Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
- dsm
- Biostatistician, Biology and Philosophy Faculty, Lacrosse Addict
Posts
10 comments:
There is a problem that has had caused people to question their faith in western religions for centuries. The difficulty is the problem of evil and how it fits in the natural world and how this relates to our relationship with God. The problem of evil is this: if there is a loving and just God that wants what is best for the human race, how can there possibly be so much evil and suffering in the world? This is a valid reason to doubt that a western or “Christian” God exists because the western religions assume that God is all knowing, all-powerful and completely moral and good. If God is all knowing he surely knows of all the evil humans do to other humans (moral evil) and of all the suffering that is caused by that type of evil. He must also know that there is a lot of suffering caused by natural disasters (natural evil) that men have no control over. If God is all-powerful he could do something about evil and if he is loving and good it seems he would want to do something about it. It is a contradiction that God and evil both exist in our world. Therefore, because there obviously is moral evil and natural evil in the world some people would argue that God must not exist.
There are several rebuttals or responses to this argument. The first denies that suffering is real. I think it is ridiculous that someone would try to say suffering is not real. I can understand why this argument is not taken seriously. The next three rebuttals try to make sense of suffering. The first is an analogy comparing God to a parent that understands that we, his children, are suffering. This rebuttal says there is a reason for our suffering that we cannot possibly understand but God knows the reason we must suffer. The answering argument to this rebuttal makes sense. If all the beauty and good in the world is reflective of God and his nature, then why aren’t all the ugliness and evil in the world also reflective of God’s nature? The second of the three (make sense of suffering) rebuttals is known as the counterpoint theory. I think of this as the two sides of a coin theory. You cannot have just one side of a coin or you can’t have heads without tails. In other words you can’t have good without evil or right without wrong and of course you can’t have true happiness without true suffering. At first this seems like it makes sense, after all maybe we can’t truly appreciate the good in life with out having the bad to compare it to. The only problem with this theory is that some people never experience happiness their whole life. They know nothing but suffering and still they understand that they are suffering. Besides we would not need the great amount of suffering evident in the world today to appreciate happiness. A small amount of suffering would be plenty to understand the difference. The last of the (make sense of suffering) rebuttals has to do with virtues. It says that without suffering there would not be the wonderful virtues of compassion, empathy, forgiveness and sympathy. Since God wanted us to have virtues he allowed suffering. The problem with the virtue explanation is that virtues are not good all on their own. They are only needed to help people deal with evil and suffering in the world. That makes virtues a circular argument.
There is one more rebuttal against the argument that God must not exist along with all the evil in the world. This last rebuttal is a big one and I think it makes the most sense. God wanted us to have the ability or free will to choose between right and wrong. We couldn’t possibly have free will without moral evil because there will always be some people that will freely choose to do wrong. I think this is a great defense but it has some big problems because there are just so many awful things happening in the world and so much suffering. This defense only covers moral evil it does not account for all the suffering caused by natural evil. There is also the argument that maybe God should have given us a little less freedom if it meant less suffering in the world. One other point is why doesn’t God make people that are better, people that would choose right more often than wrong?
There is one more, huge problem with the free will argument. If God is all knowing than he knows what decision we will make before we make it. Since he already knows if we will choose to do right or wrong, do we really have free will in the first place? This is a paradox that makes it easier to understand why people would argue that a “Christian” God must not exist. Thinking through all of the arguments for and against God and evil co-existing is enough to make your head hurt. After puzzling over them and how they affect my faith, I have to say that I still believe in God. I have always thought that the western religions understood God very differently than I do. I think they try to make God easily understandable by making God like men in many ways. In conclusion I don’t believe that God can be a traditional “Christian” God.
Works Cited:
Martin, Suzanne. Philosophy 101. Dept.of Philosophy, Gateway Community College,March 2009.Web.8 March 2009.
Position Paper #6
The argument against Theism, often supported by Atheists and Agnostics, poses the question; If God is good and embodies omniscience and is omnipotent, why is there evil in the world? If God were all knowing and all-powerful why wouldn’t He prevent suffering or evil? Therefore, because there is evil in the world, the argument concludes that an omnipotent, omniscient God could not exist.
The basis for the argument is that God and evil cannot co-exist. The premise is that God, as an omnipotent God, would eradicate evil, but since evil and suffering does exist, God must not exist.
The first response to this argument is to deny the existence of suffering or evil, which is not plausible. Evil and suffering are all around us in the world. There is moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is what ensues from man’s wrong choices. Natural evil would be considered natural disasters and consequences from natural events.
A second response would be to challenge the inconsistencies between God and evil. One way to address this is the Parent Analogy. The allowance of evil with the existence of God is pictured in the analogy of a parent with a child. As a parent would allow the child to suffer, in a controlled manner, that they may learn from and prevent further suffering, so would God allow His creation to suffer so as to prevent more devastating suffering. This rebuttal addresses how suffering or evil can co-exist with God, but does not give much support as to why there is evil and suffering in the world.
There are two objections to the Parental Analogy. One is that parents do not posses omnipotent, omniscient traits. The other is that if all that is good is the reflection of the nature of God, since God does exist, then why does not evil reflect the nature of God?
The Parent Analogy leaves the question of ‘What is the purpose of suffering?’ to be answered. The Counterpart Theory tries to give an answer to that question. Good cannot exist without evil. It contends that opposite values enhance the knowledge and understanding of the values of compassion, sympathy, forgiveness and the like. An objection to this theory would be; how much suffering is needed to know the concept of suffering, or is suffering required at all in order that one may know that it exists.
The third rebuttal dealing with the question of the purpose of suffering is the argument that since God wanted people to have virtues such a s compassion and sympathy, He allows suffering to exist. Those opposed to this argument say that such virtues are only good as a tool to help people to cope with suffering. The reasoning being, there would be no need for these virtues if there were no suffering.
In the argument against Theism is the Freewill defense. Because people have a free will, people choose to do evil, but a world that is free is better than one that does not allow choice. Therefore God created the best possible world wherein people sometimes choose to do evil. This argument specifically addresses moral evil, but does not address the concept of natural evil. Would people be willing to sacrifice freedom of choice for less suffering? These questions play out in our society today. How far should we go to prevent evil or suffering? Just because people may have the freedom to choose to do moral evil, does that mean that people will do moral evil? Could a world be possible where people choose not to do moral evil? Is that scenario best for all?
These arguments do not prove the impossibility of the existence of God, but rather the argument is made that the existence of God is improbable. The arguments against Theism are weak arguments because the definition of God is confined to our limited knowledge and understanding of the concepts of who He is. God is revealed through His Word and His Word states that His ways are far above our ways.
Sources; Philosophy 101, Devin Martin, Gateway Community College
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
KJV Bible, Isaiah 55:9
Position paper #6
Good and Evil
The problem with good and evil is that for western religions (Christians) claiming to have and omnipotent, omniscient, and omni benevolent God would mean that the same God allows bad, or evil, things to happen to good people in a world he has complete and total control over. There are two different kinds of evils that occur in his world, moral and natural. We, humans, commit moral evils against each other quite frequently, and thus, I can understand why God would allow some suffering for our sins while we are still here on Earth. However, natural evil unleashed through natural disasters that have not been set forth through human actions such as hurricanes, floods, tornados, earthquakes, landslides, forest fires sparked by lightning, tsunami’s, etc., cause just as much suffering to people who may not deserve it to such a degree. Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni benevolent God allow a natural disaster to occur that kills thousands of people in one single catastrophic event? Some say that these evils must come from the devil’s interference in peoples lives, however, if God is the creator of everything including the heavens and the Earth, did he not also create Satan knowing the effect he would have on our lives, God is omniscient, right? For many people, evil brings them closer to God.
One argument is that fear of evil brings us closer to God. It is easy to see that more people pray to God in life threatening situations. Next time you are on a turbulent flight, pay attention to how many seemingly frightened passengers have their heads back, hands tensely clasped, eyes shut, and are talking to themselves quietly. They know that their fate is out of their hands and are asking God to deliver them safely to their destination, without incident. Of course, I can’t speak for every scared person on a plane, but I know that is one of the occurrences you can count on me praying through.
Another argument is that there must be balance in the universe between all things, including good and evil. How would someone really know what is blessed and good if they didn’t have real suffering and evil to compare it to? Evil is necessary in order to count your blessings! Perhaps we are all God’s children after all and he is using the suffering we experience throughout our lives to teach us the lessons he wants us to learn. All I know is that we really don’t know anything anyway, and that it is hard to speculate what God was thinking when he created us and the world we live in, good and evil included, or for what purpose he created it all.
Source: Philosophy 101. Devin Martin, Class Lecture and Discussion, Gateway Community College, March 5, 2009.
There are many problems with good and evil. The first would be trying to define good and evil. No two people would have the same guidelines as to what is good and evil. Good and evil are based on behaviors, and there is no way to measure how good or evil a person is. As talked about in class depending on the situation and circumstances a behavior might be “evil” in case and not the other.
Good is defined as a “broad concept and is difficult to define, but typically it deals with an association with life, continuity, happiness, desirability, or human flourishing.” Evil is then defined as “the opposite of good. Depending on the context, good and evil may represent personal judgments, societal norms, or claims of absolute value related to human nature or to transcendent religious standards.” So a “good” person will be happy and adapt to societal norm s. What is normal for one person may not be for another. I do not think we can label people as good and evil. For example there are many terrorist who blow themselves up in the name of their god and for their country. For the people of that country that person was “good ” and some what of a hero. They feel that person will have a good after life their god will appreciate what they have done. On the other hand we see them as evil people who are killing the innocent and threaten our country’s security. They are two very different views one situation. So who are we of decide who is evil? I feel that people in general are good I feel that people who commit horrendous crimes have some kind of mental disorder which impairs their judgment and are not able to fully grasp what it is they are doing. Or they have been indoctrinated with religion to believe that they can commit crimes in the name of their god and be considered “good.”
In the end I feel that no one is perfect and that most people are good. There will be times when our decisions may not be the best and might go against in what we believe but is not because we are evil but because we are humans and we will make mistakes.
The fundamental problem with evil seems to be whether you believe in a supreme, monotheistic god or not. The majority of the religious have to reconcile the fact that evil is still abundant even with their belief in a loving and just god reigning from the heavens. And the harmonization has not been presented with overwhelming or effective resolution.
Monotheistic religions all have in common believing in one omniscient and omnipotent god. Other religions have reasoned with the problem of evil in various ways. Long ago, Manichaeism held the belief that there were two gods of opposing forces. One was good, one was evil, and they were vying for the monopoly for the soul and spirit. There were also Pantheism sects that thought of god as not just or moral at all. However, Spinoza's Pantheism more resembled Eastern thought in comparing god to the universe itself. This similarity presents god not as man but as some kind of force or energy, something greater than man himself. Still yet, there were those who were Deists. Deists believed that there was a god, but for being god, god was not very godlike. I'm quite sure that there were and are many other religions and sects of all types have attempted to deal with the question of god and evil in a plethora of different manners.
Although the description of the notion of karma in our textbook differs from my own personal interpretation, i think karma is real. The way I understand this idea is that when you do good, you will be returned with the same, and when you do bad, you get bad in return. Doing good things in life (as in benevolent, not as in successful) brings right to you. You may choose to live by an evil nature but that doesn't mean you can expect to recieve what is right. I believe that you should be expecting something in a negative vein if you decide to commit evil.
The expression "life has consequences" rings true to me. Also ringing true is "for every action, there is an opposite reaction". Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Right is not wrong and wrong is not right. Right and wrong are contradictory terms. So, if one believes in the sort of karma as I've described I believe in, you could not do wrong and expect to recieve right. And if enough right is done, eventually one should recieve right, or even a great amount of right. Karma is similar to momentum.
I also know that if I do something extreme like jumping off of something high, I might get hurt. Or, if I decide to rob a bank, I could face a number of harsh consequences. I could be shot dead by a security guard or police officer. I could be arrested and imprisoned for a long duration. I also could potentially find myself to be a very rich man. This windfall might net great gains but it still doesn't erase the fact that evil has still been committed or that your karma has been affected. It depends on your conscience (which could be affected by a wide array of influences like your upbringing and life experiences) and religious or non-religious beliefs.
Concluding, I think that those who are Atheist probably do not wrestle with the problem of evil like a religious person may, as they do not have to account for the existence of god. Evil is described in other ways, if at all. For the religious it seems like a trying feat to explain the problem of evil. From the secular and ecclesiastic explanations I've come across, I have not been swayed in any particular direction. All I know is that I haven't even cracked the surface yet.
Western religions believe God is omniscient and omnipotent, but yet there is no explanation for why evil exist. As we all know evil does exist and it is everywhere. We all know that the evil that mankind does to one another, but I'm not sure if I could label nature as being evil. I don't believe that nature has evil intent when there is a tornado or a hurricane. It is probably easier to say something is evil if it causes suffering. Humans own stupidity in living in environmentally dangerous areas and then crying about it when their lives become destroyed doesn't constitute something being evil. However, if God knew exactly what he was doing when he created man, why would have he continued with the project? Since the Christian God is this loving, all-knowing creator, then I can't find any argument to back up why there is evil. Some Christians say that he didn't create evil and that Satan did, but God created Satan, so he created evil. However, to say with one-hundred absolute certainty that there is not a God is impossible at this time. In my opinion, there can be God, but the Christian's version of what he consists of is not right.
The parent analogy that God allows us to suffer, but we are just too young to understand doesn't work well for me. I consider myself a loving caring mother, and nowhere near to godliness. Yet, I do consider myself a much better parent than the Christian God. Parents love their children unconditionally, and do not set them up for failure. I would not stick my children in a room with a chocolate cake, tell them not to touch, and then leave them alone with it. We all know that of course the children are going to get a little taste off of it. Adam and Eve were children in adult bodies (supposedly). Why a loving father would put temptation in front of their children and then condemn them along with everyone else to a world of suffering? I also do not understand the idea of Hell. My children could treat me horribly my whole life, and I would still never want them to suffer or burn eternally in the lake of fire. This all leads me to believe that God does not look to us as his children.
Free will is important to have, and everyone agrees that humans do. In any creation we would not want to have the same thing over and over. All people love the different personalities of our children, and there would be no point in having the same child over and over again. Therefore, I can understand why God would want us to have free will. The question still remains on why God would allow so many evil acts or create such a flawed being in the first place if he knew we were going to suffer? This leads me to my same conclusion that if there is God, he is not what we think of him and is not the God of western religious belief systems. Furthermore, I will never comprehend the acts of violence all done in the name of the Christian God.
The problem with evil is that if God exists how can the world be filled with so much suffering and unpunished wickedness. In other words if God is powerful, all knowing and just how can evil exists. There are two ways if looking at this issue. One way is logical the other being evidential. Logically God cant exist there is to much evil which leads one to believe that God is not all powerful or loving. There has to be some other reason for evil to exist. Some think it is because of some sort of greater reason. For example to be a better person to others and themselves. It could also be evil exists to affirm humans beings to be real with real choices. The highest beings are able to have free will and make decisions. Making us completely whole. An evidential God doesn't exist at least the traditional God doesn't maybe something else does like a different God. Some may argue that evil hasn't been eliminated and that is a problem. The counter argument is in time all evil will be eliminated. Making it plausible that later everything will be understood. I conclude that both sides of the argument are strong but that God is real and that evil has a purpose. What we choose to do with that evil is up to each individual.
So many people believe in God and how he makes us do good acts, but why would he let people commit bad acts? I always thought, oh well he wants us to learn from our mistakes, but why would he want his children to suffer so much with natural causes. Maybe God isn’t all knowing and loving creator or maybe evil wins more than good. God probably has a plan for us, but once we decide on the wrong path, evil decides to take control. But why would God let that anything bad hurt his children?
One of the rebuttals is that God and parents suffer when they see their children hurt. As we were discussing in class, we have to let others make their choices, so they can see for themselves that they are going to make mistakes. Although parents would let their kids experience the situation, we can’t compare God to parents because God is “all knowing and loving” and as for parents we are human beings who make mistakes. Another rebuttal is to deny suffering; there is evil in this whole world and we have to overcome it. If it’s not moral evil when someone commits a crime or natural evil when there are so many hurricanes, but everyone experiences both of them. The third rebuttal is that God let us have our own choices that he had to have suffering with it. If we didn’t have suffer than life would be the same everyday, through suffer we become stronger people and we will know not to make the same mistakes. But if we can have free will than why do we have a God to watch over us?
