An overview of theism’s explanation of the problem of evil

[lightgigantic]

Critics of theistic philosophy, such as Wesley Salmon, are not particularly concerned with logical inconsistency within theism as much as they are with its implausible nature. For them, the problem remains not one of the illogical but whether theism can offer a reasonable explanation of evil.

Given that evil appears to exist in the world, Salmon has argued that “an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good god does not exist” has a much higher probability than the statement “An omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good god exists”.

Criticisms of this reasoning have been raised by Plantinga and Nancy Cartwright. Salmon has used mechanically created entities as a basis for his propositions, since it is clearly impossible for him (or for that matter, anyone else) to evaluate the situation of evil that appears in all divinely created universes. However by doing so he begs the question in advance. Namely, comparing this universe to a mechanical model insinuates that the universe has no divine origin. Furthermore, statistical techniques are not capable of approaching metaphysical issues (the existence of god, etc).

Not undaunted however, critics have rallied behind what could be the greatest objection against what is sometimes termed “natural evil” (or the evil that appears to be caused for no reason): Ok, so an evil may be required to exist under certain conditions, but how are we to understand evils that seem utterly meaningless or over the top? If an omniscient, all powerful, loving and reasonable god actually exists, certainly he would not allow for gratuitous evil. Advocates of theism suggest that no matter how severe an evil may appear, there is a purpose and/or ultimate benefit from it.

As opposed to allowing this argument to reach a stalemate, which would tend to lean in favour of the critics, some theists have conceded that god may indeed allow for gratuitous evil. Theists hope that this will weaken the above refutation

One simple approach is to indicate that evil is a necessary contrast to the good; without evil we would be bereft of the means to determine what is true goodness. A straight forward response is to suggest that a much smaller dose of evil would be sufficient to teach the same lesson. A further refutation is that evil is god’s punishment for the evil. As he rewards righteousness, he condemns the opposite. Fair enough, critics reply, but how may we explain the wholesale destruction of entire civilizations or the death of a new born baby?

Thinkers like Leibniz have entertained yet another view, that god deeply ruminated over the value of evil before creating the best of all possible worlds, and conclusively found that certain goods outweigh their corresponding evils. Critics have attacked Leibniz from many sides. First of all, the statement “best of all possible worlds” appears to be logically incoherent. How do we know that what we have here is the best of all possible worlds? Secondary, moral judgment dictates that we always aim and work to improve our world; Leibniz appears to deny this possibility. And finally, why did god bother to create a world at all if this is the best that could be done?

Yet another take on the problem of evil is “ultimate harmony”, which has two distinct approaches:
a) That all is well with the world from god’s perspective, or
b) That all will be well in the long run.
Those who support the first approach advocate that only an infinite, wise god can comprehend and determine ultimate good in the conglomerate of good and evil events, whereas we finite beings are unable. This approach is fallible on two accounts:
a) it frustrates the nature of human moral judgment, and
b) If the traditional Christian concept holds true that humans are made in the image of god, then it should also follow that reasonable moral judgments are not beyond humans.

A variant of the all’s well option is that since god’s morality is so much greater than ours we are unable to apply the same perfect moral judgment in evaluating events as god does. Once again, the weakness of this is that it underscores human moral judgment, and, since God’s morality is so much greater than ours, how could we ever comprehend it, let alone call upon it as a useful tool to solve the problem of evil? As J. S. Mill accurately concludes, taking the approach of higher divine morality suggests that one might as well abandon reason altogether.

Advocates of the alternative division of ultimate harmony (the all’s well that ends well persuasion) claim that all evils ultimately culminate in higher goods in the future, in this world or the next. This viewpoint is open to those attacks made against “ alls well in god’s sight”. But there are other specific criticisms as well. For example, how can future welfare be accurately evaluated to justify the present occurrence of related evils? It is quite a conceptual jump from Going from the notion of a good outweighing an evil is quite a conceptual jump, what to speak of the notion of a good justifying the existence of an evil. Those attempting to answer this refutation fall back on the mediocre response that we, as limited humans, will never be able to fully understand what god’s unlimited wisdom accomplishes.....

