If suffering is part of God's morally perfect plan, why should we attempt to reduce it? The usual moral defense of the existence of suffering, particularly that which does not pertain to the free actions of man, is to suppose God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting said suffering; reasons which are not apparent to us in our limited insight as human beings.
If this is true, then we can say that every single instance of human suffering we observe has a greater, and ultimately beneficial purpose. An omnibenevolent God would, of course, not permit it if that were not the case.
Does it not then follow that, given this knowledge, we as humans are required to permit this suffering, and not attempt to mitigate it using our own resources and abilities? If a child dies slowly of leukemia, then that process must ultimately cause a positive outcome somewhere, at some time, and to someone, which God has deemed to morally outweigh the suffering of the child, and thus has allowed it occur.
Wouldn't trying to save this child using modern medicine, and thus preventing whatever morally sufficient outcome his suffering would bring, therefore be considered a moral evil, while letting him suffer and die be considered a moral good?
Board index ‹ The Problem of Evil and Suffering
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
If suffering is God's plan, we shouldn't stop it
by Crobo Cop » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:32 am
- Crobo Cop
Re: If suffering is God's plan, we shouldn't stop it
by jimwalton » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:54 am
You may be right to bring to the table at least one argument (God has morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering) that shows that the existence of God and of suffering are not mutually exclusive realities. Where your argument goes astray is in your second paragraph. That God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering is not the same as, nor does it follow, that "then we can say that every single instance of human suffering we observe has a great and ultimately beneficial purpose." God has morally sufficient reasons, but that's not to say that every single instance has a greater purpose. The philosophical argument (at least one of the arguments) goes that as long as good outweighs evil in the universe as a whole.
No one would claim that evil must exist, or that it is part of God's morally perfect plan. Evil is an aberration in creation, but its existence doesn't negate the possibility of God's existence, of his being all-powerful, or of his being all-good. I wouldn't even say that evil is a good thing (even though it has produced positive and moral consequences at times), nor even that there is a good reason for evil in the theistic universe. All i am claiming is that a perfectly good person can allow evil under certain condition and still be considered a good person (such as a doctor who performs painful surgery, or an oncologist who takes a patient within an inch of death to kill their cancer).
Therefore it is not required, as you have speculated, that we as humans are required to permit suffering. Suffering is a tragedy and an evil, and possibly should be eradicated as we are able (depending), and possibly should be mitigated as we are able. Why do I say possibly? For instance, there is some new research now where cancer patients are being injected with the polio virus to "eat" their cancer cells. A trade off? Maybe, but one that might be worth it. (Now, maybe I'm not understanding this research, and the person isn't at risk for polio, but you get my point, because there are a hundred other examples where we use trade-offs of lesser evils to conquer greater evils. Most medications, for instance, have potential side-effects, and we absorb those to accomplish the goal.) The child dying of leukemia is not a moral good, and we should do everything in our power to cure him or her.
It's just not true that a morally good person always works to eradicate every instance of evil wherever it is found, as in the examples I've mentioned. But it is true that a morally good person is able to weigh causes and consequences, make moral decisions, and eliminate or reduce evil as makes moral sense, as in leukemia. The reduction of suffering in the large picture is a moral choice and a moral act, and not contrary to the will or morally perfect plan of God.
No one would claim that evil must exist, or that it is part of God's morally perfect plan. Evil is an aberration in creation, but its existence doesn't negate the possibility of God's existence, of his being all-powerful, or of his being all-good. I wouldn't even say that evil is a good thing (even though it has produced positive and moral consequences at times), nor even that there is a good reason for evil in the theistic universe. All i am claiming is that a perfectly good person can allow evil under certain condition and still be considered a good person (such as a doctor who performs painful surgery, or an oncologist who takes a patient within an inch of death to kill their cancer).
Therefore it is not required, as you have speculated, that we as humans are required to permit suffering. Suffering is a tragedy and an evil, and possibly should be eradicated as we are able (depending), and possibly should be mitigated as we are able. Why do I say possibly? For instance, there is some new research now where cancer patients are being injected with the polio virus to "eat" their cancer cells. A trade off? Maybe, but one that might be worth it. (Now, maybe I'm not understanding this research, and the person isn't at risk for polio, but you get my point, because there are a hundred other examples where we use trade-offs of lesser evils to conquer greater evils. Most medications, for instance, have potential side-effects, and we absorb those to accomplish the goal.) The child dying of leukemia is not a moral good, and we should do everything in our power to cure him or her.
It's just not true that a morally good person always works to eradicate every instance of evil wherever it is found, as in the examples I've mentioned. But it is true that a morally good person is able to weigh causes and consequences, make moral decisions, and eliminate or reduce evil as makes moral sense, as in leukemia. The reduction of suffering in the large picture is a moral choice and a moral act, and not contrary to the will or morally perfect plan of God.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: If suffering is God's plan, we shouldn't stop it
by Crobo Cop » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:24 pm
> That God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering is not the same as, nor does it follow, that "then we can say that every single instance of human suffering we observe has a great and ultimately beneficial purpose." God has morally sufficient reasons, but that's not to say that every single instance has a greater purpose. The philosophical argument (at least one of the arguments) goes that as long as good outweighs evil in the universe as a whole.
I would argue that one most certainly follows from the other. God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, meaning that in the blink of an eye, he could eradicate every single instance of human suffering in the world today. If he does not, then it goes to show that each instance of human suffering serves a greater purpose; if it did not, they would be examples of gratuitous suffering, which a morally perfect and maximally powerful being would not permit.
