Problem of Evil

[Vagabond]

I hope that each person can be consistent in his or her beliefs, and that those beliefs mesh with reality.

People change. I used to believe in the death penalty - now, I'm more against it. (Granted, I believe I've found something worse than the death penalty, but that's another topic.)

Beliefs meshing with reality. Methinks, that is why it is a belief - something that you cannot prove. Or you may be able to prove it, just not yet because science hasn't advanced far enough to prove or disprove a theory.
I believe that I will be alive tomorrow. I have no proof; and I cannot prove it until tomorrow.

[Ghel]

Perhaps part of the difficulty with this discussion is that the first 3 premises are dependent on the presupposition that God exists. For the sake of argument, I have not challenged this presupposition, but perhaps now it's time.

You mention the crusades, with the Christians fighting the Muslims. There's something that I've said on multiple occassions that applies to the Gods described in both of those holy books: Even if the God described there existed, I wouldn't worship him. He is a tyrant, a despot, a dictator. He is unworthy of my adoration.

And again, I am not trying to deconvert you or anyone else. I just hope to inspire you to think about what you believe and why. I hope that each person can be consistent in his or her beliefs, and that those beliefs mesh with reality.

[lordlundar]

I am not saying that we have to dismiss God as a factor in this discussion. In fact, God IS the discussion. What I was saying is that, since we can never know the mind of an omnipotent, omniscient being, the only way we can discuss this is from our own, admittedly limited point of view. And I don’t see that as being a problem.

The problem is what has been keeping this discussion going on for centuries. Yes, the only way we can discuss it is from our limited point of view, but because of that limit, we will never have an answer one way or another. All I'm saying is that while the discussion is fine, for several thousand years, there has not been a solid defined answer in support of anything apart from "no one knows".

On a parallel, think about the crusades. The crusaders invade the Muslim (Moorish) lands in the name of God. The Muslims (Moors) fight back in the name of Allah, their name for God. Now either side has scriptures saying that their is only one, benevolent God. Factoring all this in without allowing any changes to the info provided, answer me this:

How could a benevolent God, who abhors death, allow the slaughter of thousands of people on both sides in His name?

The question really is no different than the one you provided, and the answer is the same: We as mortals will never know the truth.

[Ghel]

True, but I know many of the things that as a child I *thought* were unfair, and would have called abuse if I'd known of such a thing, I can now see were just the opposite.

I still think that the analogy of the abusive parent explains how we can and should discuss the nature of God. But you're right, the analogy breaks down in many ways, mainly in that parents are neither all-knowing nor all-powerful, even if they are trying to be good.

...there was no *moral* good...

I don't see the distinction. Good and evil are labels that we place on events. A child dying is a horrible, though not necessarily evil, event. A person killing a child is certainly an evil event. A child being saved from dying, even by chance, is a good event.

I'd forgotten all about Bruce Almighty, but how did you get that out of it?

I don't want to get too far off track by discussing works of fiction, but from what I remember of the movie, God admitted to Bruce at least once that he was joking with him. God seemed to be trying to get Bruce to view things from the point of view of a human with god-like power. However, Bruce never gained any of God's knowledge, and so the power was squandered. God seemed to be setting Bruce up to fail.

[jackfaire]

***SPOILERS AHEAD***
I've seen that scene. It's on the DVD special features. That still doesn't make God (as portrayed in the movie) omnipotent. When I say that in Dogma, God is not omnipotent, I'm more referring to the fact that God gets caught in a mortal body and held there against his will. That could never happen to a truly omnipotent being.

Yep he would have known it was going to happen before he took that body.

[Ghel]

With Dogman, you're going to have to read the actual screenplay that Kevin Smith wrote. There's a crucial scene cut out of it, that could show more to His omnipotence.

There's a scene where Bethany is counseling a young girl...

***SPOILERS AHEAD***
I've seen that scene. It's on the DVD special features. That still doesn't make God (as portrayed in the movie) omnipotent. When I say that in Dogma, God is not omnipotent, I'm more referring to the fact that God gets caught in a mortal body and held there against his will. That could never happen to a truly omnipotent being.

[crashhelmet]

Draggar: I don’t think either Dogma or Bruce Almighty really addressed the problem of evil. Dogma showed a god who, although very powerful, was not omnipotent. Bruce Almighty showed a god who was apparently bored with it all and so started screwing with his creations. Either that, or he was also not omnipotent.

With Dogman, you're going to have to read the actual screenplay that Kevin Smith wrote. There's a crucial scene cut out of it, that could show more to His omnipotence.

There's a scene where Bethany is counseling a young girl. She tells this girl that she was once married, but her husband didn't want to have kids. She was so afraid her husband would leave her for getting pregnant, that she had an abortion. She got an infection from the abortion and that's what sterilized her. She wasn't born infertile like the movie suggests. The bigger twist on it, is that her husband was so angry at her for getting the abortion that he left her. Of course, she blames God for it all instead of herself. Her role in the movie is more than just being the last Scion. It's her opportunity to redeem herself and renew her faith.

CH

[HYHYBT]

Even a child would know that the things done to them by an abusive parent are wrong, even if they have no power to stop them.

True, but I know many of the things that as a child I *thought* were unfair, and would have called abuse if I'd known of such a thing, I can now see were just the opposite.

