Ok, you do have a point here that can not be easily explained away.
I guess I just don't see how the existence of virtues somehow justifies starving to death even one child. And there are tens of thousands of starving children.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do most people assume God is benevolent?
- Thread starter rojse
- Start date
Ok, you do have a point here that can not be easily explained away.
I guess I just don't see how the existence of virtues somehow justifies starving to death even one child. And there are tens of thousands of starving children.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
A world without evil is logically possible. The add-on: meaningful choices, is subjective special pleading. Evil isnt logically necessary to the concept of free will. Having free will entails choosing from what exists, and evil doesnt have a necessary existence. Learning, aspiration and self-improvement are also meaningful (subjective) choices, but they do not require the presence of evil.
And how, for example, does the death of a small child from cancer relate to meaningful choices?
To make evil a condition for overcoming evil makes no sense at all.
Cottage
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Granted.
No, it isn't.
I'll say it again, if we cannot choose to defy God, we do not have free will.
It doesn't. I wouldn't call that evil in this context, as cancer has no malice.
On the contrary, it's a tautology.
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...do-most-people-assume-god-15.html#post1524813
A world without evil is logically possible.
Granted.
Quote:
The add-on: meaningful choices, is subjective special pleading.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is, because meaningful choices is a subjective notion.
All sorts of people lead meaningful lives without pain and suffering being a necessary element. We can choose whether to get married; we can choose whether, in principle, we want children; we can choose to travel, or not; we can choose what we want to study; we are free to choose any religion, politics or philosophy; we can strive to gain knowledge, play golf, or watch TV; we can design, make or improve objects; we can choose our friends and we can contribute to society in the way that we choose. A contingent, imperfect human race can advance from a lesser one to a greater one, without any logical necessity to suffer or inflict unspeakable evil.
Quote:
Evil isnt logically necessary to the concept of free will. Having free will entails choosing from what exists, and evil doesnt have a necessary existence. Learning, aspiration and self-improvement are also meaningful (subjective) choices, but they do not require the presence of evil.
I'll say it again, if we cannot choose to defy God, we do not have free will.
If there is a God, then there can be no absolute free will (obviously)! Contingent creatures cannot deny an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, Creator. Whatever exists and whatever occurs can only exist and occur by the will of Almighty God. If a perfectly good God decreed that there be no evil, then there would be no evil. Or did you want to disagree with that?
Quote:
And how, for example, does the death of a small child from cancer relate to meaningful choices?
It doesn't. I wouldn't call that evil in this context, as cancer has no malice.
Okay, now lets just get this discussion back on track. The thread is titled Why do people assume God is benevolent? My argument is that the assumption involves a contradiction because of the existence of suffering. Your argument is that free will somehow insulates the Creator from his creations suffering. So, if that is your position, please explain the relevance of meaningful choices to infants cancer.
Quote:
To make evil a condition for overcoming evil makes no sense at all.
On the contrary, it's a tautology.
Yes, yes! Exactly!
It is a worthless tautology. And if, as you say, evil is there to facilitate free will, isnt that precisely what your argument amounts to?
Cottage
A world without evil is logically possible.
Granted.
Quote:
The add-on: meaningful choices, is subjective special pleading.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is, because meaningful choices is a subjective notion.
All sorts of people lead meaningful lives without pain and suffering being a necessary element. We can choose whether to get married; we can choose whether, in principle, we want children; we can choose to travel, or not; we can choose what we want to study; we are free to choose any religion, politics or philosophy; we can strive to gain knowledge, play golf, or watch TV; we can design, make or improve objects; we can choose our friends and we can contribute to society in the way that we choose. A contingent, imperfect human race can advance from a lesser one to a greater one, without any logical necessity to suffer or inflict unspeakable evil.
Quote:
Evil isnt logically necessary to the concept of free will. Having free will entails choosing from what exists, and evil doesnt have a necessary existence. Learning, aspiration and self-improvement are also meaningful (subjective) choices, but they do not require the presence of evil.
I'll say it again, if we cannot choose to defy God, we do not have free will.
If there is a God, then there can be no absolute free will (obviously)! Contingent creatures cannot deny an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, Creator. Whatever exists and whatever occurs can only exist and occur by the will of Almighty God. If a perfectly good God decreed that there be no evil, then there would be no evil. Or did you want to disagree with that?
Quote:
And how, for example, does the death of a small child from cancer relate to meaningful choices?
