonstrate a better design.
Intuitively this simple argument has real appeal – why not,a better design challenges the omniscient side of God (by the way I have never supported the simplistic tri-omni view of God – it has to more complex and I argue that it is a flawed premise set for the argument form evil). But as I contemplate the “could have done better” a few thoughts come to mind.
On the freewill side:
i) I go with the argument that only a “better” design could avoid all suffering.
ii) I can’t conceive a “better” design that allows for freewill and avoids any negative consequences. If we can only produce positive outcomes then there is no real freewill in regard to being able to choose between good and evil – the ultimate test of free will.
iii) I struggle to grasp how we could appreciate “good” if there was no “bad” – i.e. exercise choice without the means to establish a preferred ranking of outcomes.
iv) For all we know, perhaps all our outcomes are in fact on the “good’ side of some cosmic good-bad continuum. The imagination can be set free on this one.
v) Even if all outcomes were “good” would some not be less attractive and might we not call those “bad”. Unless all outcomes were equal we would end up considering some “bad” – and could then again ask why God permits “bad” outcomes. So if there is any scale of preferred outcomes we could always raise the challenge of the argument from evil.
vi) The idea that we could have been created (designed) complete with all the “benefits” of experiencing a choice and the consequences of choice between good and evil has been put forward as a better design. Not sure why it is thought to be better. It implies that we come complete with all our experiences – we never learn anything/experience anything new – in fact our existence is static which seems like death to me.
I conclude that if we, or God, values freewill and experience then negative outcomes are a given.
On the positive side we have been given the necessary instructions on how to live our lives to avoid the negative implications – so God as not abandoned us to having to stick our behavioural equivalent of a hand into the fire to discover it burns. Plus there is the question of miracles that may alleviate the suffering on the fringes by endorsing those with good intentions.
On the physical world side:
1) The world/universe works and is a very complex interaction of multiple functions. Its complexity as represented by all the finely tuned physical constants the creationists claim prove a creator, implies a limited number of solutions all of which retain an ability to harm us – gravity always provides the potential for things to fall on us, fire for us get burned etc.
2) God should have designed a universe that he could micro manage to avoid us getting hurt. Why would he want to manipulate the whole universe second by second if he designed it – that would to me be a major design flaw attributable to a lesser God. Besides this implies a frequent suspension of the laws of nature (gravity every time I skydive without a parachute) to make any semblance of a set of governing natural laws implausible – gravity only works when it won’t harm someone – what about the situation when suspension of a law to avoid harm to one would simultaneously result in harm to another who is depending on the law … etc … it all becomes a nonsense really.
3) While the physical world contains dangers they are by and large avoidable – we have been given the ability to figure that it is not smart to live on fault lines or around volcanoes as we do in Auckland.
While I could not really get to grips with the subtlety of Plantiga’s argument around the hazards of the physical world I can accept that either:
a) God did create/design the structures and physical constants that govern the universe and what we have is the best possible solution – it would be arrogant in the extreme to claim as Christopher Hitchens seems to that he/we could have done a better job designing a universe. If we can suffer harm it that world, so be it.
b) If God did not design/create the universe, then one attach any blame for the way it works to God.
While I share your concern for suffering I conclude – and not a callously as you implied, I am moved by the sheep and goats – that:
I) we can’t hold God accountable for our suffering;
II) God has intervened to eliminate human caused suffering through revealed teaching;
III) the argument from evil is defeated by (a) logic (Plantinga) (b) an invalid tri-omni premise set (c) common sense
IV) The ‘better design’ argument is very weak to the point of being totally implausible.
God bless.
Hi Akakiwibear,
You wrote:
"Let’s say that there was prior intervention in the form of revelation on how to use free will to avoid these situations in the first place. Now it appears to me that there is still the small intervention you call for, but that we don’t necessarily recognise it as such."
There are two problems I see with this. The first is that it seems a rather feeble thing for a God to be doing. The other is that there's no reliable attribution of the revelation to God. It seems entirely plausible to me that mankind could figure out some moral codes over the course of a few thousand years. It seems implausible that God would wait that long.
"The intervention level I am talking about may well be invisible by comparison … say increased success of food convoys getting through, increased response from donors – perhaps even increased compassion in the community and more field workers. Certainly that would qualify as “some intervention”."
I'm not actually sure what God would be doing. Increasing the success of food convoys getting through isn't an action, it's an effect. Would he be arranging for the road blocks to be on the wrong roads? Or distracting the armed guards so that the convoys can slip through? Wouldn't that take away people's free will? Isn't increasing compassion also overriding people's free will?
