Tale of the 12 Officers

[Meow Mix]

Marc I. Vuletic has a brilliant story that exposes the inanity of many theodicies (i.e., responses to the Problem of Evil) on his blog. I'm unable to post a hyperlink since I haven't posted 15 times yet, but you can remove the spaces from the following and add some w's and a dot at the beginning, if you get my meaning:

vuletic . com /hume/at/12 . html

The (brief) story is about a woman, Ms. K, who is raped and murdered while 12 off-duty police officers stand by without intervening whatsoever. It becomes immediately obvious that the officers are analogous to God, and that each officer represents a different theistic "answer" to the Problem of Evil, exposing their failure through parable.

For instance, one officer declares that he didn't stop the rape/torture/murder of Ms. K because "it occurred to me that it was obviously better for the murderer to be able to exercise his free will than to have it restricted. I deeply regret the choices he made, but that's the price of having a world with free agents."

Another officer defends his inaction by stating, "I was about to pull my gun on the murderer when I thought to myself, 'But wait, wouldn't this be a perfect opportunity for some unarmed bystander to exercise selfless heroism, should he chance to walk by? If I were to intervene all the time like I was just about to, then no one would ever be able to exercise such a virtue. In fact, everyone would probably become very spoiled and self-centered if I were to prevent every act of rape and murder.' So I backed off. It's unfortunate that no one actually showed up to heroically intervene, but that's the price of having a universe where people can display virtue and maturity. Would you rather the world were nothing but love, peace, and roses?"

And so on. I applaud Mr. Vuletic for such a creative and revealing look at the failure of mainstream theodicies to account for the Problem of Evil.

What do you folks think about his story?

 

[Tiapan]

It seems you have found a gem of an analogy. I would point out that it is often the ordinary guy on the street that may actually intervene, not the official protectors of society. I don't think religious affiliation is involved particularly.

Recently a drug affected biker was bashing his girlfriend in the middle of city in morning rush hour. Two men out of the masses ran forward to assist the woman. One was a melbourne solicitor the other a Dutch Backpacker. The bikie drew a gun and shot them both, the solicitor died, the dutch boy was critical but survived.

Backpacker shot three times - National - theage.com.au

The point is often there are those who throw caution to the wind when they see injustice. But the risk they take is great. They are both true heroes in my books. The bikie is now locked up serving a very long sentence.

Cheers

 

[Man of Faith]

If God stopped all evil every human would perish, just like when he stopped all violence with the global flood. When should God stop a murder? When someone imagines it? When someone hates someone? Jesus says that if you hate someone you are just as guilty as a murderer. Here is a list things that God hates according to the Bible, pride, lying, murder, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness, a person that sows discord among family. Who would be left?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If God stopped all evil every human would perish, just like when he stopped all violence with the global flood.

I'm having trouble following your opening line. Why would humans cease to exist if God chose to stop all violence?

When should God stop a murder?

I'll take a stab at this, and say - "every time one is imminent". Why in the world would God NOT stop a murder?

 

[Mr Cheese]

If you can stomach to read it, here is an interesting article on evil...

............

1. <LI class=MsoNormal>According to Lurianic Kabbalah the roots of evil (expressed as the power of din) are immanent to The Absolute (En Sof) itself and are contained in its depths. <LI class=MsoNormal>The process of creation explicates these potential roots of evil. <LI class=MsoNormal>This explication of din is the foundation of the very beginning of the creation through zimzum (contraction).
2. The purpose of creation is the elimination of the element of din (and consequently of evil) through its explication and subsequent liquidation in the process of &#8216;divine catharsis.&#8217; Keeping these points in mind we can now outline some Buddhist materials relevant to our topic.

In early Buddhism and in Theravada (Sthaviravada) tradition the problem of evil has been decided in a very simple way. Evil was understood as &#8217;suffering,&#8217; duhkha which was thought to be one of the most fundamental qualities of being as such (together with anitya &#8211; non eternity, non constancy and anatma &#8211; essencelessness, or devoidedness of essence/&#8217;ego&#8217. Briefly speaking, early Buddhism only demonstrated the fact of evil as a principal attribute of every existence as such. It also analyzed the cause of suffering and involvement of the sentient beings into the cyclic existence of the world of births-and-deaths (samsara), and this cause of this involvement was ignorant affectivity and desires, or defilements (klesa). Moreover, in the Abhidharmic texts (e.g., Vasubandhu&#8217;s famous &#8216;Compendium of Abhidharma,&#8217; Abhidharma kosa, chapter 3, Loka nirdesa, &#8216;Exposition of the World&#8216 even the Triple Cosmos (traya lokya) itself was thought to be the objectivization (&#8216;materialization&#8217 of the summarized sequences of the affects of the living beings of the preceding cosmic cycle (kalpa). Nothing else but klesas (affects and desires in their latent, or subtle form) produce the material foundation of the universe at the beginning of every cosmic cycle. And this universe is only an expression of the beginningless desires and lusts which lead every being to the painful samsaric existence according to the Law of Interdependent Origination (pratitya samutpada). And this &#8216;evil&#8217; character of samsara is confirmed by the doctrinal essentials of Buddhism, that is, the Four Noble Truths:

