Did God Create Evil?

[matthew1618]

Did God create evil?

God says in Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Do you know if this is a miss translation? Or DID God create evil?

[Didacus]

God did not create evil.

Evil denotes the absence of good and seperation from God. Since it denotes the 'absence' of a thing, it is not a 'thing' itself thus is not existing, and has not been created.


For instance, if I hold a flash light into the dark, you can say 'there is light'. If I turn off my flashlight, then there is no light. Did I interupt the light or did I create 'darkness'?

Darkness is a notation to signify the absence of light, thus I did not create darkness, I simply removed the light. Evil vs good is the same sort of thing. As darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good and neither truly exist.

I'll let the scholars reply to Isaiah 45:7, that would be best.

[goldenchild17]

Douay-Rheims note on the passage:

7 "Create evil"... The evils of afflictions and punishments, but not the evil of sin.









God does actively send pain and punishment, as result of our sins. But the sins themselves are not created by God.

Edited February 15, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Guest JeffCR07]

First we ought to remember that, as didacus said, evil is not "something" that is created. Rather, evil is a lack of what ought to be present. Now God can be said to "create" evil in a number of ways. The first, and primary, way in which God "creates" evil is by creating all things, including free beings, and permitting them to do evil.

There is a sense in which one is said, improperly, to "cause" evil when one could stop it but does not. It is within the Lord's power to stop man, but He desires us to be free and so He allows the evil that we do. The second sense in which God "causes" evil is in the manner alluded to by goldenchild. There is a distinction between "material evil" and "moral evil." Material evil is caused by God because nature is and will be, until the second coming, imperfect.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Didacus]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1195484' date='Feb 14 2007, 10:13 PM']
First we ought to remember that, as didacus said, evil is not "something" that is created. Rather, evil is a lack of what ought to be present. Now God can be said to "create" evil in a number of ways. The first, and primary, way in which God "creates" evil is by creating all things, including free beings, and permitting them to do evil.

There is a sense in which one is said, improperly, to "cause" evil when one could stop it but does not. It is within the Lord's power to stop man, but He desires us to be free and so He allows the evil that we do. The second sense in which God "causes" evil is in the manner alluded to by goldenchild. There is a distinction between "material evil" and "moral evil." Material evil is caused by God because nature is and will be, until the second coming, imperfect.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]

I either misundertsand your post due to brievity or I disagree.

God creates all thing good, with a free will (which is good) that is alligned uprigth (still good), and one could add 'with the intent or hope that all free will would preserve their rigthcheousness' - (still good, if you intend right or good, or hope towards it this is not a sin nor is it evil).

But man (or some free wills) used their will to turn against rightcheousness (their own fault - not God's since the wills were free) thus those 'free-wills' who 'turned against the rightful nature given to them' lost their possession of good and turned to the state of evil (that is a seperation from God). Since the blame rest upon that will which turned from God and not God Himself He is innocent of the 'evil state of being' and cannot be held accountable for the reality (not existence) it forms. The blame, and thus the inventor (not creator) of the state of being that is evil is thus the free will which turned from that which is right - in short, man (with the help from the devil) is the only inventor, and the only one to blame for their own state of evil (and suffering it produces) and not God Himself and thus it can be more accurately said, though remaining erroneous, that man, is the 'creator' of evil, and not God.

Does this make sense? Please correct my logic if I am wrong, I love to learn.

Gotta love St. Anselm!

[Guest JeffCR07]

That looks perfect. In true Anselmian form, the only change I would make is that instead of saying man "lost their possession of good" I would say "lost their uprightness of will." Aside from this technical change (which really isn't a substantial change at all), you hit the nail on the head. It is entirely compatible with my post.

Great job!

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[beatty07]

i can help out with Isaiah 45:7

the Hebrew is something like "Rah" (I never know how to write hebrew characters in the latin alphabet). It means evil in the sense of what you don't want to happen... like "calamity" or "misfortune." It seems like it may also have specific connotation of hunger or famine.

Here's a very helpful clue. The "good" to which it is being opposed in Is 45:7 is in Hebrew "shalom." Which is a very special idea of 'good.' It means "peace, completeness, happiness, soundness, welfare..." So think of "rah" as the opposite of all that.

The Septuagint Greek has kaka, from kakos, meaning bad or evil when used of things. The Latin Vulgate has "malum" which does translate more directly to the English "evil." I think it's the Hebrew that is really helpful in this case, and usually gets pride of place in interpretation anyway.

It's not likely that Isaiah was thinking of what we Greek-minded westerners would call 'ontological evil.' We're not reading Plato or Plotinus here, but a Hebrew several hundred years before Christ. He's thinking of all the fortune that befalls human beings, the cycles of prosperity, the fickleness of nature, the constant threat of conquest, etc. That's all in God's hand. God isn't subject to it, but causes it. He rewards and chastises those he loves.

That's my $.02 anyway.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1196548' date='Feb 15 2007, 06:58 PM']
I either misundertsand your post due to brievity or I disagree.

God creates all thing good, with a free will (which is good) that is alligned uprigth (still good), and one could add 'with the intent or hope that all free will would preserve their rigthcheousness' - (still good, if you intend right or good, or hope towards it this is not a sin nor is it evil).

But man (or some free wills) used their will to turn against rightcheousness (their own fault - not God's since the wills were free) thus those 'free-wills' who 'turned against the rightful nature given to them' lost their possession of good and turned to the state of evil (that is a seperation from God). Since the blame rest upon that will which turned from God and not God Himself He is innocent of the 'evil state of being' and cannot be held accountable for the reality (not existence) it forms. The blame, and thus the inventor (not creator) of the state of being that is evil is thus the free will which turned from that which is right - in short, man (with the help from the devil) is the only inventor, and the only one to blame for their own state of evil (and suffering it produces) and not God Himself and thus it can be more accurately said, though remaining erroneous, that man, is the 'creator' of evil, and not God.

Does this make sense? Please correct my logic if I am wrong, I love to learn.

Gotta love St. Anselm!

[/quote]

While one couldn't directly blame God for evil since strictly speaking man through his free will is its source and agent, still it can resonably be argued that God is in some sense responsible for evil as such. How can God choose an insufficient means (i.e. free will) to advance to the end of his benevolence? The Epicurean dilemna still seems to linger here.

In any case, the gift of free will turns out to be somewhat of a curse. Would anyone doubt that handing a small child a knife or sharp object is a very wise or responsible thing to do? If the child is gravely injured, we might say causally speaking that the child accidentially stabbed himself, but we would all know that the person who gave the child the knife was truly the responsible party. The same might be said of God, why would God give his creation free will if he knew it would be so harmful and self-destructive to his children? The question presupposes that God in fact has given us a harmful instrument and that already raises the question of his benevolence.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Justified Saint

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1196753' date='Feb 16 2007, 12:59 AM']While one couldn't directly blame God for evil since strictly speaking man through his free will is its source and agent, still it can resonably be argued that God is in some sense responsible for evil as such. How can God choose an insufficient means (i.e. free will) to advance to the end of his benevolence? The Epicurean dilemna still seems to linger here.

In any case, the gift of free will turns out to be somewhat of a curse. Would anyone doubt that handing a small child a knife or sharp object is a very wise or responsible thing to do? If the child is gravely injured, we might say causally speaking that the child accidentially stabbed himself, but we would all know that the person who gave the child the knife was truly the responsible party. The same might be said of God, why would God give his creation free will if he knew it would be so harmful and self-destructive to his children? The question presupposes that God in fact has given us a harmful instrument and that already raises the question of his benevolence.[/quote]


It should be pointed out that many, including myself, do not find these objections to be compelling in the least. The endowing of free will does not call God's benevolence into question any more than a parent allowing his or her child to make a mistake calls the parent's benevolence into question. In fact, God's benevolence is even greater here, because while allowing a child to make a mistake may teach them an important lesson, endowing man with free will is [i]necessary[/i] in order for us to enter into a loving communion with God.

When the necessity of free will for God's ultimate plan is acknowledged, the so called "Epicurean dilemma" is shown to be an illusory pseudo-problem.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1197086' date='Feb 16 2007, 03:53 PM']It should be pointed out that many, including myself, do not find these objections to be compelling in the least. The endowing of free will does not call God's benevolence into question any more than a parent allowing his or her child to make a mistake calls the parent's benevolence into question. In fact, God's benevolence is even greater here, because while allowing a child to make a mistake may teach them an important lesson, endowing man with free will is [i]necessary[/i] in order for us to enter into a loving communion with God.

When the necessity of free will for God's ultimate plan is acknowledged, the so called "Epicurean dilemma" is shown to be an illusory pseudo-problem.[/quote]


The difficulty here is that there seems to be a concession that God might not only allow evil but in fact that evil is necessary for man to truly love. It is as if God is forced to compromise and to choose between the lesser of two evils; those evils being allowing his creation to lay waste their powers and world, or limiting free will. In the case of the former, it must be one long, huge mistake and not just a little "owie". In any event, it can reasonably be said that God is responsible for evil, even if we call that arrangement necessary -- it certainly seems unfortunate. Most believers grant all of this -- it is just that there is a greater purpose and meaning behind our sufferings and fallen nature even if we don't understand it.

That said, I am not advocating these views. Just letting them play themselves out and not dismissing them outright. My thinking is that it is better to acknowledge a challenge than ignore it, and considering that Epicurus was one of the first to really articulate the problem of evil, I suspect he should at least have the privelege of being heard, even if he be considered wrong for asking the question (though it seems a ridiculous notion that one could be wrong for asking a question).

[Guest JeffCR07]

I entirely agree that it is better to hear a challenge than ignore one. In fact, I would maintain it is our [i]obligation[/i] to hear (and meet) these challenges head on. This being said, I do not think my above post is "ignoring" a challenge. Instead, I have heard the objection and genuinely found it to be without substance. Just because free will is necessary, that doesn't make [i]evil[/i] necessary - it only makes the possibility for evil necessary. As such, I maintain that we can find no actual fault with God for creating a world in which man, in order to enter into loving communion with God, is given a free will which allows the possibility to sin without actually necessitating that sin occur.

Anyways, it seems that we are in agreement that challenges ought to be met, and we also seem to agree that there is a sense in which God can be said (though improperly) to be the "cause" of evil.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Didacus]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1196753' date='Feb 16 2007, 12:59 AM']While one couldn't directly blame God for evil since strictly speaking man through his free will is its source and agent, still it can resonably be argued that God is in some sense responsible for evil as such. How can God choose an insufficient means (i.e. free will) to advance to the end of his benevolence? The Epicurean dilemna still seems to linger here.

In any case, the gift of free will turns out to be somewhat of a curse. Would anyone doubt that handing a small child a knife or sharp object is a very wise or responsible thing to do? If the child is gravely injured, we might say causally speaking that the child accidentially stabbed himself, but we would all know that the person who gave the child the knife was truly the responsible party. The same might be said of God, why would God give his creation free will if he knew it would be so harmful and self-destructive to his children? The question presupposes that God in fact has given us a harmful instrument and that already raises the question of his benevolence.[/quote]


Sorry gotta get into this a little further here;

[quote]
How can God choose an insufficient means (i.e. free will) to advance to the end of his benevolence? [/quote]He did not choose 'insufficient' means, He used precisely the means needed. I would challenge you to prove otherwise as I cannot logically see how His means of 'free will' be insufficient.

His end of benevolence was not 'advanced' by man choosing to sin, rather it was set back. Man-kinds journey, as we know it, is man returning towards what was lost, and is not in any means a necessary journey since technically we could just have stayed where we were in the first place; paradise.


[quote]Would anyone doubt that handing a small child a knife or sharp object is a very wise or responsible thing to do?[/quote]
God (in scripture) agrees with you on that one, except He uses the example of a scorpion instead of a knife. However, it is more worthy to openly and freely choose to love rather than be autonomously forced into love (which would not be love at all). In order to fully love God (at least in potential since our sinful nature prevents perfection) free will becomes necessary even though it can be dangerous.



[quote]In any case, the gift of free will turns out to be somewhat of a curse. [/quote]In fact, yes, it is somewhat of a curse. St. Alsem proves that angels whose's will can no longer turn from God are indeed enjoying a freedom above those whose's wills have the potential to turn away from God. So free will, with the capability fo turning away from God is in a way, a 'ball and chain'. However, in order to enter such a grace, it was necessary that free will have such a potential to turn from God in order to merit the permanent vision of God. And thus was the case for angels upon their creation just as it was for Adam and Eve.

In short, free will is a means of obtaining the merit of eternal communion with God, without such passage the communion 'may' (being short of a better term) become mundane and without meaning. It is not out of desire of evil, nor in tormenting that God gave man free will, but out of the order of things as was right for Him to create.

This is a brief explanation of course, but as with Jeff, I do not find these objections compelling in the least though I may not find the words to refute them adequately.



[quote]The difficulty here is that there seems to be a concession that God might not only allow evil but in fact that evil is necessary for man to truly love.[/quote]

This is absolutely false.

