Problem of Evil

[rkwright]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='Feb 25 2006, 10:58 AM']One thing I've never understood is why the existance of evil is such a theological problem for so many people. I've never had a problem with it. In fact, I would have a problem with the notion of an existance in which we never experienced evil. Because if we never experienced evil--if we never experienced pain, suffering, injustice, sorrow, hate; if we were always perfectly content and there was no possibility of hate--what meaning would it have for us to love God or each other? None; we'd just be doing what we were bound to do. What opportunity would we have to show virtue? You can't express virtue unless there is something there for that virtue to fight. A world without evil would be a world in which nobody could be particularly good.
[right][snapback]897465[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'd have to disagree. One can love God without the existance of evil in the world. You can know light without the darkness.

Maybe for some people they find God in hard times. But for some of us (me at least) I have known no hard times. I've never had anyone in my family or friends die, or been with a disease, or in a terrible crisis. Life does just seem to carry on in a 'normal' manner. I don't love God because there is evil, I love God because He is all worthy of all my love.

[rkwright]

Myles or Jeff: How about a crash course on Anslem's view on free will? On the Aquinas verison?

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Feb 25 2006, 01:04 PM']So without pain, suffering, injustice, sorrow and hate even Heaven would be meaningless?
[right][snapback]897523[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, because we've already experienced it here on Earth. Heaven is the reward or result for choosing God in a world in which it is possible to reject Him.

[quote]I'd have to disagree. One can love God without the existance of evil in the world. You can know light without the darkness.

Maybe for some people they find God in hard times. But for some of us (me at least) I have known no hard times. I've never had anyone in my family or friends die, or been with a disease, or in a terrible crisis. Life does just seem to carry on in a 'normal' manner. I don't love God because there is evil, I love God because He is all worthy of all my love[/quote]

The point, really, is that there has to be a potential, a possibility, for you not to love God. Eden was the earthly paradise, but Adam and Eve had free will, because they had the ability to disobey God. Without this ability to choose, loving and obeying God is simply an instinct. Arguably, then, it wouldn't really be love. In a perfect world, it would be impossible not to love God and, therefore, ironically, it would be impossible to truly love Him.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 25 2006, 10:47 AM']It began by linking the Catechetical teaching you highlighted to my original qualms, I was agreeing with your citations. It ended by again asking clarification from Jeff.
[right][snapback]897512[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thank you for clarifying that. I thought is what you said, but I wanted to make sure. I think that Jeff is right, however, there appear to be at least a "serious tension" in the two articles mentioned. Perhaps we can attempt to reconcile this seeming tension?

Edited February 25, 2006 by Paphnutius

[Guest JeffCR07]

Myles, Paph, I'll have to look more deeply into the subject. I'll get back to you when I have an answer.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Feb 25 2006, 06:01 PM']Myles, Paph, I'll have to look more deeply into the subject. I'll get back to you when I have an answer.
[right][snapback]897740[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Take your time friend. I believe that we have to take some time ourselves to prepare an answer on the tension in Aquinas.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 25 2006, 10:09 PM']Thank you for clarifying that. I thought is what you said, but I wanted to make sure. I think that Jeff is right, however, there appear to be at least a "serious tension" in the two articles mentioned. Perhaps we can attempt to reconcile this seeming tension?
[right][snapback]897685[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do not believe Aquinas is saying anything more than Augustine who declared that the reason for God's act of creation is love. However, if Doctor Angelus is not simply following Augustine but saying that because of what God is by nature it is not merely reasonable that He wish to share His goodness but inevitable and unavoidable then that tension is too much to overcome. The Catechetical teaching of the Church would deny that opinion absolutely and outright as you've highlighted Paphnutius. However, I know of no Thomists by name who have taught that St Thomas sees the creation as something akin to a ray of light emanating from the Sun: A natural thing to be expected from God's omnibenevolence.