Bruce Almighty showed a god who was apparently bored with it all and so started screwing with his creations. Either that, or he was also not omnipotent.

I'd forgotten all about Bruce Almighty, but how did you get that out of it?

Bill stops a robbery, saves a life, and brings the attempted thief to justice. Media swarm the bank, and interview Bill, telling him what a great guy he is, and how he did such a good thing. He says, “I wasn’t trying to save anybody’s life. I just happened to bump into the guy.” That doesn’t matter. What he did was still a good thing.

The point is that *from his point of view* he didn't do anything at all; there was no *moral* good. The same with the pool: the child's drowning would be a sad event, and his being saved by the pool emptying a happy one, but neither would, morally speaking, be either good or bad.

As for overpopulation, well, we have brains. Were we all to use them (and otherwise why would they be there?) AND if we weren't selfish, hostile, etc. then we could both feed a lot more people *and* have fewer children. And supposedly, outside causes like disease are originally from other created beings choosing to do evil.

[jackfaire]

Which all points to a God who is evil, or at least uncaring.

I agree and oooggg a aboooga

[Ghel]

Nope I am not. It depends on how he views us though as to which method he likes the best. Horrific death is the easiest. Diseases etc.

If you care about your creations those wouldn't be the methods you use.

Which all points to a God who is evil, or at least uncaring.

[jackfaire]

Jackfaire: Are you saying that the only method an omnipotent being has for population control is to allow people to be killed horrifically? Couldn’t he, maybe, use birth control, or some other method that improves the quality of people’s lives instead of destroying it? Considering that the world’s population is approaching the point where the ecosystem will be overwhelmed, horrific death is going to be the only option when we can’t produce enough food to feed everyone.

Nope I am not. It depends on how he views us though as to which method he likes the best. Horrific death is the easiest. Diseases etc.

If you care about your creations those wouldn't be the methods you use.

[Ghel]

Sorry, I’ve been away a couple days. I’ll do responses all at once:

Lordlundar: I am not saying that we have to dismiss God as a factor in this discussion. In fact, God IS the discussion. What I was saying is that, since we can never know the mind of an omnipotent, omniscient being, the only way we can discuss this is from our own, admittedly limited point of view. And I don’t see that as being a problem. Even a child would know that the things done to them by an abusive parent are wrong, even if they have no power to stop them.

Jackfaire: Are you saying that the only method an omnipotent being has for population control is to allow people to be killed horrifically? Couldn’t he, maybe, use birth control, or some other method that improves the quality of people’s lives instead of destroying it? Considering that the world’s population is approaching the point where the ecosystem will be overwhelmed, horrific death is going to be the only option when we can’t produce enough food to feed everyone.

Draggar: I don’t think either Dogma or Bruce Almighty really addressed the problem of evil. Dogma showed a god who, although very powerful, was not omnipotent. Bruce Almighty showed a god who was apparently bored with it all and so started screwing with his creations. Either that, or he was also not omnipotent.

HYHYBT: Using your example, Bill stops a robbery, saves a life, and brings the attempted thief to justice. Media swarm the bank, and interview Bill, telling him what a great guy he is, and how he did such a good thing. He says, “I wasn’t trying to save anybody’s life. I just happened to bump into the guy.” That doesn’t matter. What he did was still a good thing.

Kheldarson: Even without evil in the world, there would still be variation in events. A child’s life being saved, even by accident, would still be a good thing. Even if, as in your example, both the method of dying and the act that saved him were both accidents.

[HYHYBT]

Yes, thanks, that's much better.


(well, I *did* say I was bad at this...)

[Kheldarson]

Here's a better example, I think.

A kid is about to drown in a pool. Got separated from his party, fell in the shallow end, struggling to keep his head above water. There's nobody around except the maintenance man who's inside the pool house taking care of equipment. He doesn't know about the kid himself, but happens to be emptying the pool for the season, and ends up saving the kid's life that way.

Now, the act is good. It saved the child's life. But there was no conscious choice to do it on the man's behalf. He didn't know, wasn't concerned. So while there is a meaning (saving a life), there's nothing else to it. That's the point. If there's no evil, then you're in a state where saving a life is, yes, a good thing, but the act itself is otherwise meaningless since it's normal.

[HYHYBT]

Even without God's perspective, I can see that there is unnecessary evil in this world.

How can you possibly know that it really is unnecessary?

God lets people be killed horrifically to allow for population control.

Nah, if it weren't for the killings we could just have a lower fertility rate.

So if somebody does something intrinsically good, such as saving a life, but has no knowlege that the act was good, it's meaningless? I think the person whose life was saved would disagree.

If you could not possibly help saving their life, then it's good for them but not a good act on your part. For example: suppose you're in a hold-up and about to be shot. Someone the crook doesn't realize is there (call him Bill) pushes him as he's firing, thereby saving your life. (I know, the crook is doing wrong, but I'm terrible at setting up this sort of thing and he's irrelevant anyway.) From your point of view, this is a good thing. But Bill's action, nonetheless, could have been good, bad, or indifferent. He wanted to save you? Good. He didn't realize what was happening, and hit the robber because, say, he had on, say, a pink triangle cap? Bad, though convenient. He didn't have any idea what was going on, but was just coming through the door and happened to hit the robber with it by accident? Indifferent, because he had no real choice in the matter.