When you see a child develop leukemia, that instance of suffering is not without sufficient reason. We may not see the reason in our limited insight, but there is an overarching, morally justifiable purpose for that child's pain and anguish which God has incorporated into his will. That is, his suffering simply must be a considered moral good because of the ultimate outcome it will produce, which only God in his wisdom is privy to. The only conclusion from this is that the suffering should be allowed to continue impeded, because to do otherwise would be to commit an act of evil.
Your surgeon analogy actually serves my point. The surgeon (God) is performing painful surgery (permitting suffering) in order to say, remove a tumour (the morally justifiable outcome). Thus, to try and alleviate the suffering, is akin to preventing the surgeon from carrying out his surgery because of the pain it will cause, ignoring the fact that the ultimate outcome of being free from cancer is positive, a moral good. We obviously would not prevent a surgery for this reason, so why then interfere with God's morally justifiable allowance of suffering, when we know it must, due to God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence, serve a greater purpose?
I would argue that one most certainly follows from the other. God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, meaning that in the blink of an eye, he could eradicate every single instance of human suffering in the world today. If he does not, then it goes to show that each instance of human suffering serves a greater purpose; if it did not, they would be examples of gratuitous suffering, which a morally perfect and maximally powerful being would not permit.
When you see a child develop leukemia, that instance of suffering is not without sufficient reason. We may not see the reason in our limited insight, but there is an overarching, morally justifiable purpose for that child's pain and anguish which God has incorporated into his will. That is, his suffering simply must be a considered moral good because of the ultimate outcome it will produce, which only God in his wisdom is privy to. The only conclusion from this is that the suffering should be allowed to continue impeded, because to do otherwise would be to commit an act of evil.
Your surgeon analogy actually serves my point. The surgeon (God) is performing painful surgery (permitting suffering) in order to say, remove a tumour (the morally justifiable outcome). Thus, to try and alleviate the suffering, is akin to preventing the surgeon from carrying out his surgery because of the pain it will cause, ignoring the fact that the ultimate outcome of being free from cancer is positive, a moral good. We obviously would not prevent a surgery for this reason, so why then interfere with God's morally justifiable allowance of suffering, when we know it must, due to God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence, serve a greater purpose?
- Crobo Cop
Re: If suffering is God's plan, we shouldn't stop it
by jimwalton » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:50 pm
You are making the false assumption that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being is only good if he eliminates all suffering and evil. I have already shown that is not the case. You claim that his allowing the existence of evil shows that evil has somehow been turned on its head and has now become morally good, but that is a non sequitur as well. Why doesn’t God at least stop evil from happening, like the child with leukemia? It's a common thought that we want God to stop all kinds of things. Why doesn't he at least use his power to stop it? You feel that God should stop every random act that would cause harm, pain, or hurt, should stop every act of every person that would have a negative effect, should stop every thought that would result in a harmful action, should stop every disease, should stop every problem.
We need to think that through. If God did that, we would no longer be human, and there would be no such thing as science or reason. Let me explain. God would stop every stubbed toe, every crossing the street for danger, every fall for injury, and every whack against the corner of the table. In other words, he would have to take control of our bodies so that there would be no pain or suffering. We would have no more too hot, never too cold, no illnesses, no building would ever fall on a person, there would be no car accidents. He would have to take control of all cause and effect. There could be no science, because nothing, ever, anywhere, would ever be predictable. We wouldn't be able to make sense out of anything. So there would also be no reason. But he'd also have to take control of our thoughts. We wouldn't be able to speak harsh words, show no inappropriate anger, and no unpleasantries. Any hand raised to strike another would be frozen in place, or God would purge the thought so the hand wouldn’t be raised. It could never rain when anyone planned a picnic. It could never be too cold for our planned day at the zoo, because that would cause bad attitudes, disappointment, and suffering. What are we left with here? We wouldn't be human. We would just walk around, doing our business, greeting each other with smiles. Like the Stepford community. There wouldn’t be any love, because you have to CHOOSE love for it to be real and meaningful. There wouldn’t be any real relationships because we’d all be sappy to each other all the time. This is a pretty lousy world you're suggesting, and not real in any sense. In ways you may think it would be preferable to a world of suffering, but in ways t's lacking all of life’s most treasured realities. I’m not sold on a world without suffering. It just doesn’t make sense to me. That’s not a world. That’s not life. That's no human. If God stopped all suffering, he would have to stop all characteristics of humanity.
Instead, God allows suffering, knowing that suffering can be redeemed for a greater good. That's not to imply there is a one-to-one component where every evil is really a moral good. That's self-contradictory nonsense. But an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being can allow evil in the world as long as good outweighs evil in the grand scheme of things. He doesn’t stop evil, because it would deprive us of life, ultimately. So instead he offers redemption in the midst of it, or after it. He offers us life on another level, and that’s something He CAN do. It’s the only choice He has, and to be fair He offers it freely to all.
You say that if God allows any suffering, he allows gratuitous suffering. But in that case the burden of proof is on you to show not only that there may be one instance of gratuitous suffering, but that all suffering is gratuitous suffering. If you can't prove that (which you can't), then we are back to the equation of logic that as long as good outweighs evil, God can permit such evil and not sacrifice his character as omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
In your last paragraph you say that to try to alleviate suffering is akin to preventing a surgeon from carrying out his surgery, but that doesn't follow in all situations. It's just an example that one can allow suffering and still be pursuing the moral good. But we recognize the morality of allowing suffering, not stopping it, in the case of an obvious moral advantage. Thus your logic of "to stop suffering is to go against God's moral design" doesn't hold water. God's morally justifiable allowance of suffering is a universal, not a specific. Our efforts to alleviate and stop suffering will never be complete, but we are morally directed when we attempt to do so. We will never completely succeed, but that doesn't mean God isn't powerful or good, or that our attempts to alleviate suffering are misdirected as best, immoral at worst.