While there are quite a few solutions that address moral evil, there is one outstanding solution that specifically deals with the problem of natural evil. This natural law explanation establishes that god created a world that operates according to a certain predictable natural order, one that enables a moral order in which free choice allows humans the opportunity to make deliberations. But this natural system also accommodates natural evil. Critics such as H. J McCloskey argue that god could easily reduce or eliminate such natural evils by divine intervention or by creating a greatly improved alternative system. Richard Swinburne effectively counters that, saying that a natural order suggests god has no need to constantly intervene. On the whole, god has created a good and natural system that does not require the need of adjustment from outside

In short.....

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
-Sri Isopanisad

 

[greenberg]

Advocates of theism suggest that no matter how severe an evil may appear, there is a purpose and/or ultimate benefit from it.

Sure. But what advocates of theism need to show is that there is a purpose and/or ultimate benefit from evil for all involved.

And by this purpose and ultimate benefit I do not mean the sort of purpose and benefit like when the Nazis said it was for the Jew's own best purpose and benefit that they be tortured and executed in concentration camps.

To say something like "The purpose and ultimate benefit from evil is that God's Perfect Plan and Law would be carried out" is not enough to motivate people to act in accordance with what are purported to be the Plan and Law.
Advocates of theism, if they are to motivate people to act in accordance with the Plan and the Law, need to show people, each individual, what is in it for each individual, what benefit each individual may expect from acting a certain way as opposed to another.

 

[rjr6]

Are good and evil just perceptions?

 

[lightgigantic]

Rjr6

Are good and evil just perceptions?

If one accepts the arguments of Wesley Salmon, yes, that would be the logical conclusion .....

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Advocates of theism suggest that no matter how severe an evil may appear, there is a purpose and/or ultimate benefit from it. ”
Sure. But what advocates of theism need to show is that there is a purpose and/or ultimate benefit from evil for all involved.

And by this purpose and ultimate benefit I do not mean the sort of purpose and benefit like when the Nazis said it was for the Jew's own best purpose and benefit that they be tortured and executed in concentration camps.

To say something like "The purpose and ultimate benefit from evil is that God's Perfect Plan and Law would be carried out" is not enough to motivate people to act in accordance with what are purported to be the Plan and Law.
Advocates of theism, if they are to motivate people to act in accordance with the Plan and the Law, need to show people, each individual, what is in it for each individual, what benefit each individual may expect from acting a certain way as opposed to another.

Sure, when it comes to motivation nothing works as well (or as worse, depending on the impression) as personal example.
Salmon however is simply problematizing the issue of evil and religion, by suggesting there is no adequate explanation. Taking his claims to their logical conclusion empowers values along the lines of moral relativism and the views presented by others such as rjr6

 

[Simon Anders]

One simple approach is to indicate that evil is a necessary contrast to the good; without evil we would be bereft of the means to determine what is true goodness. A straight forward response is to suggest that a much smaller dose of evil would be sufficient to teach the same lesson. A further refutation is that evil is god’s punishment for the evil. As he rewards righteousness, he condemns the opposite. Fair enough, critics reply, but how may we explain the wholesale destruction of entire civilizations or the death of a new born baby?

A further potential problem is that philosophical categories seem to be limiting an almighty God. Couldn't God come up with a way to 'teach the same lesson' without having so much evil? Why was God's creativity bound here?

Thinkers like Leibniz have entertained yet another view, that god deeply ruminated over the value of evil before creating the best of all possible worlds, and conclusively found that certain goods outweigh their corresponding evils.

And again, God seems to be limited to a kind of 'best mix".