It doesn't. I wouldn't call that evil in this context, as cancer has no malice.
Okay, now lets just get this discussion back on track. The thread is titled Why do people assume God is benevolent? My argument is that the assumption involves a contradiction because of the existence of suffering. Your argument is that free will somehow insulates the Creator from his creations suffering. So, if that is your position, please explain the relevance of meaningful choices to infants cancer.
Quote:
To make evil a condition for overcoming evil makes no sense at all.
On the contrary, it's a tautology.
Yes, yes! Exactly!
It is a worthless tautology. And if, as you say, evil is there to facilitate free will, isnt that precisely what your argument amounts to?
Cottage
Yes, exactly! We can doubt the existence of a deity, but we can't doubt the existence of evil.
I suppose people find it difficult to believe in a God whose attitude to his creation (beyond its continued existence) is arbitrary or indifferent. Hence the perfectly inadequate explanations that attempt to address the POE.
Cottage
And you certainly don't have to begin from the antecedent position that there is no God in order to see the contradiction. I don't. But evil exists, and therefore a perfectly good God does not. There is no puzzle.
Cottage
Assuming God created the entire world, then He is the opposite of benevolent.
Most people do not get enough to eat, or clean water, or basic health care, or safety in their own communities.
Wildlife kills and enslaves, and parasites, and is generally 'red in tooth and claw'. Animals, fish, and insects live lives in fear and certain knowledge that when they get sick, or old, or careless something will eat them - sometimes while they are still alive.
If that is benevolent, I would hate to see worse.
Most people do not get enough to eat, or clean water, or basic health care, or safety in their own communities.
Wildlife kills and enslaves, and parasites, and is generally 'red in tooth and claw'. Animals, fish, and insects live lives in fear and certain knowledge that when they get sick, or old, or careless something will eat them - sometimes while they are still alive.
If that is benevolent, I would hate to see worse.
I'm not sure about pain and suffering equalling evil; but I'm certain most people believe pain and suffering to be evil.
I'm very interested to hear your understanding of evil (and any other person's on view on the subject).
Cottage
gnomon
Well-Known Member
I prefer the concepts of cosmic evil, conscious evil or that which is against God. It's the only kind that makes any sense without being nothing more than a gradient of bad.
There can be a view of evil as an opposite force of good (Zoroastrianism, Christianity, etc.) in which the two forces compete against each other. In this instance pain and suffering in themselves are not evil but can be a consequence of the actions of the two forces.
Another type of evil is that in which there are not two opposing forces but evil is viewed as simply that which is against God. Disobeying God. To me this is similar to Judaic thought in which there is no evil force working against God but the individual's choice to reject God.
The concept that anything we dislike that causes suffering as evil means that anything from a child murderer to getting a splinter in my toe are both evil. That concept of evil is nonsensical to me. There are other terms in our language that convey better meanings. It's also the non-cosmic, non-spiritual concepts of evil which are used to divide different cultures and lead to some pretty horrific justifications. So called demonizations.
edit: Forgot to state that I actually do not believe in the evil/good dichotomy.
There can be a view of evil as an opposite force of good (Zoroastrianism, Christianity, etc.) in which the two forces compete against each other. In this instance pain and suffering in themselves are not evil but can be a consequence of the actions of the two forces.
Another type of evil is that in which there are not two opposing forces but evil is viewed as simply that which is against God. Disobeying God. To me this is similar to Judaic thought in which there is no evil force working against God but the individual's choice to reject God.
The concept that anything we dislike that causes suffering as evil means that anything from a child murderer to getting a splinter in my toe are both evil. That concept of evil is nonsensical to me. There are other terms in our language that convey better meanings. It's also the non-cosmic, non-spiritual concepts of evil which are used to divide different cultures and lead to some pretty horrific justifications. So called demonizations.
edit: Forgot to state that I actually do not believe in the evil/good dichotomy.
I think rather than pain and suffering are a consequence of "evil", which is mistaken thinking.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I think you're confusing God with humanity, rojse. God didn't start either of the World Wars nor any of the wars that are going on now. God is not responsible for poverty either. You know that as well as the next person.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Okay, rosje. I'm not going to read all of the replies you've gotten so far, so if someone has already said something along this line, please forgive me. I assume that God is benevolent because I do see His hand in all that is good and beautiful in the world. As to why He allows bad things to happen, there are a number of reasons.
First, consider the relationship a one-year-old child has with his mother. He adores her, trusts her completely and knows that she will always be there when he needs her. He has come to develop those feelings towards her through his own experiences. One day, she takes him to visit a strange man he can never remember having seen before. This man walks into the room with an enormous syringe and with absolutely no provocation whatsoever, jams the needle into the thigh of the child. The child screams in terror and pain, and reaches out for his mother, who sits a few feet away, watching this all happen but doing absolutely nothing to intercede. Obviously, a child's thought processes aren't well-developed at that age, and yet there must be a sense of confusion and abandonment. Why would someone he has always looked to for safety and compassion simply sit there and do nothing to stop someone else from hurting him?
I see man's relationship with God as much the same as a year-old child's relationship with his mother, except that man has even less understanding of God's purposes than the child has of his mother's. The mother isn't malevolent in the slightest. She simply knows that there is a very good reason to subject her child to this fear and pain. She is looking ahead to the time when he might be exposed to a disease that can be prevented by her action. If there is a God, a Being so much more advanced than we are that He could have created us and given us life, and placed us upon this Earth, to live, die and then be resurrected, He is obviously much, much too complex a Being for us to comprehend. What we see as injustices and evidence of a cruel God are due to our lack of understanding and nothing more.
First, consider the relationship a one-year-old child has with his mother. He adores her, trusts her completely and knows that she will always be there when he needs her. He has come to develop those feelings towards her through his own experiences. One day, she takes him to visit a strange man he can never remember having seen before. This man walks into the room with an enormous syringe and with absolutely no provocation whatsoever, jams the needle into the thigh of the child. The child screams in terror and pain, and reaches out for his mother, who sits a few feet away, watching this all happen but doing absolutely nothing to intercede. Obviously, a child's thought processes aren't well-developed at that age, and yet there must be a sense of confusion and abandonment. Why would someone he has always looked to for safety and compassion simply sit there and do nothing to stop someone else from hurting him?
I see man's relationship with God as much the same as a year-old child's relationship with his mother, except that man has even less understanding of God's purposes than the child has of his mother's. The mother isn't malevolent in the slightest. She simply knows that there is a very good reason to subject her child to this fear and pain. She is looking ahead to the time when he might be exposed to a disease that can be prevented by her action. If there is a God, a Being so much more advanced than we are that He could have created us and given us life, and placed us upon this Earth, to live, die and then be resurrected, He is obviously much, much too complex a Being for us to comprehend. What we see as injustices and evidence of a cruel God are due to our lack of understanding and nothing more.
rojse
RF Addict
Nothing to forgive.
Oh, that's quite a good example. Frubals.
I can see where you are coming from with your example, Katzpur, but I find it quite difficult to assign every single atrocity, from the suffering of individuals to entire races, to have a greater good, whether it be now, or in ten, a hundred or even in the distant future.
And, to continue with your excellent example, if we substitute the immunising doctor for God, would not God make the antivirus given to the child seem like a lolly, perhaps?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I don't believe every atrocity in the world does have a greater good. If I implied that, I'm sorry. As I said before, I do believe that there is a greater good behind many of the trials and hardships that we experience, though I doubt that God just sits up in His Heaven thinking up tests to put us through. I believe He created a world where we could have a whole range of experiences that, in their entirety, could give us the opportunity to grow. Although it's very difficult, I try to kind of view trials as the way we can (depending upon how we respond to them) become stronger. I see them as kind of analogous to how steel becomes strong through the refiner's fire. Furthermore, it would be impossible for us to even recognize the good things in life without something with which to contrast them. It wouldn't even occur to us to actually enjoy the blessings of good health, for instance, if we had never experienced illness. We would never know the feeling that comes with succeeding at something if we hadn't first experienced failure.
I also believe that mankind had a whole lot to do with the atrocities we see all around us, from disease to poverty to war to hunger to abuse to the destruction of the earth's environment. The list goes on and on. I believe each of us was given free will (which is not to say that there will be no consequences for bad choices). If God were to stop the "bad guys" every time their choices impacted the "good guys," no one would be able to have free will. Other people's bad choices are just something we all have to live with in order to have the right to make good choices ourselves.
Finally, when people speak of God being cruel and heartless because He allows so many people to suffer, I am always tempted to ask what a good alternative would be. Should He not allow any suffering whatsoever? Or should there be limits on who suffers and how much? How should these limits be determined? There are just so many unanswered questions whenever someone starts arguing that God is malevolent.
Good question. I don't know.