We need to think that through. If God did that, we would no longer be human, and there would be no such thing as science or reason. Let me explain. God would stop every stubbed toe, every crossing the street for danger, every fall for injury, and every whack against the corner of the table. In other words, he would have to take control of our bodies so that there would be no pain or suffering. We would have no more too hot, never too cold, no illnesses, no building would ever fall on a person, there would be no car accidents. He would have to take control of all cause and effect. There could be no science, because nothing, ever, anywhere, would ever be predictable. We wouldn't be able to make sense out of anything. So there would also be no reason. But he'd also have to take control of our thoughts. We wouldn't be able to speak harsh words, show no inappropriate anger, and no unpleasantries. Any hand raised to strike another would be frozen in place, or God would purge the thought so the hand wouldn’t be raised. It could never rain when anyone planned a picnic. It could never be too cold for our planned day at the zoo, because that would cause bad attitudes, disappointment, and suffering. What are we left with here? We wouldn't be human. We would just walk around, doing our business, greeting each other with smiles. Like the Stepford community. There wouldn’t be any love, because you have to CHOOSE love for it to be real and meaningful. There wouldn’t be any real relationships because we’d all be sappy to each other all the time. This is a pretty lousy world you're suggesting, and not real in any sense. In ways you may think it would be preferable to a world of suffering, but in ways t's lacking all of life’s most treasured realities. I’m not sold on a world without suffering. It just doesn’t make sense to me. That’s not a world. That’s not life. That's no human. If God stopped all suffering, he would have to stop all characteristics of humanity.
Instead, God allows suffering, knowing that suffering can be redeemed for a greater good. That's not to imply there is a one-to-one component where every evil is really a moral good. That's self-contradictory nonsense. But an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being can allow evil in the world as long as good outweighs evil in the grand scheme of things. He doesn’t stop evil, because it would deprive us of life, ultimately. So instead he offers redemption in the midst of it, or after it. He offers us life on another level, and that’s something He CAN do. It’s the only choice He has, and to be fair He offers it freely to all.
You say that if God allows any suffering, he allows gratuitous suffering. But in that case the burden of proof is on you to show not only that there may be one instance of gratuitous suffering, but that all suffering is gratuitous suffering. If you can't prove that (which you can't), then we are back to the equation of logic that as long as good outweighs evil, God can permit such evil and not sacrifice his character as omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
In your last paragraph you say that to try to alleviate suffering is akin to preventing a surgeon from carrying out his surgery, but that doesn't follow in all situations. It's just an example that one can allow suffering and still be pursuing the moral good. But we recognize the morality of allowing suffering, not stopping it, in the case of an obvious moral advantage. Thus your logic of "to stop suffering is to go against God's moral design" doesn't hold water. God's morally justifiable allowance of suffering is a universal, not a specific. Our efforts to alleviate and stop suffering will never be complete, but we are morally directed when we attempt to do so. We will never completely succeed, but that doesn't mean God isn't powerful or good, or that our attempts to alleviate suffering are misdirected as best, immoral at worst.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: If suffering is God's plan, we shouldn't stop it
by Wolfman » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:52 am
> God has morally sufficient reasons, but that's not to say that every single instance has a greater purpose. The philosophical argument (at least one of the arguments) goes that as long as good outweighs evil in the universe as a whole.
It's difficult to reconcile what you are claiming here with the concept of moral perfection. It doesn't seem to me that it is merely the case that moral perfection would require a universe where good outweighs evil on the whole, rather it seems that moral perfection would entail that this should be the best possible world. So then when we see instances of unjustified evil, this seems to count as evidence against the thesis of an all-powerful and morally perfect God.
> No one would claim that evil must exist, or that it is part of God's morally perfect plan. Evil is an aberration in creation, but its existence doesn't negate the possibility of God's existence, of his being all-powerful, or of his being all-good.
It seems that you are right if one accepts Plantinga's objection to the Logical Problem of Evil. But the Evidential Problem of Evil can still claim as evidence unjustified evils or evils that seem "unjustifiable." (rape and murder of a baby or something like this.)
> All i am claiming is that a perfectly good person can allow evil under certain condition and still be considered a good person (such as a doctor who performs painful surgery, or an oncologist who takes a patient within an inch of death to kill their cancer).
Right, but the idea here isn't that God is merely good, but that he is morally perfect. One would be surprised to find a doctor performing a painful surgery if they have the ability to do so without the pain (being all powerful in the analogy.) Sure the doctor can still be good on the whole or something like this, but the bar is moral perfection not mere goodness.
> The child dying of leukemia is not a moral good, and we should do everything in our power to cure him or her.
Right, the idea here is that if it is morally good to do something about the leukemia on behalf of the child, we should (moral obligation) to do so where we have the opportunity, the desire, and the power to do so. But God has all of these things and yet there are children who die of Leukemia. If God does have the sort of moral obligation to relieve suffering like this, and has the power to do so but does not - well then we have to give up one of our statements because there is some sort of contradiction. Either God does not have this moral obligation or God is not morally perfect or God is not all-powerful. Most Christians will wish to say that God does not have this moral obligation - so the idea here is that there are "Agent Dependent" moral obligations and duties. There are two types of agents in this scheme: 1) God who has certain moral duties and 2) we humans or the creation or whatever - we have moral duties to try to stop leukemia whereas God does not.