If man would have kept that which was given to him, he would have truly loved as he truly loved upon being created and thus till the end of time. The 'concession' is rather God's plan to lead us back to His grace according to each our merit while it being true that evil (which, remember is simply the abscence of God) would spread throughout humanity from the one original sin.

Better be said:

[quote]The difficulty here is that there seems to be a 'journey' required while evil present throughout this journey. This journey being necessary to find our way back towards God.[/quote]Which in fact poses not so much the problem anymore.


[quote]...it certainly seems unfortunate[/quote]
Only from our point of view since we only have part of the information and equation.



As Jeff said:
[quote]Just because free will is necessary, that doesn't make evil necessary[/quote]
Point in case. You cannot logically link the two.




This is one of the most interesting threads I've read in a while. Looking forward to your replies.l

Smiles all around (and T-shirts for everyone)

[Justified Saint]

For the record, I mention again that I do not necessarily advocate any of these views -- I am just putting them into play since I am taking a course this semester almost entirely on this topic and some of this stuff has started to come up. In fact, for the most part I agree with what you and Jeff had said on the topic.


[quote name='Didacus' post='1198600' date='Feb 17 2007, 08:26 PM']Sorry gotta get into this a little further here;

He did not choose 'insufficient' means, He used precisely the means needed. I would challenge you to prove otherwise as I cannot logically see how His means of 'free will' be insufficient. His end of benevolence was not 'advanced' by man choosing to sin, rather it was set back. Man-kinds journey, as we know it, is man returning towards what was lost, and is not in any means a necessary journey since technically we could just have stayed where we were in the first place; paradise.[/quote]

But the appearance is that it might be insufficient. Why so much evil if God is the supreme good? Why does God allow his creation to get so out of hand? From this perspective, it seems as if "free will" is a pretty crummy gift, it doesn't seem to really work since most of the time man chooses separation from God, and thus evil. In other words "why is it so difficult and painful to come to love God"? It seems as though from the start man could not handle his freedom and in fact would so abuse it as to enslave himself. Yet since this was always a possibility, it might be said that God in some sense intended it. Now, this is a [i]reasonable[/i] objection, if nothing more. And you can't expect everyone to have the same presuppositions about free will.

[quote]If man would have kept that which was given to him, he would have truly loved as he truly loved upon being created and thus till the end of time. The 'concession' is rather God's plan to lead us back to His grace according to each our merit while it being true that evil (which, remember is simply the abscence of God) would spread throughout humanity from the one original sin.[/quote]It is objected here that God's creation is so incredibly deficient to have chosen evil in its first hour. What kind of loving God would create such pathetic creatures?


[quote]Point in case. You cannot logically link the two.[/quote]

No, free will does not neccesitate evil, but is there any doubt man will choose evil? Does anyone doubt that we will ever live in perferct harmony until the second coming? How does one act forever change and beaver dam human nature? How did God's creation go so wrong so quickly? Again, these are reasonable objections that raise in the objector's mind questions concerning the goodness of creation and thus the benevolence of the Creator.

Edited February 18, 2007 by Justified Saint

[Didacus]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1199838' date='Feb 18 2007, 06:00 PM']For the record, I mention again that I do not necessarily advocate any of these views -- I am just putting them into play since I am taking a course this semester almost entirely on this topic and some of this stuff has started to come up. In fact, for the most part I agree with what you and Jeff had said on the topic.[/quote]

Anyone who genuinely believes will ask intelligent questions concerning their faith; the fact that you can object does not show lack of reasoning, it shows that you seek reason which is of itself a noble quest.

Been there, done that and heck I'm still doing it.




[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1199838' date='Feb 18 2007, 06:00 PM']But the appearance is that it might be insufficient. Why so much evil if God is the supreme good? Why does God allow his creation to get so out of hand? From this perspective, it seems as if "free will" is a pretty crummy gift, it doesn't seem to really work since most of the time man chooses separation from God, and thus evil. In other words "why is it so difficult and painful to come to love God"? It seems as though from the start man could not handle his freedom and in fact would so abuse it as to enslave himself. Yet since this was always a possibility, it might be said that God in some sense intended it. Now, this is a [i]reasonable[/i] objection, if nothing more. And you can't expect everyone to have the same presuppositions about free will.[/quote]

You are raising an objection on a mere 'appearance' but at the very foundation it cannot hold.

Fact:
Free will is good.

