The "problem" of evil

This "problem" is one of religion's own making. It boils down to the question "why does an all-loving god permit evil and suffering?"

For atheists the answer is simple: as there is no god, no one "permits" evil or suffering. It's all a result of many factors, developments, evolution, natural law, conditions, etc.

But in religion, by the invention of an all-loving god, there is a problem. One that has never been adequately answered.

I offer my own solution: An all-loving god would not permit either evil or suffering. Therefore the Biblical god is not omnibenevolent as claimed.

In fact, if we take the depiction of Jehovah as set in the Bible, he comes across as rather willing to engage in evil and to make people suffer all on his own. He's a jealous deity, is he not, carrying out punishment "unto the fourth generation." This means if you piss him off, he won't just take it out on you, but on your children, your children's children, and your children's children's children.

Let's not forget the fact he once was so afraid of a bunch of primitives invading his domain, he messed severely with their minds. Or that time when he chose to drown every man, woman, child and animal, save for whatever Noah and his family could fit into a boat (and if you believe that, I've this bridge and tower I'd be willing to sell). Or the time he massacred Egyptian children on account of their ruler. Among many other things. And if he's real, recall he sat out bloodbaths like the two World Wars, the USCW, the Holocaust, the Crusades, etc. Perhaps he was enjoying the show? Seeing how well his creation learned their lesson in evil and sadism?

Fortunately for us, this monster is not real.

Who gets to define evil and suffering? One mans suffering is another mans pleasure.

Quote: pew

Who gets to define evil and suffering? One mans suffering is another mans pleasure.

How many people go to great lengths to get bone cancer so they can feel its pleasures? How many hope their loved ones will get it, so they'll have the pleasure of seeing them slowly and painfully waste away and die.

Quote: Nareed

It boils down to the question "why does an all-loving god permit evil and suffering?"

The book of "Job" has no known author. Conservative Christianity says it is the oldest book in the bible (being written in 3500 years ago). Some modern scholars tend to think that date is a thousand years too old.

One of the reasons conservative Christians like to think of it as the oldest book in the Bible, is because it's theme is seen as the most basic one facing theologians, "why do good people suffer?".

Quote: Pacomartin

The book of "Job" has no known author.

I fail to see any relevance or significance to it. While it may contain good poetic composition, it explains nothing, proves noting, and leaves Jehovah showing as much concern, compassion and empathy for Job as we'd have for an ant we decided to experiment on.

The problem of evil is not simple for anyone atheists or theists.

For atheists the first problem is to define evil. If the majority of people think that things like slavery or genocide is a good idea where do we get the notion that they are wrong and that the act is objectively evil. Are we to say that people or a culture is wrong even if they subjectively feel this is best for their society? Who are we to impose our notions of "evil" on another culture? If we agree that there is an objective nature of evil that would state that killing innocents is evil no matter what a certain culture or people believed then where does this objective truth come from and how can it apply to all people?

Another problem for atheists is the unresolved evil and the lack of justice in the world. If there is objective evil and such things are done and the tyrants and people who preform such acts remain unpunished or do not face justice what are we to do? It would be of the upmost concern to a caring atheist to pursue with all the possible effort we can muster to make sure innocent children are not sold into sex slavery or go without food. If this world and our life is truly all we have no atheist would have any excuse for not making their entire lives dedicated to the establishment of a just society where evil doers are punished and the innocent suffering are protected. This is of course also of the upmost concern for theists as well, but it is puzzling why theists are far and away doing more to educate, protect, speak out for, and correct the evil of the world. Why is that? Wouldn't an atheist be sickened by the notion that some people would suffer their whole lives without any retribution or justice while those who commit evil are left scot free to enjoy the worldly pleasures of this world without any semblance of justice to punish their actions?

In some ways the problem of evil can seem much more easier for theists to explain. God has given us all free will so that we can truly love God and our neighbor. To remove this free will is to create robots incapable of true love. However, free will means that we have the same radical freedom of God Himself. We can and do abuse that freedom in selfish concern and greed and pride and the result is the evil we see in the world. To eliminate evil is to eradicate the possibility of love.

It is also not as if God has given us this freedom and not given us any help to use it properly. You cannot read the Bible and not see God's efforts to teach us the reality of sin leads to destruction and death. In every instance of cruel slavery and rampant sin God sends prophets and saints to warn the people over and over that this type of behavior will not be tolerated and must be stopped. In every instance when people so lost to the ways of evil ignore, persecute, or kill these prophets God punishes the evil doers dramatically. The reality of sin is that often innocents, while mitigated by the mercy of God, are also effected by evil and its worldly punishment. However, God makes it clear that the innocent and just evil those killed by evil men and their aftermath are promised ultimate justice, peace, and happiness forever while those who were the cause of evil also receive ultimate justice and have eternally separated them from God who is love, life, and joy. This seems like a much more sane and reasonable answer to the problem of evil than anything an atheist could ever come up with.