Now this might sound promising, but take a look here to see why it might just cause more problems than it's worth: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristi ... h=8f0e935c
Also, there is a position called Skeptical Theism that basically tries to show that evil cannot count as evidence against God because we humans are in a terrible position to judge the justification that God might have or something like this.
It's difficult to reconcile what you are claiming here with the concept of moral perfection. It doesn't seem to me that it is merely the case that moral perfection would require a universe where good outweighs evil on the whole, rather it seems that moral perfection would entail that this should be the best possible world. So then when we see instances of unjustified evil, this seems to count as evidence against the thesis of an all-powerful and morally perfect God.
> No one would claim that evil must exist, or that it is part of God's morally perfect plan. Evil is an aberration in creation, but its existence doesn't negate the possibility of God's existence, of his being all-powerful, or of his being all-good.
It seems that you are right if one accepts Plantinga's objection to the Logical Problem of Evil. But the Evidential Problem of Evil can still claim as evidence unjustified evils or evils that seem "unjustifiable." (rape and murder of a baby or something like this.)
> All i am claiming is that a perfectly good person can allow evil under certain condition and still be considered a good person (such as a doctor who performs painful surgery, or an oncologist who takes a patient within an inch of death to kill their cancer).
Right, but the idea here isn't that God is merely good, but that he is morally perfect. One would be surprised to find a doctor performing a painful surgery if they have the ability to do so without the pain (being all powerful in the analogy.) Sure the doctor can still be good on the whole or something like this, but the bar is moral perfection not mere goodness.
> The child dying of leukemia is not a moral good, and we should do everything in our power to cure him or her.
Right, the idea here is that if it is morally good to do something about the leukemia on behalf of the child, we should (moral obligation) to do so where we have the opportunity, the desire, and the power to do so. But God has all of these things and yet there are children who die of Leukemia. If God does have the sort of moral obligation to relieve suffering like this, and has the power to do so but does not - well then we have to give up one of our statements because there is some sort of contradiction. Either God does not have this moral obligation or God is not morally perfect or God is not all-powerful. Most Christians will wish to say that God does not have this moral obligation - so the idea here is that there are "Agent Dependent" moral obligations and duties. There are two types of agents in this scheme: 1) God who has certain moral duties and 2) we humans or the creation or whatever - we have moral duties to try to stop leukemia whereas God does not.
Now this might sound promising, but take a look here to see why it might just cause more problems than it's worth: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristi ... h=8f0e935c
Also, there is a position called Skeptical Theism that basically tries to show that evil cannot count as evidence against God because we humans are in a terrible position to judge the justification that God might have or something like this.
- Wolfman
Re: If suffering is God's plan, we shouldn't stop it
by jimwalton » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:00 am
I would argue that this is the best possible world God could create. I’m going to answer in four aspects:
1. Free will
2. Problem of evil
3. Theodicy
4. Dynamic world
This is the best possible world God could possibly have created. Let me explain.
FREE WILL. First of all, our ability as human beings to reason is grounded in free will. Reasoning involves deciding if something is true or credible by equating it to the reality to which it refers, then comparing it with competing ideas, and finally choosing which idea best fits reality. Without free will and the legitimate ability to choose, the role of reason itself in any intellectual discipline is suspect—there is no mechanism for evaluating information and deciding on plausibility. Without free will, then, science itself is an illusion, all conversations are meaningless, and our thoughts are unreliable. Our lives are irredeemably incoherent.
We study our natural world (the sciences) as if self-awareness, self-direction, and reason are real. We can evaluate that there are realities outside of ourselves that we can observe and draw true conclusions about. The notion of truth takes us beyond mere biological determinism, which is only concerned with survival (food, flight, fight, and reproduction). We act as if we honestly believe that we can ask "what if..." questions, assess the possibilities, make authentic decisions, and conclude truth. All of these are evidences of free will, reason, and objective truth, all of which show that we live and function as if these things are real, reliable, and even have a facet to them that could be considered "true."
Second, without free will, the characteristics that most make us human are impossible: love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and kindness, to name a few. If I have no choice but to love you, it’s not love at all. Love requires the will to choose. If the only reason I forgive you is because I have no other alternative, then I have not forgiven you at all, but only followed an irresistible force. Without free will, I am a determined animal, perhaps even robotic, but I am not human.
Third, without free will there is no such thing as justice. I can neither find nor enforce justice in a court of law if there is no self-direction, either on the criminal’s part (he can’t be held accountable if he was determined to do it) or on the judge’s part (he can’t make a rational decision if there is no such thing).
One cannot have free will without self-direction, one cannot have self-direction without self-awareness, and one cannot have self-awareness without consciousness. The evidences are convincing that we have all these things. I have consciousness, therefore I am self-aware, and therefore I am self-directed. Both reason and experience tell us these things are so. Everything about humanity and reason point to the necessity of free will.
There is no better choice than to invest humankind with free will.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. But if I honestly have free will, I must have a legitimate choice for good as for bad, because if I am restricted to only the good, it’s not free will at all. For free will to be free will, when I compare competing ideas, I must be just as eligible to choose wrongly as rightly, or I do not have free will. For science and reason to be real, there must always be the potential for error and wrong. To take away the possibility of evil is also to steal away all the good.