Yet another take on the problem of evil is “ultimate harmony”, which has two distinct approaches:
a) That all is well with the world from god’s perspective,

and of course, then, this 'all is well' would include dissatisfaction with 'the way things are' and no improvement is possible. Our attitudes being as much a part of the perfection as anything else. Even our 'negative ones'. There is no need for religion. Why fuss with perfection?

or
b) That all will be well in the long run.
Those who support the first approach advocate that only an infinite, wise god can comprehend and determine ultimate good in the conglomerate of good and evil events, whereas we finite beings are unable.

But we are capable of coming up with a theory that says we are not so smart AND we know this is true.

A variant of the all’s well option is that since god’s morality is so much greater than ours we are unable to apply the same perfect moral judgment in evaluating events as god does. Once again, the weakness of this is that it underscores human moral judgment, and, since God’s morality is so much greater than ours, how could we ever comprehend it, let alone call upon it as a useful tool to solve the problem of evil? As J. S. Mill accurately concludes, taking the approach of higher divine morality suggests that one might as well abandon reason altogether.

Mill did fine here.

Advocates of the alternative division of ultimate harmony (the all’s well that ends well persuasion) claim that all evils ultimately culminate in higher goods in the future, in this world or the next. This viewpoint is open to those attacks made against “ alls well in god’s sight”. But there are other specific criticisms as well. For example, how can future welfare be accurately evaluated to justify the present occurrence of related evils? It is quite a conceptual jump from Going from the notion of a good outweighing an evil is quite a conceptual jump, what to speak of the notion of a good justifying the existence of an evil. Those attempting to answer this refutation fall back on the mediocre response that we, as limited humans, will never be able to fully understand what god’s unlimited wisdom accomplishes.....

Which might be true but, it seems to me, is impossible to be certain about given its own assertions. It raises a possbility, but cannot really produce a reason to assume this possibility IS true, and that other reactions should be unlearned, suppressed or considered spiritually low.

While there are quite a few solutions that address moral evil, there is one outstanding solution that specifically deals with the problem of natural evil. This natural law explanation establishes that god created a world that operates according to a certain predictable natural order, one that enables a moral order in which free choice allows humans the opportunity to make deliberations. But this natural system also accommodates natural evil. Critics such as H. J McCloskey argue that god could easily reduce or eliminate such natural evils by divine intervention or by creating a greatly improved alternative system. Richard Swinburne effectively counters that, saying that a natural order suggests god has no need to constantly intervene. On the whole, god has created a good and natural system that does not require the need of adjustment from outside

In short.....

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
-Sri Isopanisad

So we humans can know that it is really OK, but we cannot be trusted when it comes to noticing problems.

 

[greenberg]

A further potential problem is that philosophical categories seem to be limiting an almighty God. Couldn't God come up with a way to 'teach the same lesson' without having so much evil? Why was God's creativity bound here?

Or why ours is. "Much" and "little" evil are matters of our own creativity and imagination.
Perhaps someone else would need or saw fit to inflict a lot more evil to teach the same lesson?

If, for example, you ever have been the recipient of selfish and unwise attempts to be helped, but also compassionate and wise attempts to be helped, then you will know first hand that the roundabout same thing can be accomplished with either a lot of effort and a lot of strain, or with a llittle effort and a little strain, and anything inbetween. On the one hand, there are people who are so selfish and so unskilled that they would end up killing someone whom they wish to help with a problem (witness parents who beat their children, for example); and then there are people who are wise and compassionate enough to be able to use a well-chosen and effective means to help with the same problem; and then there is evrything and everyone inbetween.

I think humans could have had it a lot worse here on Earth. We could all have nasty worms living inside of us, for example - many other living beings suffer from worm infestation. But I also think these arguments of degrees don't really lead anywhere - we could always argue "Why not with less evil?", no matter what treshold we'd set as "acceptable evil". So it comes down to the necessity of evil to begin with, and not the degree or extent of it. Other than if we of course wish to agree that there is a treshold of evil that we still find acceptable - but what would that treshold be, given that we generally wish to avoid evil and suffering altogether?