(if this was not true, then why would a man seek freedom so adamently? Why oppose forced slavery at all? If I render you my slave and by my force rid you of this pesky 'free will', should you thank me? Why not thank me?)


Fact:
As much as there was a chance man choose evil, there was a chance he choose good.


Fact:
That man choose evil does not diminish in any way the alternative of being good. As much as his choice of evil has being the greatest of all of our calamities, as much the alternative would have been an eternal glory.




[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1199838' date='Feb 18 2007, 06:00 PM']It is objected here that God's creation is so incredibly deficient to have chosen evil in its first hour. What kind of loving God would create such pathetic creatures?[/quote]

The extent to which evil has made its course does not move the facts above.

And humans are not pathetic, many make themselves this way-granted, but there remains colossal goodness all over. You cannot make judgment by simply looking at one side while ignoring another. (ie; I see so much evil, its pathetic, never mind how much goodness there is in the world regardless of the evil. Based on this I object that God simply made a mistake by creating us as we are.)





[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1199838' date='Feb 18 2007, 06:00 PM']No, free will does not neccesitate evil, but is there any doubt man will choose evil? Does anyone doubt that we will ever live in perferct harmony until the second coming? How does one act forever change and beaver dam human nature? How did God's creation go so wrong so quickly? Again, these are reasonable objections that raise in the objector's mind questions concerning the goodness of creation and thus the benevolence of the Creator.[/quote]

Yes-there [i]was[/i] doubt man will choose evil.
Now that man has choosen evil, we are linked by sin and our imperfections will inevitably lead us to fall during our lives hence our need for redemption. But at the time of the original choise-yes there was doubt that man would choose evil.

Until the second coming, as per paragraph above, I have no doubt that we will live in evil (or with evil, or in sin) until the second coming - hence the need of redemption (which will of course come at the second coming).

[quote]How does one act forever change and beaver dam human nature? [/quote]Ok, that one's a big one. I have to think about it a little more. Jeff care to tackle this one?

[quote]How did God's creation go so wrong so quickly?[/quote]
When I die, I'll ask Him.


[quote]Again, these are reasonable objections that raise in the objector's mind questions concerning the goodness of creation and thus the benevolence of the Creator.[/quote]
I definately agree with your statement, there are several 'seemingly' reasonable objections; that is objections that are logical and 'seem' reasonable until we know the truth that lies beyond them. In our imperfect state it is categoricaly impossible for us to reply to every objection; there will always be something we do not see.

However, not understanding the truth beyond an objection does not make this objection true nor accurate. This is not a simple question of faith but also of logic. Faith; because we will never in our state be fully certain of what lies within God, and logic because an objection in itself is not a proof nor an affirmation of reality - it simply in its purest form seeks to understand that which it does not.



Hope this helps and good luck with your class. I'm certain Jeff could add plenty of comments in addition (and correction) of my own.


Didace

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1200999' date='Feb 19 2007, 08:14 PM']And humans are not pathetic, many make themselves this way-granted, but there remains colossal goodness all over. You cannot make judgment by simply looking at one side while ignoring another. (ie; I see so much evil, its pathetic, never mind how much goodness there is in the world regardless of the evil. Based on this I object that God simply made a mistake by creating us as we are.)[/quote]


This is an interesting point, because it really comes down to how you observe human nature and history. I agree that you have to look at both sides and not blindly ignore the other. If you look at the historical record itself, I don't see how you can have a good case for privileging one well over the other (evil vs good that is). However, you can't be surprised if most people see history as merely a catalogue of crimes and evil (as Bayle and Goethe said) Based on the empirical evidence alone, that is an easy argument to make.

If we continue with the free will defense, we still are left wondering why God would allow such much evil. I am perfectly fine to be left wondering at that point (i.e. God's ways are not our ways). However, you cannot fault someone for objecting to the free will defense who turns around and says "what loving God would give his creation such a lethal weapon?" Again, if a parent gives their young child a knife or a loaded gun to play with and consequently the child becomes severely injured or killed, isn't obvious who is the responsible party for such a terrible act? In our own justice system it is likely that the parent would be charged for negligent homicide.

The point for me is that the free will defense doesn't really work here since it backfires. You can't just say "well, God allows his children to make mistakes so they can learn." It seems to me that the free will defense actually ultimately puts the blame on God for evil and sin. To be sure, I think free will is the best way to conceputalize evil, but I think it has to be reworked or maybe just re-phrased from its traditional conception.

Edited February 24, 2007 by Justified Saint