But even the possibility of evil is not strong enough to deter giving humans free will, because, as any surgeon will tell you, pain and suffering are sometimes necessary to produce morally good results. It’s just not true that real good always works to eliminate evil as far as it can. The pain is part of the good a surgeon does, and one can’t eliminate the pain without eliminating the benefit. So "good" and "pain" (suffering; evil) are not automatically contradictory. God can be perfectly good and still allow evil to exist. That our ability to choose includes the reality of suffering and evil makes our ability to choose even more important, because we can even at times choose to suffer if we expect a greater good as a result (surgery, for instance). But beyond surgery, we all know that nothing worthwhile is easy and involves some detriment to accomplish the benefit. This is the best choice for achieving true moral good in the world (for true morality is also grounded in choice, not coercion).
THEODICY. What would a world look like where God stopped all evil, pain and suffering? Why doesn’t God at least stop evil from happening? It's most likely a common thought that we want God to stop all kinds of things. OK, so God can't possibly have created without evil, as I said before, so why doesn't he at least use his power to stop it? God should stop every random act that would cause harm, pain, or hurt, should stop every act of every person that would have a negative effect, should stop every thought that would result in a harmful action, should stop every disease, should stop every problem.
If he did that we would have no more too hot, never too cold, no illnesses, no mean thoughts, no harsh words, no anger, and no unpleasantries. Any hand raised to strike another would be frozen in place, or God would purge the thought so the hand wouldn’t be raised. It could never rain when anyone planned a picnic. It could never be too cold for our planned day at the zoo, because that would cause bad attitudes, disappointment, and suffering. What are we left with here? First of all, there would be no more science, because there is no cause and effect. Everything but everything would be unpredictable. There would be no more reason, because nothing would really make sense. We would just walk around, doing our business, greeting each other with smiles. There wouldn’t be any love, because you have to CHOOSE love for it to be real and meaningful. There wouldn’t be any real relationships because we’d all be sappy to each other all the time. This is a pretty lousy world I’m thinking of, and not real. In ways it may be preferable to a world of suffering, but in ways lacking in some of life’s most treasured realities. I’m not sold on a world without suffering. Maybe I’m thinking too shallow, but it just doesn’t make sense to me. That’s not a world. That’s not life. I just can’t get around it.
By my understandings, God created the best possible world that could be created, and then he entered that world to redeem the things that by necessity had to be there but were undesirable. He doesn’t stop them, because it would deprive us of life, ultimately. So instead he offers redemption in the midst of it, or after it. He offers us life on another level, and that's something He CAN do. It's the only choice He has, and to be fair He offers it freely to all.
The natural world is dynamic, with a large number of systems that interact, balance, and even depend on each other. Some exhibit characteristics more like chaos (though that is a scientific category of a dynamical system) and other more like order and purpose. It is within these two categories that natural systems cause what is regarded as natural evil.
Have you ever tried to balance a broom handle on the palm of your hand? You can do it for a while, but eventually something (distraction, wind, your movements) causes it to become less stable, and it falls. This principle was posited by a meteorologist in the late 60s, who wrote a paper titled, "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wing in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?" This thought was so important, we now know it as the Butterfly Effect. Even if we had delicate sensors in every square foot of the globe and its atmosphere, we would still not be able to reliably (100%) predict the weather. The "Butterfly Effect" would always be present.
Our world seems to manifest a huge number of interacting chaos systems: weather patterns, electrical impulses, the firing pattern of neurons in the brain, ecosystems, etc. And they behave occasionally in wild ways (the Zika virus). And they result in natural evil: drought, earthquakes, volcanoes, disease.
Should God stop all of that? I contend that a dynamic world in which free creatures can exercise genuine creativity, thereby bringing about truly novel effects, is a better world than a static world. A consequent corollary is that God would want to crate a dynamic world. For instance, since both our circulatory system and nervous system are beneficial chaotic systems, there is strong empirical evidence to say that dynamical systems are beneficial to life. The heart can recover from occasion arrhythmias; our brains can recover from some injuries. In addition, if the brain were static, creativity wouldn't be possible. If the natural system were just linear and status, natural processes (trees, snowflakes, clouds, shorelines, faces) couldn't produce novel outcomes.
Hopefully you can see that while God might have created a static world of nonlinear dynamical systems, eliminating all reason, creativity, and scientific inquiry, and he might have created a world where his sovereignty overrode all possibilities of evil, also overriding all possibilities of good, this would not be a desirable world. Natural science, engineering, and education would be vapid, courage and excitement would be absent. Careful structural design would be meaningless (no earthquake or tornado would ever be allowed to hit a building, and God would stop any building from ever collapsing on a person). Medical arts wouldn't exist, since disease would never harm or kill.
Therefore, God cannot make a dynamical world in which natural evil can't occur. It's self-contradictory, and ultimately intensely undesirable as a form of existence.
Add to all this the profound truth that adversity builds character. People grow significantly through serious traumas, and psychologists agree with Scripture that there can be profound benefits to personal tragedy. Tragedy leads to courage, evil leads to spiritual awakening, and pain motivates us to both cure and compassion. As a matter of fact, our goodness and morality as humans depends on overcoming life’s struggles. It is these situations precisely that cause growth of character. In a world where all might be pleasure and ease, where would we ever learn kindness, forgiveness, grace, love, joy, peace, patience, and goodness? We have these qualities because we must respond to sin and suffering. Perseverance is only possible where there is a impediment to overcome; courage is only developed where there is danger; forgiveness is only necessary where a wrong has been committed, and so also for patience, love, mercy, self-sacrifice, faith, and hope.