 

[Myles]

Why not conclude that god is an evil entity who organized things so that good can occasionally happen ?

 

[greenberg]

Why not conclude that god is an evil entity who organized things so that good can occasionally happen ?

This is a good question.

It ties in with the problem that just because we find something repugnant, does not mean it is not the truth.

 

[Simon Anders]

Or why ours is. "Much" and "little" evil are matters of our own creativity and imagination.
Perhaps someone else would need or saw fit to inflict a lot more evil to teach the same lesson?

If, for example, you ever have been the recipient of selfish and unwise attempts to be helped, but also compassionate and wise attempts to be helped, then you will know first hand that the roundabout same thing can be accomplished with either a lot of effort and a lot of strain, or with a llittle effort and a little strain, and anything inbetween. On the one hand, there are people who are so selfish and so unskilled that they would end up killing someone whom they wish to help with a problem (witness parents who beat their children, for example); and then there are people who are wise and compassionate enough to be able to use a well-chosen and effective means to help with the same problem; and then there is evrything and everyone inbetween.

I think humans could have had it a lot worse here on Earth. We could all have nasty worms living inside of us, for example - many other living beings suffer from worm infestation. But I also think these arguments of degrees don't really lead anywhere - we could always argue "Why not with less evil?", no matter what treshold we'd set as "acceptable evil". So it comes down to the necessity of evil to begin with, and not the degree or extent of it. Other than if we of course wish to agree that there is a treshold of evil that we still find acceptable - but what would that treshold be, given that we generally wish to avoid evil and suffering altogether?

I agree and you reasoned this out very clearly. It would have been better to have left out degree in my response.

 

[Simon Anders]

Why not conclude that god is an evil entity who organized things so that good can occasionally happen ?

In a sense a number of the larger organized religions strike me this way: A set of rules to be an effective sycophant to a megalomaniac dictator.

 

[Myles]

In a sense a number of the larger organized religions strike me this way: A set of rules to be an effective sycophant to a megalomaniac dictator.

My real point is this: All the arguments I have come across from Leibniz onwards are predicated on the notion that god is good and that there must a good reason why evil exists.

Leibniz talks of the best of all possible worlds; Voltaire took him to task, successfully in my opinion.

Another get-out clause is that if god picked us up every time we fell down we would be merely puppets. So it seems to follow that suffering/evil is the price we pay for having free will. This argument has serious flaws.

I am not free to will myself not to have cancer or other diseases.

Free will is of no avail when a volcano erupts, an earthquake occurs and so on.

Consequently I regard these as face-saving arguments of no substance.

If we agree there is evil in the world then it follows that it makes as much sense to talk of god as being evil as of being good . Theists will not accept this view because they have made their minds up that god is good. I have never heard a satisfactory explanation of why this is so.

Christians, in particular, have the irritating habit of praising god for what is good and blaming sinful man for what is evil. So, according to them natural disasters are in some way attributable to us, although it is not clear why.

I once asked a vicar whether a harvest festival had ever ben cancelled and he looked at me as if I had two heads. I suggested to him that if god is thanked for a good harvest , it makes little sense to thank him for a bad one. He said something to the effect that we should be grateful for god's bounty and that god knows what is best for us. Apparently there is some divine purpose in sending us a poor harvest but I have been unable to ascertain what such a purpose might be.

As an atheist, I do not have the problem of explaining away evil. I see both good and evil as part of the natural order.

 

[lightgigantic]

SimonAnders

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
One simple approach is to indicate that evil is a necessary contrast to the good; without evil we would be bereft of the means to determine what is true goodness. A straight forward response is to suggest that a much smaller dose of evil would be sufficient to teach the same lesson. A further refutation is that evil is god’s punishment for the evil. As he rewards righteousness, he condemns the opposite. Fair enough, critics reply, but how may we explain the wholesale destruction of entire civilizations or the death of a new born baby? ”
A further potential problem is that philosophical categories seem to be limiting an almighty God. Couldn't God come up with a way to 'teach the same lesson' without having so much evil? Why was God's creativity bound here?

Sure
Even a half skilled school teacher can achieve with merely raising their eyebrows what a buffalo herder cannot achieve even with a vocabulary of coarse words and a stick.
Even though this world is encapsulated by issues of birth, death, old age and disease, you can still see that bad times don’t visit everyone equally
“

Thinkers like Leibniz have entertained yet another view, that god deeply ruminated over the value of evil before creating the best of all possible worlds, and conclusively found that certain goods outweigh their corresponding evils. ”
And again, God seems to be limited to a kind of 'best mix".
“ Yet another take on the problem of evil is “ultimate harmony”, which has two distinct approaches:
a) That all is well with the world from god’s perspective, ”
and of course, then, this 'all is well' would include dissatisfaction with 'the way things are' and no improvement is possible. Our attitudes being as much a part of the perfection as anything else. Even our 'negative ones'. There is no need for religion. Why fuss with perfection?

if we want to discuss a god that is the cause of all causes, and, given our inherent limitations (imperfect senses, subject to illusion etc etc) , it stands to reason that we would expect him to be in our image
“

or
b) That all will be well in the long run.
Those who support the first approach advocate that only an infinite, wise god can comprehend and determine ultimate good in the conglomerate of good and evil events, whereas we finite beings are unable. ”
But we are capable of coming up with a theory that says we are not so smart AND we know this is true.

I’m not sure how that would impact on understanding the nature of god and his role in the universe ... unless one insists on determining his capacity in light of determining ours ....
“

A variant of the all’s well option is that since god’s morality is so much greater than ours we are unable to apply the same perfect moral judgment in evaluating events as god does. Once again, the weakness of this is that it underscores human moral judgment, and, since God’s morality is so much greater than ours, how could we ever comprehend it, let alone call upon it as a useful tool to solve the problem of evil? As J. S. Mill accurately concludes, taking the approach of higher divine morality suggests that one might as well abandon reason altogether. ”
Mill did fine here.

Sure
Hence all these antecedent theistic arguments have some problems
“

Advocates of the alternative division of ultimate harmony (the all’s well that ends well persuasion) claim that all evils ultimately culminate in higher goods in the future, in this world or the next. This viewpoint is open to those attacks made against “ alls well in god’s sight”. But there are other specific criticisms as well. For example, how can future welfare be accurately evaluated to justify the present occurrence of related evils? It is quite a conceptual jump from Going from the notion of a good outweighing an evil is quite a conceptual jump, what to speak of the notion of a good justifying the existence of an evil. Those attempting to answer this refutation fall back on the mediocre response that we, as limited humans, will never be able to fully understand what god’s unlimited wisdom accomplishes..... ”
Which might be true but, it seems to me, is impossible to be certain about given its own assertions. It raises a possbility, but cannot really produce a reason to assume this possibility IS true, and that other reactions should be unlearned, suppressed or considered spiritually low.

“

While there are quite a few solutions that address moral evil, there is one outstanding solution that specifically deals with the problem of natural evil. This natural law explanation establishes that god created a world that operates according to a certain predictable natural order, one that enables a moral order in which free choice allows humans the opportunity to make deliberations. But this natural system also accommodates natural evil. Critics such as H. J McCloskey argue that god could easily reduce or eliminate such natural evils by divine intervention or by creating a greatly improved alternative system. Richard Swinburne effectively counters that, saying that a natural order suggests god has no need to constantly intervene. On the whole, god has created a good and natural system that does not require the need of adjustment from outside

In short.....

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
-Sri Isopanisad ”
So we humans can know that it is really OK, but we cannot be trusted when it comes to noticing problems.

More like, if there is some problem, it’s an inside job ... kind of like humans cannot be trusted when they blame god for problems

 

[Simon Anders]

I’m not sure how that would impact on understanding the nature of god and his role in the universe ... unless one insists on determining his capacity in light of determining ours ....

I think the second person plural in the above is problematic. We are often told that 'we' cannot understand why the problem of evil does not reflect in any way on the perfection of God or is not really a problem. We are told this by people who obviously think they do understand. These people expect us to trust our own intuition that they know better than we do. Or that they have the inside track. We are asked to radically not trust ourselves in the same breath we are asked to radically trust ourselves.

“

More like, if there is some problem, it’s an inside job ... kind of like humans cannot be trusted when they blame god for problems

But they can be trusted when they blame humans and they can be trusted when they say the problems are not really problems and they can be trusted when they say that they know and know where others 'are' spiritually given their reactions to evil and injustice.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

My real point is this: All the arguments I have come across from Leibniz onwards are predicated on the notion that god is good and that there must a good reason why evil exists.

Actually Leibniz’s (somewhat erroneous IMHO) contribution is the suggestion of this being the best of all possible worlds

Leibniz talks of the best of all possible worlds; Voltaire took him to task, successfully in my opinion.

Another get-out clause is that if god picked us up every time we fell down we would be merely puppets. So it seems to follow that suffering/evil is the price we pay for having free will. This argument has serious flaws.

I am not free to will myself not to have cancer or other diseases

Free will is of no avail when a volcano erupts, an earthquake occurs and so on.
.

Assuming this is the best of all possible worlds of course. Kind of like if a prisoner is in jail and they somehow think that that is the best of all possible worlds, it’s kind of difficult to rationalize why they are then stuck behind bars. Of course not everyone is stuck behind ... in fact most people aren’t ... in the same way this world functions like a prison.

Consequently I regard these as face-saving arguments of no substance.

It appears that you are still working within the framework of Leibniz’s premise of this being the best of all possible worlds. If one insists on using that, then I would agree that the proposition has many problems.

If we agree there is evil in the world then it follows that it makes as much sense to talk of god as being evil as of being good .

If a person was to judge the value of society at large solely and wholly from their experience from a 25 year jail sentence, it would probably result in some misshapened conclusions.

Theists will not accept this view because they have made their minds up that god is good. I have never heard a satisfactory explanation of why this is so.

Or alternatively atheists (or perhaps more accurately, materialists who have accepted that the ultimate purpose of this world is to grant them their conception of personal happiness) accept this view because they have made up their mind that the goodness of this world lies in being the pinnacle of opportunity for fulfilling what their senses dictate. I mean just suppose that a person is facing a 25 year jail sentence and it never occurs to them that they are facing a form of retribution for their misanthropic tendencies “wow free rent! Cool!” ... I mean you would have to wonder ...

Christians, in particular, have the irritating habit of praising god for what is good and blaming sinful man for what is evil. So, according to them natural disasters are in some way attributable to us, although it is not clear why.

Why isn’t it clear?

I once asked a vicar whether a harvest festival had ever ben cancelled and he looked at me as if I had two heads. I suggested to him that if god is thanked for a good harvest , it makes little sense to thank him for a bad one. He said something to the effect that we should be grateful for god's bounty and that god knows what is best for us. Apparently there is some divine purpose in sending us a poor harvest but I have been unable to ascertain what such a purpose might be.

Well that’s an easy one to answer

BG 3.14 All living bodies subsist on food grains, which are produced from rains. Rains are produced by performance of yajna [sacrifice], and yajna is born of prescribed duties.

IOW the world is only too willing to reciprocate with humans who act in ways that act impiously. Generally, due to their own misfortune, the living entity (over the space of several lifetimes) vacillates between pursuing piety (especially in the face of a shortage of requirements) and spending such a stockpile of piety in pursuing impiety (especially in the face of an over abundance of requirements)

As an atheist, I do not have the problem of explaining away evil. I see both good and evil as part of the natural order.

