The problem of evil that isn't

[VeritasLuxMea]

Originally Posted by sw85

From a Catholic blogger and worthy read (http://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/theodicy/); submitted for your thoughts and discussion:



This post neatly captures some of my own thoughts re: the "problem of evil," which I've always felt was an exercise in monstrous hubris.

"If I were God, I would do things just so; things are not just so; therefore, there is no God. Get it? Because if God existed, He'd be just like me. Because I'm so great."

Sure ya are, slick.

If we cannot make moral judgments, then he has just introduced a much larger problem.

[VeritasLuxMea]

Originally Posted by sw85

It's not intended to answer the question. In fact it endorses the Church's stance -- that it's a mystery, i.e., it is a question to which an answer exists but which we are incapable of discerning because of our own limitations. If it's a mystery, though, it's definitely not a problem,

I absolutely love the "mystery" excuse!

My view is that the problem of evil is a problem. That view is correct. Why? It's a mystery.

I also apply it to my personal life. Why was I late for work? It's a mystery! I didn't answer your question? What do you mean? I already told you it's a mystery!

The mystery approach is so spectacular that you can make anything into truth!

[VeritasLuxMea]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Further, these people who use the "problem of evil" always end up sounding like they're whining, complaining about their life, or motivated primarily by emotion and not reason. For all of these reasons I detest the "problem of evil argument."

Yes, we're all whiners and complainers. "We" includes a millennium of Christian philosophers that have struggled to make peace with the problem of evil.

[capoly]

Originally Posted by sw85

The hubris is in the thinking that you know exactly how much suffering is "necessary," so that you can judge that the present level of suffering is "unnecessary" and thus evidence of a contradiction in the Christian theological system.

Nonsense. We do not need any kind of omniscience to know that throwing a toddler into a furnace or seeing innumerable animals perish in an earthquake are unnecessary sufferings. The toddler will simply burn to death. If you attempt to explain away this suffering by saying that MAYBE that toddler will be "reimbursed" in heaven, then think again. The "maybe reimbursement" is not logically dependent upon the prior suffering. The "greater good" defense is only possible if

1) the prior suffering is logically necessary for the greater good to materialize, and
2) the suffering cannot be lessened, because even a miniscule lessening would render the "greater good" impossible.

Obviously there was no "good" coming out of the Holocaust - which could be used to justify it. And even if there was, you would have to prove that if only one person would have avoided the death camps, that "nebulous" good could not have happened. Good luck trying that. You just introduced a thinly veiled attempt called "argument from ignorance" mixed with "special pleading". Two fallacies in one post. Congratulations. We always make judgment called based upon the available evidence. If all the evidence shows that there is "unnecessary" suffering, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then the only possible, rational verdict is that the suffering was unnecessary.

[Sailor Kenshin]

Originally Posted by capoly

Nonsense. We do not need any kind of omniscience to know that throwing a toddler into a furnace or seeing innumerable animals perish in an earthquake are unnecessary sufferings. The toddler will simply burn to death. If you attempt to explain away this suffering by saying that MAYBE that toddler will be "reimbursed" in heaven, then think again. The "maybe reimbursement" is not logically dependent upon the prior suffering. The "greater good" defense is only possible if

1) the prior suffering is logically necessary for the greater good to materialize, and
2) the suffering cannot be lessened, because even a miniscule lessening would render the "greater good" impossible.

Obviously there was no "good" coming out of the Holocaust - which could be used to justify it. And even if there was, you would have to prove that if only one person would have avoided the death camps, that "nebulous" good could not have happened. Good luck trying that. You just introduced a thinly veiled attempt called "argument from ignorance" mixed with "special pleading". Two fallacies in one post. Congratulations. We always make judgment called based upon the available evidence. If all the evidence shows that there is "unnecessary" suffering, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then the only possible, rational verdict is that the suffering was unnecessary.

Equating animals dying from a natural disaster with a toddler being thrown into a furnace.


Calibrated.

[capoly]

Originally Posted by Sailor kenshin

Equating animals dying from a natural disaster with a toddler being thrown into a furnace.

Calibrated.

There is no "equating" here. However, both are examples of unnecessary suffering. Both are examples of such suffering, even if there is some difference. From the idea of a benevolent deity it would follow that only necessary suffering would be allowed - where "necessary" means "logically necessary". In other words, even God's alleged omnipotence cannot find a way to achieve that nebulous greater good without imposing the said suffering.

Of course the apologists never attempt to point out what these "assumed" greater goods would be, and how the suffering would lead to them. Big surprise there. It is all empty fluff of words, without substance. No wonder that the problem of evil is alive and well, and it will never get a satisfactory answer. All the apologists can do is sweep it under the rug. Pitiful, really.

[PioYapJr]

If a god exists who agrees with everything that I believe, specially with my idea of what to do with evil, then he is not God. He is me!

[Sailor Kenshin]

Originally Posted by capoly

There is no "equating" here. However, both are examples of unnecessary suffering. Both are examples of such suffering, even if there is some difference. From the idea of a benevolent deity it would follow that only necessary suffering would be allowed - where "necessary" means "logically necessary". In other words, even God's alleged omnipotence cannot find a way to achieve that nebulous greater good without imposing the said suffering.

Of course the apologists never attempt to point out what these "assumed" greater goods would be, and how the suffering would lead to them. Big surprise there. It is all empty fluff of words, without substance. No wonder that the problem of evil is alive and well, and it will never get a satisfactory answer. All the apologists can do is sweep it under the rug. Pitiful, really.

So is this.


I agree with PioYapJr. Better minds than mine OR yours (Fr. Barron, Dinesh D'souza--only a couple of examples) have wrestled with this problem; why do you not avail yourself of their easily-attainable works?

Calibrated, to the tenth power.

[capoly]

Originally Posted by Sailor Kenshin

Better minds than mine OR yours (Fr. Barron, Dinesh D'souza--only a couple of examples) have wrestled with this problem; why do you not avail yourself of their easily-attainable works?

That is not an answer. At the bare miminum I would have expected the admission that the two problems I presented do not "equate" the seriousness of the two events, they are simply two, unrelated problems. But that would have necessitated a certain level of intellectual honesty. Rest assured, tons of books have been written on the "problem of evil" and none of them presents a viable solution. All the different approaches can be summed up in a few sentences, pointing out just how ridiculous the attempts are. Here you can read them: have fun with it