However, the problem of evil gets difficult for theists in other ways. First, what about the evil that we experience that is not directly caused by abuse of man's freedom. Secondly, what about the magnitude of evil. It seems in the view of things like Stalin or the Holocaust that the scales tip too far in the favor of evil and one wonders if we would not learn our lesson with a few innocent deaths followed by a surprise stroke or heart attack for the perpetrators of such evil to stop them before such heinous things could be accomplished.

In regards to the first problem for theists I am always struck by an experience I had during mission work in El Salvador. The poor farmers are forced to grow their crops and coffee on the hillsides of mountains because they are not allowed to farm the good land owned by the wealthy that remains often unfarmed and for extravagance. I spoke once about natural disasters and was interrupted by a woman who shouted that there was no such things as "natural" disasters. She went on to say if the corrupt policies of the government and the wealthy did not force them to farm and live on the unstable mountainsides subject to devastating mudslides then they would not endure such tragedy. We don't have to build homes on mountainsides and in areas subject to flooding, but most often the people who are forced to are those who are poor who cannot afford houses on stilts or who can make houses that can withstand earthquakes. It has always stuck with me.

In regards to the second problem for theists it seems clear in the Scriptures that God is teaching us through His interventions. As the Bible progresses such radical and needed interventions like we see in the flood (clearly not a historical reality, but a good lesson), in Egypt, in the taking of the Holy Land and fighting against worldly powers lessens leading us to the revelation of Jesus Christ. Here is God's ultimate intervention taking all evil upon Himself and suffering death. From His Resurrection we receive the ultimate victory of love over evil. From this moment we only need to recall the crucifixion of God's only begotten Son to know that evil will always be overcome even when it seems all hope is dead. With the Resurrected Christ we can overcome the worst that evil can do to us with the confidence to know that even in the face of things like the Holocaust God is not silent and good is not defeated.

Quote: FrGamble

For atheists the first problem is to define evil. If the majority of people think that things like slavery or genocide is a good idea where do we get the notion that they are wrong and that the act is objectively evil. Are we to say that people or a culture is wrong even if they subjectively feel this is best for their society? Who are we to impose our notions of "evil" on another culture? If we agree that there is an objective nature of evil that would state that killing innocents is evil no matter what a certain culture or people believed then where does this objective truth come from and how can it apply to all people?

You can reach many objectives by looking at loss/gain. Let's say it is fair for everyone to engage in stealing. However this is offset by discomfort of constantly being on guard, and needing to protect your stuff. Even the strong knew they would be weak eventually.

So, without defining objective evil, it is easier to conclude that everyone should not steal for the benefit of everyone.

The problem of not everyone agreeing is not resolved any better with gods than without. This is easy to prove.

More later.

Quote: FrGamble

For atheists the first problem is to define evil. If the majority of people think that things like slavery or genocide is a good idea where do we get the notion that they are wrong and that the act is objectively evil. .

Having read this far, I invoke the rotten egg clause. "I don't have to eat the whole egg to know it's rotten." When you start with such a blatantly false premise, namely that atheists do not and cannot have morals, what's the point of reading further?

Quote: Nareed

Having read this far, I invoke the rotten egg clause. "I don't have to eat the whole egg to know it's rotten." When you start with such a blatantly false premise, namely that atheists do not and cannot have morals, what's the point of reading further?

Please tell me how you get from the above that atheists do not and cannot have morals? Atheists do have morals, very good morals, we as human beings do. The problem for atheists is where these morals come from and how to deal with people or cultures that have different morals than yourself.

If I invoked the rotten egg clause the way you have applied it I would never read anything you write. However, I hold my nose and discover often some excellent points that challenge and help me to think about things in a different way. It often turns out that you are not writing rotten eggs but something more akin to Gorgonzola that stinks at first but is worth reading.

Quote: rxwine

You can reach many objectives by looking at loss/gain. Let's say it is fair for everyone to engage in stealing. However this is offset by discomfort of constantly being on guard, and needing to protect your stuff. Even the strong knew they would be weak eventually.

So, without defining objective evil, it is easier to conclude that everyone should not steal for the benefit of everyone.

This seems very precarious type of morality. It seems to allow a certain balance that is hard to maintain. Some stealing then would be permissible as long as it doesn't offset the comfort of the society. I think this type of morality would be a dream for those who are in power or a ruling class who could easily steal from a certain group of people while making it socially unacceptable to steal from another class of people. This would keep the powerful or the majority from feeling the discomfort you reference while allowing them to continue to mistreat and steal from minorities.