Ok, so you get a promotion that triples your income, you get your third consecutive Nobel prize, your daughter receives a dozen Olympic gold medals and marries a man who discovered the cure for AIDS and your wife is attentive, sensitive and supportive of your every need, desire and ambition ... how does this natural order of things help you solve the problem of goodness (why are all these things happening to you?)
And, alternatively, assuming that you don’t sit by drinking a cup of tea, your house burns down, your wife runs off with the corporate head manager (your boss ... who subsequently fires you) and takes 85% of your assets in the divorce settlement, and your now famous daughter writes an internationally acclaimed autobiography which is mostly dedicated to clearly and convincingly establishing how you are a first class asshole, and you have just been diagnosed with cancer and have 2 months to live.... how does this help you solve the problem of evil?

 

[lightgigantic]

I think the second person plural in the above is problematic. We are often told that 'we' cannot understand why the problem of evil does not reflect in any way on the perfection of God or is not really a problem. We are told this by people who obviously think they do understand. These people expect us to trust our own intuition that they know better than we do. Or that they have the inside track. We are asked to radically not trust ourselves in the same breath we are asked to radically trust ourselves.

“
But they can be trusted when they blame humans and they can be trusted when they say the problems are not really problems and they can be trusted when they say that they know and know where others 'are' spiritually given their reactions to evil and injustice.

the issue of trust (in either case of either for or against) coalesces around what believes the purpose of the world to be for.

If one believes that this world exists to facilitate by ambitions for personal independent enjoyment, then they will trust certain persons claims and distrust others. Formulating the above premise (about the purpose of the world) is not theistically sound, so it tends to prealign one to a particular paradigm.

 

[greenberg]

the issue of trust (in either case of either for or against) coalesces around what believes the purpose of the world to be for.

If one believes that this world exists to facilitate by ambitions for personal independent enjoyment, then they will trust certain persons claims and distrust others. Formulating the above premise (about the purpose of the world) is not theistically sound, so it tends to prealign one to a particular paradigm.

"This world exists to facilitate God's happiness, even at the cost of the happiness of living beings. In order for God to be happy, some or all living beings must be kept unhappy. This is all right and moral because God organized it so, as God is always right and moral by definition. God is free to torture me in hell for all eternity and I must be content with that. And it's not torture, either, because God wouldn't do anything immoral. It's just my selfishness perceiving it as torture."

- This is my underlying understanding that I have been conditioned into.

 

[Myles]

Snakelord


Actually Leibniz’s (somewhat erroneous IMHO) contribution is the suggestion of this being the best of all possible worlds

Leibniz talks of the best of all possible worlds; Voltaire took him to task, successfully in my opinion.

Another get-out clause is that if god picked us up every time we fell down we would be merely puppets. So it seems to follow that suffering/evil is the price we pay for having free will. This argument has serious flaws.

I am not free to will myself not to have cancer or other diseases

Free will is of no avail when a volcano erupts, an earthquake occurs and so on.
.




It appears that you are still working within the framework of Leibniz’s premise of this being the best of all possible worlds. If one insists on using that, then I would agree that the proposition has many problems.


If a person was to judge the value of society at large solely and wholly from their experience from a 25 year jail sentence, it would probably result in some misshapened conclusions.


Or alternatively atheists (or perhaps more accurately, materialists who have accepted that the ultimate purpose of this world is to grant them their conception of personal happiness) accept this view because they have made up their mind that the goodness of this world lies in being the pinnacle of opportunity for fulfilling what their senses dictate. I mean just suppose that a person is facing a 25 year jail sentence and it never occurs to them that they are facing a form of retribution for their misanthropic tendencies “wow free rent! Cool!” ... I mean you would have to wonder ...


Why isn’t it clear?