[quote]Ought we to say that if God willed to realise creation, it had to be the one He actually realized? By no means, and for the same reason! God wills necessarily his own goodness, but this goodness is not increased because of the existence of creatures, and it would not diminish were they to dissapear. What is true is that the present world is perfect in itself. It is the best possible world which it was possible to make with the kind of beings God chose to create. But He could have created another one, made up of better beings and which was a better universe. Consequently, just as God manifests His goodness by means of the things actually existing and by the order which He introduces here and now into the very depths of these things, so He could manifest it by means of other creatures disposed according to some different order. For an infinite Creator, there is no such thing as a best possible finite universe. The same question could have been asked about any created world. Just as God was free to create or not create a universe, He might have created it better or worse without His will being subject to any kind of neccessity.--Gilson E [i]The Christian Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas[/i] p 128[/quote]

PS) Indeed Jeff take your time old friend I'm looking forward to seeing which syllogism you can conjure up this time to defend your point. Always impressive to see the Anselmian at work

Edited February 26, 2006 by Myles

[Guest JeffCR07]

I have looked into the subject, and it seems clear that the Catechism must be properly understood. With a proper understanding of the Catechism, we see that the Anselmian position is entirely within the bounds of the Church's Magisterial teaching.

Moreover, if one is to reject the Anselmian position that I stated above, one would also be forced to reject Augustine's position, and it seems extremely odd that we should interpret the Catechism as teaching opposed to two of the Church's most prominent Doctors.

For an in depth article on exactly this topic: [url="http://www.anselm.edu/library/SAJ/pdf/11Rogers.pdf"]http://www.anselm.edu/library/SAJ/pdf/11Rogers.pdf[/url]

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Paphnutius]

Thank you Jeff for indeed holding to your word to respond. Not that I doubted that you would, but this just speaks to your integrity. I am sure I will spend the next few meals pouring over this article. Thanks again.

[rkwright]

yes thanks jeff! I was wondering if this was just going to end up answered at the bottom...

btw I ordered Anselm's writing off Amazon, I don't know the title off the top of my head, but its about 500 pages of his writings? And I've got one week of spring break doing nothing...

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Mar 10 2006, 04:37 AM']I have looked into the subject, and it seems clear that the Catechism must be properly understood. With a proper understanding of the Catechism, we see that the Anselmian position is entirely within the bounds of the Church's Magisterial teaching.

Moreover, if one is to reject the Anselmian position that I stated above, one would also be forced to reject Augustine's position, and it seems extremely odd that we should interpret the Catechism as teaching opposed to two of the Church's most prominent Doctors.

For an in depth article on exactly this topic: [url="http://www.anselm.edu/library/SAJ/pdf/11Rogers.pdf"]http://www.anselm.edu/library/SAJ/pdf/11Rogers.pdf[/url]

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]907854[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

*rubs hands* lets have a looksee :

[Guest JeffCR07]

:

[kdewolf2]

Okay, I haven't read all the posts, but I'd still like to add my own two cents before I sign off, so I apologize if I say anything that's already been covered.

I'd have to say it would perhaps be a mistake to focus exclusively on free will.

Man is a very, very small and insignificant part of the cosmos, which is almost boundless in its majesty and infinitely transcends the intellect of man.

Yet the cosmos, even with the addition of numerous worlds, trillions of eons of time and incomprehensible distances of empty space, and the possibility of an infinite array of "alternate universes" and "universes with universes," stands in the same relation to God as we do to the cosmos.

In other words, it is merely a speck of dust in the light of God's infinite glory and majesty.

So, you'd like to know, why is it that God did not create us free, but without the possibility of sin?

I suppose it could be possible; since we don't have the ability to do many things. I don't have X-ray vision, but I don't therefore feel any loss of freedom. I accept that I am constitutionally unable to see through walls. So, I could also accept being constitutionally unable to sin. In fact, the more I loved God, the more I would prefer such a condition.

So, why didn't God create us in such a condition? Ask God.

The free will defence resolves the apparent contradiction between God's omnipotence and benevolence on the one hand, and the presence of sin and evil in the world on the other, by blaming it wholly on man's free and unhindered choices of man.

I don't think the free will defence does sufficient justice to the glory of God's sovereignty. It is God who creates; it is God who decides what He will create. The jar of clay has no right to turn to the potter and say, "Why have you made me thus?"

The Lord makes His decisions in accordance with His own will and good pleasure. His will is good because He is by His very essence the supreme good. It doesn't matter if it makes any sense to us or if we approve of it.

Let God be true, and every man a liar. Who can accuse God? Perhaps God saw a greater good in the sin and redemption of man through Jesus Christ, than He did in a world without sin, without pain, and without damnation, yet also without forgiveness, without redemption, and without reconciliation.