"There is an abundance of examples of small interventions, few are publicised I suspect due to the sceptical response they would receive."
Any from a reputable source? Reputable in terms of quality of information that is. I'm sure these people have good intentions.
"The problem with direct and visible intervention is, in my mind, twofold.
1) Any intervention that diminishes the consequences of free will undermines the free will itself and reduces the need for us to exercise the free will responsibly. If there is a safety net, we can act with impunity to further our own self interests without being held accountable – the war lords & government of the Sudan would not have to face the horror of what they have brought about … and we would not be moved to compassion."
Any intervention reduces the effects of free will, even interventions through people. When humanitarian organizations distribute food in Sudan, it reduces the consequences of the government. The same is true for any action of God which reduces the total suffering in the world. That's no reason to hold back for humans and I don't see why it should be a reason to hold back for God.
"2) Whatever the “some direct intervention” it is never likely to be enough."
The same goes for humanitarian organizations. I don't see why it's any different for God, except that perhaps God is able to do more than the humanitarian organizations. That shouldn't mean that God has to intervene less than the humanitarian organizations though - which appears to be the case. If God were to do as much direct intervention as Oxfam, that would be an improvement. He could limit himself to that level if he liked.
"Unfortunately I do see it as a choice between free will and overt direct intervention."
I do too. It's not an all or nothing choice though. It seems to me that God is currently in no danger of limiting our free will.
"The valid conclusion is that God accepts that we are to suffer, be this part of a divine interpretation of benevolence or a practical consequence of freewill is not the point – the point is that it invalidates the argument even if it does not provide an alternative characterisation of God. "
Certainly if God is not really concerned about our welfare then it defeats the problem of evil. However, if you don't have any alternative characterisation of God then you've lost anyway. It means you don't really know what you believe in. It then becomes impossible to say "this is God and that is not God", simply because you don't have any criteria to choose between the two possibilities. Or maybe I've misunderstood you.
"(i) freewill is valued more highly than eliminating suffering as the negation of human induced suffering"
I disagree with this proposition. We as humans put people in jail or mental institutions to protect others - and rightly so.
"(ii) that suffering from natural causes is a result of the necessary functioning of the physical world."
Only if you ignore the possibility of divine intervention. That's the point of divine intervention isn't it? To overthrow the normal operation of the world.
"Such a response, while implying a creator God (I am still not sure where I am on that one) would imply a much lesser God (perhaps not even a God at all, but none the less a creator ??? my mind boggles a bit on this one) if we could readily demonstrate a better design."
Indeed. I don't claim to be able to design a better universe if I'm constrained to having it obey natural laws. If I was planning to be a loving God, I would ensure that I could override the natural laws when it was necessary to do so. I wouldn't do that if I was being a scientist God though. In that case, I'd set up the world to obey a set of laws and leave it to its own devices.
"I conclude that if we, or God, values freewill and experience then negative outcomes are a given."
Yes. I'm not saying that there should be no negative outcomes. I'm saying that we should see some clear and unmistakable examples of divine intervention.
"Plus there is the question of miracles that may alleviate the suffering on the fringes by endorsing those with good intentions."
There's certainly the question. It's strange that these always seem to come from anecdotal accounts and institutions which keep the evidence behind locked doors. That's certainly something I wouldn't expect if the evidence was caused by miracles.
"God should have designed a universe that he could micro manage to avoid us getting hurt."
No. He should manage the important bits.
"that would to me be a major design flaw attributable to a lesser God."
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying this because it would indicate that God had got the design wrong? I'd never expect God to get the design right unless he was omniscient.
"Besides this implies a frequent suspension of the laws of nature"
Yes.
"gravity only works when it won’t harm someone"
No. I'm just asking for suspension of the law in situations where it's a clear benefit.
"what about the situation when suspension of a law to avoid harm to one would simultaneously result in harm to another who is depending on the law"
It would have to be a localized effect - a minor exception to the general law rather than a complete suspension of that law.
"While the physical world contains dangers they are by and large avoidable"
My point exactly. God wouldn't need to suspend the laws in the cases where the dangers are avoidable.
"it would be arrogant in the extreme to claim as Christopher Hitchens seems to that he/we could have done a better job designing a universe."
It would be arrogant if he couldn't back up that claim. Did he indicate how he would improve the universe?
Peace, Neil.
Post a Comment