Well that’s an easy one to answer

BG 3.14 All living bodies subsist on food grains, which are produced from rains. Rains are produced by performance of yajna [sacrifice], and yajna is born of prescribed duties.

IOW the world is only too willing to reciprocate with humans who act in ways that act impiously. Generally, due to their own misfortune, the living entity (over the space of several lifetimes) vacillates between pursuing piety (especially in the face of a shortage of requirements) and spending such a stockpile of piety in pursuing impiety (especially in the face of an over abundance of requirements)



Ok, so you get a promotion that triples your income, you get your third consecutive Nobel prize, your daughter receives a dozen Olympic gold medals and marries a man who discovered the cure for AIDS and your wife is attentive, sensitive and supportive of your every need, desire and ambition ... how does this natural order of things help you solve the problem of goodness (why are all these things happening to you?)
And, alternatively, assuming that you don’t sit by drinking a cup of tea, your house burns down, your wife runs off with the corporate head manager (your boss ... who subsequently fires you) and takes 85% of your assets in the divorce settlement, and your now famous daughter writes an internationally acclaimed autobiography which is mostly dedicated to clearly and convincingly establishing how you are a first class asshole, and you have just been diagnosed with cancer and have 2 months to live.... how does this help you solve the problem of evil?

You have erroneously attributed my post to Snakelord.

I am aware that Leibniz spoke of god creating the best of all possible worlds. I have read his argument and one cannot mistake who Pangloss is meant to represent in Candide. I don't know how you conclude that I am working within Leibniz's framework. I would have thought from my post shows I reject it as I do all other futile attempts to explain away evil.

Your reply makes my point for me. You can only address the problem by way of analogy. What is the relevance of your example of the world being viewed from jail. You are making assumptions about some kind of limitations which prevent us from seeing what you would call the truth. But you have given us no grounds why this is so, other than your personal belief.

To be brutally honest, it is a waste of time addressing the rest of your post in any detail. You rely on ridiculous analogies to support what you have decided must be true. That is what I attacked earlier, the fact that assumptions are made about god's atributes and arguments concocted to support those assumptions.

You have said nothing to show that the god you believe in is not evil. Go talk about materialism to the millions of people dying in Africa. Pop down to New Orleans and explain that god was not responsible for the horrific floods. Tell mothers of still-born children that god is love. The list is endless.

You are fond of quoting the BG and it is clear why this is so. Your quotation is yet another metaphor. Now, there's a surprise !

So, if you have nothing better to offer , don't waste your time or mine posting more garbage. You might like to explain , by analogy of course. why people like you are unable to understand why god is evil.

 

[Myles]

"This world exists to facilitate God's happiness, even at the cost of the happiness of living beings. In order for God to be happy, some or all living beings must be kept unhappy. This is all right and moral because God organized it so, as God is always right and moral by definition. God is free to torture me in hell for all eternity and I must be content with that. And it's not torture, either, because God wouldn't do anything immoral. It's just my selfishness perceiving it as torture."

- This is my underlying understanding that I have been conditioned into.

And don't forget what he said about ambition. Not to want cancer or some other dreadful disease is the worst form of ambition because it is personal. Not to want to see others suffering is equally bad because you are inadvertantly questioning god's wisdom in visiting it upon them.

 

[Myles]

"This world exists to facilitate God's happiness, even at the cost of the happiness of living beings. In order for God to be happy, some or all living beings must be kept unhappy. This is all right and moral because God organized it so, as God is always right and moral by definition. God is free to torture me in hell for all eternity and I must be content with that. And it's not torture, either, because God wouldn't do anything immoral. It's just my selfishness perceiving it as torture."

- This is my underlying understanding that I have been conditioned into.

And don't forget what he said about ambition. Not to want cancer or some other dreadful disease is the worst form of ambition because it is personal. Not to want to see others suffering is equally bad because you are questioning god's wisdom in visiting it upon them.