As St. Augustine once said, "O happy fault, that has gained for us so great a Redeemer!"

I noticed some discussion about Mary. I'd say, despite whatever graces were conferred on her, she could easily have sinned at any moment, due to free will. But, she was predestined to be the mother of God, perhaps because God already knew she would not sin, and she loved God very much, so she had no desire to.

So, although she had the ability to sin, she simply lacked the desire because she had a pleasure and delight in God's love which transcended the fleeting pleasures of sin.

Perhaps God could impose such a mind-set on all of us, but He has no desire to. St. Augustine also said, "God who created without your cooperation will not save you without your cooperation." And who can gainsay God? It's more important for us actually to love God than question why God does not make us unable to not love Him.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I couple points. First, if the potter had given the jar of clay an intellect by which to grasp truth, then the jar of clay [i]would[/i] have the right to ask those questions, and, in fact, in asking those questions it would be doing what it was made to do.

Second, the free will defense [i]does[/i] do justice to God's sovreignty. In fact, it is the sovreignty of God that the free will defense is aimed at protecting. If God is all powerful, all wise, and all Good, then evil and sin is an affront to His majesty and glory. That means that either we a.) live with it or b.) account for it by appealing to something other than God. If we choose to live with it (as you seem to be suggesting) then God's sovreignty is called into question. If we are gonna account for it, we can do one of two things: We can either use the free will defense, or we can pull something like Spinoza and say that nothing is really a sin, and instead we just fail to see how it all adds up in the bigger picture. We can't do the latter, because it denies the Fall, Original Sin, and the need for redemption in Christ. So the only way for God to remain entirely sovreign is via the free will defense.

Thirdly, the last quote you have by Augustine is a phenomenal example of how important the free will defense [i]is[/i]. God allows for human free will and chooses to allow us to take autonomous action. Free will is the key to understanding all of this.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[kdewolf2]

I don't see how man has a right to question God:

But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me thus?"
(Rom 9:20)

God is so far above man, that his intellect is simply unable to comprehend Him or His designs:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
(Isa 55:8-9)

I don't see how the free will defense does justice to God's sovereignty at all; while it does remove the onus of evil from God, it does not speak of God's sovereignty or His will. It only speaks of man and his supposed freedom to do evil or refrain from it at his liberty. It makes God a passive spectator of the world scene rather than actively moving everything to its foreordained purpose.

I wouldn't deny that man is free:

He has placed before you fire and water: stretch out your hand for whichever you wish.
(Sir 16:16)

However, it does not seem to me that evil is always attributable to free will:

And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.
(Jn 9: )

Natural evils seem to be an aspect of God's creation, rather than a result of human choices. Yet even moral evils often have a victim, who may suffer intensely through no fault of his own, due to the choices of another. Consider the Holocaust.

Now, St. Augustine tells us that God only allows evil for the sake of a greater good, and likewise he says of Adam's sin, "O happy fault that gained for us so great a redeemer." The redemption we have from Jesus Christ is greater than all the sins of the world. Furthermore, St. Paul says, "The sufferings of the present age are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed."

Yet, it's questionable why God should have done things the way He did, allowing so much sin and degradation, so much horror, so much evil, to achieve His purposes. And I don't think free will is necessarily the best, or most complete, answer. It's conceivable that God could have made the whole procedure much less painful.

It's questionable to say that God allows all this simply to obtain man's love and obedience freely, without compulsion, considering how many people have lost faith, and given themselves over to despair, on account of what they've suffered and what they've been through. Perhaps many have kept faith heroically and never wavered in the love of God; others have not.

It seems to me that ultimately we must simply accept that God "dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see." (1 Timothy 6:16) He is "hidden in a cloud of ineffable light," as I believe another version puts it. It's necessary to keep faith with God, but, like Job, I think we'll have to forgo easy answers and wrestle with inscrutable mysteries.

I'd have to say, Spinoza may have been partly right. Sin and evil must have a place in the bigger picture, to wit, God's picture, but like Jesus said:

Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!
Luke 17:1

I certainly don't agree with Leibniz, that God could only have created the world a certain way, namely, the best way, because:

Whatever the LORD pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
Ps 135:6

Besides it's by no means clear that there is only one best way to create the world.