In a world devoid of suffering, the greatest human achievements of the sciences, arts, culture and civilization would never have come. Without obstacles, where would be medicine, science, law, criminal justice, construction, personal growth, morality and character? These benefits are all Scriptural teachings: James 1.2-4; 1 Peter 1.6-7; Romans 5.3-4; 8.17, 18; 1 Peter 4.13.
I’m arguing that God created the best possible world. In addition, all of these things were necessary for us to carry the image of God. As bearers of His image, we must by necessity have free will, experience true love, exercise compassion and forgiveness, know reason (sciences, math, arts, etc.), validly observe cause and effect, engage in genuine relationships, and have souls!
It’s not possible to have free will, but not be allowed to choose freely. It’s not possible to have true goodness and morality without the presence of evil and suffering. A world without the negative realities would also of necessity abandon all goodness.
1. Free will
2. Problem of evil
3. Theodicy
4. Dynamic world
This is the best possible world God could possibly have created. Let me explain.
FREE WILL. First of all, our ability as human beings to reason is grounded in free will. Reasoning involves deciding if something is true or credible by equating it to the reality to which it refers, then comparing it with competing ideas, and finally choosing which idea best fits reality. Without free will and the legitimate ability to choose, the role of reason itself in any intellectual discipline is suspect—there is no mechanism for evaluating information and deciding on plausibility. Without free will, then, science itself is an illusion, all conversations are meaningless, and our thoughts are unreliable. Our lives are irredeemably incoherent.
We study our natural world (the sciences) as if self-awareness, self-direction, and reason are real. We can evaluate that there are realities outside of ourselves that we can observe and draw true conclusions about. The notion of truth takes us beyond mere biological determinism, which is only concerned with survival (food, flight, fight, and reproduction). We act as if we honestly believe that we can ask "what if..." questions, assess the possibilities, make authentic decisions, and conclude truth. All of these are evidences of free will, reason, and objective truth, all of which show that we live and function as if these things are real, reliable, and even have a facet to them that could be considered "true."
Second, without free will, the characteristics that most make us human are impossible: love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and kindness, to name a few. If I have no choice but to love you, it’s not love at all. Love requires the will to choose. If the only reason I forgive you is because I have no other alternative, then I have not forgiven you at all, but only followed an irresistible force. Without free will, I am a determined animal, perhaps even robotic, but I am not human.
Third, without free will there is no such thing as justice. I can neither find nor enforce justice in a court of law if there is no self-direction, either on the criminal’s part (he can’t be held accountable if he was determined to do it) or on the judge’s part (he can’t make a rational decision if there is no such thing).
One cannot have free will without self-direction, one cannot have self-direction without self-awareness, and one cannot have self-awareness without consciousness. The evidences are convincing that we have all these things. I have consciousness, therefore I am self-aware, and therefore I am self-directed. Both reason and experience tell us these things are so. Everything about humanity and reason point to the necessity of free will.
There is no better choice than to invest humankind with free will.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. But if I honestly have free will, I must have a legitimate choice for good as for bad, because if I am restricted to only the good, it’s not free will at all. For free will to be free will, when I compare competing ideas, I must be just as eligible to choose wrongly as rightly, or I do not have free will. For science and reason to be real, there must always be the potential for error and wrong. To take away the possibility of evil is also to steal away all the good.
But even the possibility of evil is not strong enough to deter giving humans free will, because, as any surgeon will tell you, pain and suffering are sometimes necessary to produce morally good results. It’s just not true that real good always works to eliminate evil as far as it can. The pain is part of the good a surgeon does, and one can’t eliminate the pain without eliminating the benefit. So "good" and "pain" (suffering; evil) are not automatically contradictory. God can be perfectly good and still allow evil to exist. That our ability to choose includes the reality of suffering and evil makes our ability to choose even more important, because we can even at times choose to suffer if we expect a greater good as a result (surgery, for instance). But beyond surgery, we all know that nothing worthwhile is easy and involves some detriment to accomplish the benefit. This is the best choice for achieving true moral good in the world (for true morality is also grounded in choice, not coercion).
THEODICY. What would a world look like where God stopped all evil, pain and suffering? Why doesn’t God at least stop evil from happening? It's most likely a common thought that we want God to stop all kinds of things. OK, so God can't possibly have created without evil, as I said before, so why doesn't he at least use his power to stop it? God should stop every random act that would cause harm, pain, or hurt, should stop every act of every person that would have a negative effect, should stop every thought that would result in a harmful action, should stop every disease, should stop every problem.
If he did that we would have no more too hot, never too cold, no illnesses, no mean thoughts, no harsh words, no anger, and no unpleasantries. Any hand raised to strike another would be frozen in place, or God would purge the thought so the hand wouldn’t be raised. It could never rain when anyone planned a picnic. It could never be too cold for our planned day at the zoo, because that would cause bad attitudes, disappointment, and suffering. What are we left with here? First of all, there would be no more science, because there is no cause and effect. Everything but everything would be unpredictable. There would be no more reason, because nothing would really make sense. We would just walk around, doing our business, greeting each other with smiles. There wouldn’t be any love, because you have to CHOOSE love for it to be real and meaningful. There wouldn’t be any real relationships because we’d all be sappy to each other all the time. This is a pretty lousy world I’m thinking of, and not real. In ways it may be preferable to a world of suffering, but in ways lacking in some of life’s most treasured realities. I’m not sold on a world without suffering. Maybe I’m thinking too shallow, but it just doesn’t make sense to me. That’s not a world. That’s not life. I just can’t get around it.