1. <LI class=MsoNormal>every existence is painful/unsatisfactory, <LI class=MsoNormal>desires and attachments are the cause of pain, <LI class=MsoNormal>there is a state free from pain (nirvana), and
2. there is a path toward liberation from samsara and attainment of nirvana (Eightfold Noble Path).

But the question of the origins of ignorant volitions and affects did not arise at all. Moreover it was thought to be an incorrect one because of the beginningless character of the cyclic existence of samsara. This position was tightly connected with the empirical treatment of the problem of consciousness: early Buddhism was interested only in analyses of the given contents of the psychic without an attempt to examine the question of the root, or source of consciousness (vijnana) and its contents.

In Mahayana (Great Vehicle Buddhism) the situation has been radically changed. Mahayanistic schools of Buddhism (first of all, Yogacara, or Vijnaptimatra) tried to find the source root of consciousness as well as the root of all samsaric existence. The Yogacarins proclaimed a famous tenet that all three worlds of samsara are but consciousness (vijnana, citta) and its states (vijnapti, caita). If samsara is but consciousness, it means that the roots of consciousness are the roots of samsara as well. The Yogacarins introduced a notion of alaya vijnana (store consciousness) as a source of all samsaric experiences. It is important to note that in the classical Yogacara this store consciousness was not understood as substance, or even substratum of the experiential world. The Yogacarins often used the image of the stream of water to depict alaya vijnana: it is a pure continuity of impermanent, or even momentary nature. The Tibetan word for &#8216;alaya vijnana&#8216; is sems kun gzhi, that is &#8216;consciousness which is the all-root.&#8217;

The concept of alaya vijnana was sufficient to explain the nature of samsara but it mostly failed to explain the nature of the final liberation, nirvana and Enlightenment, or more exactly, Awakening (bodhi) as attainment of the exalted state of Buddhahood.

The Doctrine of the Origin of Evil in Lurianic and Sabbatian Kabbalah and in the awakening of Faith in Mahayanistic Buddhism « Prayers and Reflections

 

[Meow Mix]

If you can stomach to read it, here is an interesting article on evil...

I tried to read that but the terminology was tough to march through. Can the idea be simplified at all?

 

[dust1n]

If God stopped all evil every human would perish, just like when he stopped all violence with the global flood. When should God stop a murder? When someone imagines it? When someone hates someone? Jesus says that if you hate someone you are just as guilty as a murderer. Here is a list things that God hates according to the Bible, pride, lying, murder, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness, a person that sows discord among family. Who would be left?

Um, just to let you know.. obvious God didn't stop violence with the flood... mainly because of the violence that still occurs.

 

[dust1n]

Marc I. Vuletic has a brilliant story that exposes the inanity of many theodicies (i.e., responses to the Problem of Evil) on his blog. I'm unable to post a hyperlink since I haven't posted 15 times yet, but you can remove the spaces from the following and add some w's and a dot at the beginning, if you get my meaning:

Apathy is rather useless to anyone in need.

 

[Meow Mix]

If God stopped all evil every human would perish, just like when he stopped all violence with the global flood. When should God stop a murder? When someone imagines it? When someone hates someone? Jesus says that if you hate someone you are just as guilty as a murderer. Here is a list things that God hates according to the Bible, pride, lying, murder, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness, a person that sows discord among family. Who would be left?

It isn't the case that God would have to murder to stop suffering; why do you automatically jump to that conclusion? I'd like to direct your attention to my post, "Amended Problem of Evil" in this same message board. I believe it addresses most of your points and questions.

 

[Baydwin]

I think the problem of evil is that people class acts or thoughts as good or evil, and then they turn around and apply these human derived principles to god, an entity so clearly beyond the scope of human-created morality and even comprehension.
Pointing at god and saying "you are good. why did you create evil?" is, in my opinion, tantamount to pointing at the sun and saying "you make our crops grow. why do you go away at night?". The idea of god being benevolent or malevolent is, I think, ridiculous.

For me, god emanated the world naturally. A physical derivation of an abstract potential. Believing the world was created by a Great Architect allows the assigning of blame for that Architect's imperfections in creating, whereas no one can blame a mother for the innate imperfections in her offspring.

Oh, and I went to the website Meow. Initially I found it almost comedic, but thinking back I thought numbers 3 and 11 were actually quite disturbing.