Several people don’t believe in God because there are so many statements that contradict Him. People that have faith don’t care if this is true because their faith is so strong that they believe that God is all powerful and loving, even if he or evil make people suffer. In conclusion, I believe that this is very complicated, but God is the only one that knows what he is doing.
The Problem of Evil
Good and evil, both of these two things are extremely subjective.
The definition for “good” in the Merriam- Webster’s Dictionary actually uses the term “good” in its definition. The definition also says something “commendable or virtuous.” So we are right back to being subjective.
So is the person who steals food and gives it to a starving family a good person or is he still considered a thief and a bad person because of his actions? In St. Augustine’s Confessions he refers to the fact that God did not make anything that is not good. Does this mean there is no evil? Or are all things just on some scale of what is good and what is exceptionally good.
My belief is that good is a living thing with positive morals and ethics. For instance things that will benefit society in a positive way is good. As with the Buddhist I believe in karma. If a living thing does something bad to another living thing, there will be a punishment. That punishment might not be doled out immediately but one way or another a person will be held responsible for their actions.
Kant takes a shot at good and evil as well. I like his thought that good people will be rewarded with happiness and evil people will be punished. So good could be more about what your gain is from being good. And even if you are not good now you will be rewarded later on for being a good person.
Being good is about being moral, having empathy for others, being honest, treating people fair and with respect and having integrity.
Evil – in our reading it describes the punishment for evil. The Buddhist's use the term karma. So my understanding is that for all of your actions you will be held responsible in some way. If not necessarily for that action in the here and now but later on, you will pay for the things you have done.
Also in St. Augustine’s writing he refers to things that are just “without good.”
I see evil as just the opposite of being good. I believe that a person that is immoral, dishonest, and disrespectful has qualities that I would consider to be a level of evil.
My thoughts from the reading are that there is good and evil. My level of what I believe to be evil might be different because of my life experiences. My belief is that things against morals and ethics especially to another living thing are in some part evil.
I do believe that there is extreme evil. I see extreme evil as being someone or something that does not have any feelings or empathy for doing things and has no conscious on how actions will affect others.
The problem of good and evil is, why does evil exist. If God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good, why is there evil in our world? Why wouldn’t an all powerful and loving God have just created us as ‘good’ to begin with so that we would never do ‘evil’ to one another? Why do people suffer? Why do some people suffer from terrible illnesses and disease, hunger and poverty while others live in opulence for exceeding their physical needs? Why are some unjustly imprisoned, while others, even after admitting their guilt, are not?
Many people believe that good cannot exist with out evil, basically two sides of the same coin. This is an argument for balance, that there must be balance in the universe; night/day, light/dark, hot/cold, wet/dry, etc. This would mean that for every ‘good’ action, there must be an equivalent ‘evil’ action. While the belief in balance seems to be logical, I would argue that two are not at all in balance. Whether it is evil caused by man or natural evil, we see and hear of much evil going on all over the world today, yet we do not seem to be knee deep in ‘Mother Theresa’s’, to balance things out.
There is also the argument about free will to consider. If we are created in God’s image, and He is perfect, then He must have free will. Therefore, as his creations, we must also have free will. This can explain why good and evil are not in balance, for if we have the freedom to make our own choices and decisions, then some of us will surely choose to cause harm (evil) to others, creating an imbalance between good and evil. Why would an all knowing and all loving God permit such freedom, knowing as He does, that some of His creations will choose to cause harm (evil) to others that he loves? Is He then unjust? Most people understand that there are consequences to our actions. However, even if we all do have to pay for our bad choices, how is the evil then ‘undone’? The murdered person is not unmurdered when his murderer is imprisoned. An imbalance still exists. Why does evil exist?
I believe that evil exists and that there is much suffering because of it. Although the questions we are asking about evil indicate some growth as a species, I think that we have not matured enough as beings to be able yet to fully understand why evil exists. I believe that God gave us free will, because without free will, we cannot grow. Without free will, we would be just another member of the animal kingdom, acting on instinct alone. That would not be growth. His creations must grow up, to be like Him.
Post a Comment