By my understandings, God created the best possible world that could be created, and then he entered that world to redeem the things that by necessity had to be there but were undesirable. He doesn’t stop them, because it would deprive us of life, ultimately. So instead he offers redemption in the midst of it, or after it. He offers us life on another level, and that's something He CAN do. It's the only choice He has, and to be fair He offers it freely to all.
The natural world is dynamic, with a large number of systems that interact, balance, and even depend on each other. Some exhibit characteristics more like chaos (though that is a scientific category of a dynamical system) and other more like order and purpose. It is within these two categories that natural systems cause what is regarded as natural evil.
Have you ever tried to balance a broom handle on the palm of your hand? You can do it for a while, but eventually something (distraction, wind, your movements) causes it to become less stable, and it falls. This principle was posited by a meteorologist in the late 60s, who wrote a paper titled, "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wing in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?" This thought was so important, we now know it as the Butterfly Effect. Even if we had delicate sensors in every square foot of the globe and its atmosphere, we would still not be able to reliably (100%) predict the weather. The "Butterfly Effect" would always be present.
Our world seems to manifest a huge number of interacting chaos systems: weather patterns, electrical impulses, the firing pattern of neurons in the brain, ecosystems, etc. And they behave occasionally in wild ways (the Zika virus). And they result in natural evil: drought, earthquakes, volcanoes, disease.
Should God stop all of that? I contend that a dynamic world in which free creatures can exercise genuine creativity, thereby bringing about truly novel effects, is a better world than a static world. A consequent corollary is that God would want to crate a dynamic world. For instance, since both our circulatory system and nervous system are beneficial chaotic systems, there is strong empirical evidence to say that dynamical systems are beneficial to life. The heart can recover from occasion arrhythmias; our brains can recover from some injuries. In addition, if the brain were static, creativity wouldn't be possible. If the natural system were just linear and status, natural processes (trees, snowflakes, clouds, shorelines, faces) couldn't produce novel outcomes.
Hopefully you can see that while God might have created a static world of nonlinear dynamical systems, eliminating all reason, creativity, and scientific inquiry, and he might have created a world where his sovereignty overrode all possibilities of evil, also overriding all possibilities of good, this would not be a desirable world. Natural science, engineering, and education would be vapid, courage and excitement would be absent. Careful structural design would be meaningless (no earthquake or tornado would ever be allowed to hit a building, and God would stop any building from ever collapsing on a person). Medical arts wouldn't exist, since disease would never harm or kill.
Therefore, God cannot make a dynamical world in which natural evil can't occur. It's self-contradictory, and ultimately intensely undesirable as a form of existence.
Add to all this the profound truth that adversity builds character. People grow significantly through serious traumas, and psychologists agree with Scripture that there can be profound benefits to personal tragedy. Tragedy leads to courage, evil leads to spiritual awakening, and pain motivates us to both cure and compassion. As a matter of fact, our goodness and morality as humans depends on overcoming life’s struggles. It is these situations precisely that cause growth of character. In a world where all might be pleasure and ease, where would we ever learn kindness, forgiveness, grace, love, joy, peace, patience, and goodness? We have these qualities because we must respond to sin and suffering. Perseverance is only possible where there is a impediment to overcome; courage is only developed where there is danger; forgiveness is only necessary where a wrong has been committed, and so also for patience, love, mercy, self-sacrifice, faith, and hope.
In a world devoid of suffering, the greatest human achievements of the sciences, arts, culture and civilization would never have come. Without obstacles, where would be medicine, science, law, criminal justice, construction, personal growth, morality and character? These benefits are all Scriptural teachings: James 1.2-4; 1 Peter 1.6-7; Romans 5.3-4; 8.17, 18; 1 Peter 4.13.
I’m arguing that God created the best possible world. In addition, all of these things were necessary for us to carry the image of God. As bearers of His image, we must by necessity have free will, experience true love, exercise compassion and forgiveness, know reason (sciences, math, arts, etc.), validly observe cause and effect, engage in genuine relationships, and have souls!
It’s not possible to have free will, but not be allowed to choose freely. It’s not possible to have true goodness and morality without the presence of evil and suffering. A world without the negative realities would also of necessity abandon all goodness.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: If suffering is God's plan, we shouldn't stop it
by Wolfman » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:01 pm
This a pretty big response but it doesn't seem to directly address the concerns that I've raised. You seem to want to say that this is the best possible world and to give some of your reasons for believing so, yet it seems to me that the world would be better than it is with one fewer evil act or one additional good act - so I have a good reason to accept your view here given the strong sort of prima facie reason we have to believe that the world can be a better place.
Free Will - Maybe what you are trying to say here is something like free will being such an important good, that it warrants the existence of evil. I could accept that sort of argument for moral evils, but I don't see where free will plays a role in the Natural Evils. For example, something like the 2004 Tsunami in the Indian Ocean killed like 240,000 people and generated untold suffering. The Problem of Evil suggests that God should have intervened to prevent this evil because it would have impinged on no one's free will - so this is not a defense. Further, we need an explanation for why a morally perfect being would would create a Universe with natural laws that necessitate tragedies like the 2004 Tsunami. That is to say, we are meant to believe that God would create a Universe in which such tragedies are inevitable. That seems difficult to reconcile with moral perfection.
I'm not going to address to much of the rest of your comment, but I do appreciate you putting in some time and thought into the discussion. One item that I can't see where you're coming from is this:
First of all, our ability to reason is grounded in free will.
I don't know that I've ever really thought to much about it, but it doesn't seem to me that this is true. There are people (philosophers) who do not believe in free will but certainly still believe in reason. Also, free will is necessary for the Christian God, but it is not sufficient. There are certainly atheistic models of free-will even in a deterministic universe (compatiblism).
