Hello. This is topic serves as both a question and introduction. I have just joined and wish to present to you some thoughts which I hope some of you can help me put into perspective. I am by no means great at articulation, debate or even philosophy for that matter, I'm at odds with where I stand and find myself caught between atheism and theism. One of my biggest contentions with theism is the idea of the personal God, specifically when we talk about evil. Personally I have seen many good men and women suffer tragedy, heartache and pain that is often inflicted with no fault of their own, either through injury, disease or crime. Many of these people I know of where devout Roman Catholics, including my own father and mother.
For every time I've spoke about the tired 'Why do bad things happen to good people' topic, each person has had varying replies, but mostly all of whom deal with the topic of evil as if it were abstract, an entity that is kept at a comfortable distance from them. This can be exampled when we talk of the sad story of poverty halfheartedly, never taking it in until we actually venture to the third-world and see it for ourselves. I've found this to be my experience when talking to the philosophically minded about evil; some (not all) talk of it, but have never been confronted with pure evil. So the following I will share a means to be confronted with extreme evil.
What I'm about to link is partly why I'm here and is my motivator on asking the question: Where is God when evil strikes? It is a non-graphic video, an audio recording of an emergency service call from a 6-year-old girl in El Salvador desperately begging for help as an intruder butchered her own mother right in front of her, and much later, butchered her. This is not visually violent, but will shake one to the core none-the-less:
I will use this as an example of pure evil. A man enters a home and mercilessly slaughters the little girl's aunt and her mother before her very eyes. At a certain point in the call the little girl screams a prolonged, heart-wrenching and chilling cry as she watches her mother's life drain right before her, it's right there that the girl's innocence is destroyed in an instant. All the while the man indifferently proceeds to kill the small child. The man was never caught.
So. Where is God here? This God whom created all of existence and is limitless in power, who is beyond space and time and supposedly infinite in his compassion? A God who was seemingly oblivious to a girl's plea in a city named in his son's honor? I cannot wrap my head around this, and any attempts to think about it using reason always falls short compared to the arguments of emotion that it invokes. How do we begin to address this? It's hard for myself personally to come to terms with such a tragedy nor can I think of a good defense for God. At some point I always hold God accountable.
An example I think of often is being witness to a potential murder and knowing you could potentially stop it. Should you chose to remain idle and let it unfold, what kind of man would you be? Why then doesn't God seem to hold himself to this standard? Why does he not intervene? And if we can demonstrate that God DOES intervene in some documented cases from tales of miracles, then why is he selective on whom he helps?
At any rate, I've said all I wanted to say. I apologize if the substance of my post was more emotion than intellect, but this topic moves me on a deep level. Apologies if the above content comes across as too strong for the readers.
Offline
Hello CGillon!
Thank you for coming in and asking questions!
As for the POE, I can't really give you an emotional response, but an intellectual one.
In the Classical theist tradition (Before Descartes), God is not a moral agent and cannot go through metaphysical change. What do I mean by this? Us humans are committed to the moral law to become better people, which means that we can change. In respectable metaphysical terms, we actualize potencies or fail to realize potencies. Since God is what we call Actus Purus or Pure Actuality, then God is Completeness/Perfection. There is no such thing as becoming better or worse in God and that's why the moral law does not apply to God. God just is Goodness or cannot be evil. Otherwise, he would not be God. I know this is hard to swallow, but God has no moral obligations.
Also, evil in the classical viewpoint is defined as the absence of goodness or a failed realization. Whenever, you see a tree grow, it naturally strives to be a mature tree, that is its end. Say, a tree has a genetic defect then something went wrong with that tree. The tree failed to be realized fully. My point is that in order for evil to "happen" a more fundamental reality has to be there first. Its just in the nature of contingent reality for things to corrupt and come and go. In fact, we can even use evil to show God exists, accepting the premise that change happens or contingent reality is there is one step to God's existence.
Hope this helps a little bit, and thank you for your time.
Offline
Hello, Mysterious Brony. In prior threads on this topic, I believe what you are talking about has been referred to as the privation theory in response to the POE, and to me (I assume I am misunderstanding it) it sounds like creation is itself a kind of fall, that suffering will happen as long as there is contingent beings, and that seems to raise new theological problems.
My bigger emotional problem with the problem of evil is not just the suffering of the innocent, which I have a similar emotional response to CGillon but sort of can accept the theodicies I have read, but the problem of people born with natural, strong inclinations to evil. Sociopaths and pedophiles etc. If the purpose of creating human beings is to show forth his goodness by creating free creatures who can choose the good, why make creatures so strongly inclined to evil?
Similarly, natural selection seems designed to create creatures who are lustful, gluttonous, wrathful, etc. Why create us in such a manner that will incline us to evil?
Offline
@ArmandoAlvarez
The privation theory is not really a theodicy (I'm not appealing to theodicies and in fact some theists reject theodicies), but rather once one fully understands the A-T metaphysical system then one will see that the privation theory naturally follows.
God creates being and in the A-T viewpoint being, goodness and truth are really the same from different perspectives, so creation per se is not evil. However, since creation is not perfect then some evils will ensue. Sociopaths and pedophiles have conditions where something went wrong, say in the womb, the environment, etc. God created the sociopaths and pedophiles qua beings, but not their deprived state (psychopathy, pedophilia). Also, in the A-T viewpoint, I don't think there is such thing as "inclined towards evil" because as a normative fact we are inclined to do good as you say, at least morally.
Similarly, the same thing goes with natural animals. Sometimes, their natural functions are failed to be fully realized, so they end up gluttonous, wrathful, lustful, etc. However, natural animals are not moral beings, so the moral law does not apply to them.
I don't know if you have read any books that approach the POE from a Classical perspective. Brian Davies' "The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil" and Herbert McCabe's "God and Evil", David E Alexander's "Goodness, God and Evil" (David E Alexander's book is more technical) are books that I recommend. I also recommend some of Feser's blog posts that touch upon these matters such as this one:
Good luck!
Offline
It isn't so much that creation is a fall, as it is open to the possibility of privation. I'm not sure what these theological problems are. It would be more problematic if creation were perfect as God is, another God. Creation is still overwhelmingly good.
I think we should remember the traditional chain of being in discussions like this. Our level of being, the corporeal is the only level, or at least one of the few levels, where privation becomes actual suffering. And it is a miniscule part of creation. The problem of evil is often raised with an implicitly modern, naturalistic understanding of creation in the background.
The OP is not really an argument. It is an emotional appeal. On its own it does not prove that the so called logical problem of evil, nor the evidential one. It is a common claim that some evils seem just too bad to be squared with the existence of a good God. But supported by only an intuition - one certainly not shared by all - this doesn't seem to advance the issue to me, and is not on its own an answer to any of the philosophical arguments against the so called problem of evil.
I too have never found the so called problem of evil that troubling. It has more been certain evils I have found puzzling, like widespread infant mortality or mental illnesses like depression. Of course, the degree to which they are puzzling depends somewhat on how we understand them and the cosmos. Infant mortality, for example, seems a squandering of the very purpose of human life, and is especially puzzling given ots historuc scale. But it is more problematic if one holds to the Christian view of our mortal lives as the singular and sole phase of our lives not in paradise or hell, then it is more problematic than for someone who thinks we can have more than one mortal life or that there may be other levels of being that are testing grounds as ours is.