Free Will - Maybe what you are trying to say here is something like free will being such an important good, that it warrants the existence of evil. I could accept that sort of argument for moral evils, but I don't see where free will plays a role in the Natural Evils. For example, something like the 2004 Tsunami in the Indian Ocean killed like 240,000 people and generated untold suffering. The Problem of Evil suggests that God should have intervened to prevent this evil because it would have impinged on no one's free will - so this is not a defense. Further, we need an explanation for why a morally perfect being would would create a Universe with natural laws that necessitate tragedies like the 2004 Tsunami. That is to say, we are meant to believe that God would create a Universe in which such tragedies are inevitable. That seems difficult to reconcile with moral perfection.
I'm not going to address to much of the rest of your comment, but I do appreciate you putting in some time and thought into the discussion. One item that I can't see where you're coming from is this:
First of all, our ability to reason is grounded in free will.
I don't know that I've ever really thought to much about it, but it doesn't seem to me that this is true. There are people (philosophers) who do not believe in free will but certainly still believe in reason. Also, free will is necessary for the Christian God, but it is not sufficient. There are certainly atheistic models of free-will even in a deterministic universe (compatiblism).
- Wolfman
Re: If suffering is God's plan, we shouldn't stop it
by jimwalton » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:56 pm
Free will doesn't account for natural evils, but what I said about a dynamic world rather than a static one. The problem of evil may suggest that we think God should have intervened to prevent the tsunami, but that interference might entail further ramifications. For a silly example, do you remember in "Bruce Almighty" where Carrey pulls the moon closer for a romantic effect? That had wide-ranging catastrophic consequences. How much would we want God to interfere, and for how long? Instead, our dynamic world ebbs and flows, with many amazing benefits and some devastating disasters, but maybe the ebb and flow is a greater good than a static or divinely-controlled environment. It would be better to sit at Starbucks and discuss such things rather than write them back and forth. That such tragedies are inevitable is part of the values of a dynamic world.
And again, has good come out of such a devastating tragedy? Certain some has, though the good doesn't pretend to say "that's why it happened." But some good did come out of it, so it still may not be completely unjustifiable evil. Again, it would be more beneficial to converse rather than write.
On to the free will question. For reason and science to exist, we have to be able to think about the evidence, to weigh data, to know what is real and what is not, to be able to compare and contrast competing ideas, and to choose what best fits reality and truth. In contrast, what if all is determined? We robotically sort of must be able to know the truth is, and so no experiment is necessary. There is no way to evaluate information or decide on the basis of plausibility or conformity to known patterns. So how can I think if all is determined? I don't; I just "know." Any thoughts outside of "the box" are meaningless and unreliable. There is no need for science; there is no need for thinking; there is no cause to evaluate anything; there is no way to learn except what I've been programmed to learn.
But this isn't our experience. We treat reason, self-direction, and self-awareness as true and real things. We make observations, evaluate information, and draw conclusions. We debate about purpose, cause and effect, and we seek reasons for what we see. These things are only possible if free will exists and is not an illusion. If it's an illusion, and all things are absolutely determined, then our lives and environment, our thoughts and sciences, are ludicrously incoherent and we live in a world of deception and delusion. But none of us believe that.
Second, if free will didn’t exist, we couldn’t know it, because I can’t evaluate possibilities or draw conclusions. I couldn’t think my way out of a paper bag let alone ascertain free will. Without free will, we couldn’t know anything. Knowledge is justified true belief. As I’ve already established, we decide if a belief is true by comparing it to the reality to which it refers, comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. This requires some level of free will. If you don’t believe in free will, then you don’t believe in the validity of reasoning, and all arguments to the contrary are self-defeating.
And again, has good come out of such a devastating tragedy? Certain some has, though the good doesn't pretend to say "that's why it happened." But some good did come out of it, so it still may not be completely unjustifiable evil. Again, it would be more beneficial to converse rather than write.
On to the free will question. For reason and science to exist, we have to be able to think about the evidence, to weigh data, to know what is real and what is not, to be able to compare and contrast competing ideas, and to choose what best fits reality and truth. In contrast, what if all is determined? We robotically sort of must be able to know the truth is, and so no experiment is necessary. There is no way to evaluate information or decide on the basis of plausibility or conformity to known patterns. So how can I think if all is determined? I don't; I just "know." Any thoughts outside of "the box" are meaningless and unreliable. There is no need for science; there is no need for thinking; there is no cause to evaluate anything; there is no way to learn except what I've been programmed to learn.
But this isn't our experience. We treat reason, self-direction, and self-awareness as true and real things. We make observations, evaluate information, and draw conclusions. We debate about purpose, cause and effect, and we seek reasons for what we see. These things are only possible if free will exists and is not an illusion. If it's an illusion, and all things are absolutely determined, then our lives and environment, our thoughts and sciences, are ludicrously incoherent and we live in a world of deception and delusion. But none of us believe that.
Second, if free will didn’t exist, we couldn’t know it, because I can’t evaluate possibilities or draw conclusions. I couldn’t think my way out of a paper bag let alone ascertain free will. Without free will, we couldn’t know anything. Knowledge is justified true belief. As I’ve already established, we decide if a belief is true by comparing it to the reality to which it refers, comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. This requires some level of free will. If you don’t believe in free will, then you don’t believe in the validity of reasoning, and all arguments to the contrary are self-defeating.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:56 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to The Problem of Evil and Suffering
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests