Theodicy: Questions And Explorations

[Loran Blood]

The question of God's omnipotence and omniscience and the relation of these divine attributes to the existence of evil has been the subject of concerted discussion and debate here for quite sometime, and never seems to dim with age. Pursuant to this, I'd like to continue the exploration of the subject, from an LDS standpoint, and engage the default positions of the broad secular culture (moral value relativism/situational ethics/nihilism) from that perspective. A civil, reasoned, rigorous philosophical discussion would be appreciated.

A few preliminaries seem in order. First, as per what I have seen here over the course of some years observing and participating in these debates, at least three kinds of evil appear to be in play in most of these discussions.

1. Moral evil involving volitional abuse, victimization, or criminal acts taken against others of any kind.

2. Natural disasters/accidents. A very broad category of "evil" involving everything from a car accident due to a blown tire, earthquakes, tsunamis, bee stings and cancer.

3. The caveat of "unnecessary" evil. This, of course, involves a number of assumptions and presuppositions of a philosophical and, to be clear, metaphysical nature, but laying that aside for the moment, encompasses any conditions or states of affairs thought to be in some sense pointless and to be bereft of teleological relevance.

Initial questions/propositions:

1. How is "unnecessary" evil to be defined? What are the criteria? It would seem that that bar, so to speak, from a human perspective, as to what would count as "unnecessary" in the realm of the kinds and forms of evil that could befall a human being (from being paralyzed from the neck down in a skiing accident, to a child drowning in a pool during a moment of inattention by the parents, to something like the Japanese tsunami, to being randomly struck down by a gang member's bullet) is going to end by being extremely low. That is to say, unless we are prepared to admit that we enjoy some forms of suffering, when given the choice, the vast majority of human beings are always going to choose non-suffering over suffering.

The category of "unnecessary" evil asks us to do at least two things. The first is to assess, in some way, the moral/metaphysical value of some forms of evil over others based upon some criteria that would allow us to determine when an evil act or form of "natural evil" (tornado etc.) is "necessary." From a secular humanistic perspective, it is unclear just what this would entail. What does it mean for evil to be "necessary" from a humanist/atheist frame of reference? Does it have didactic value? Does it accomplish some greater good? If the second is the case, how is "good" to be determined if one's or one's culture's understanding of "good" is only one relative perceptions among a background of alternative social constructions?

From a gospel perspective, this is much clearer. Evil and good are core ontological categories of existence and are conceptually and definitionally linked by necessity. If one exists, the other must, by definition, also exist as the basis upon which the other is conceived.

For the gospel, then, evil qua evil is necessary in the sense that it is a fundamental experiential category necessary for progression to higher levels of existence. This does not mean that any particular kind of evil is necessary to that progression, only that some contact and experience with it, in some form, is required. Unnecessary evil then, for the gospel, is any particular evil action or conduct that places excessive risks upon the individual relative to that progression. The definition of unnecessary evil, from a secularist standpoint, however, would appear to be much more connected to the physical/psychological fact of suffering qua suffering, than to the place evil has within the larger context of a "plan of salvation" as understood within the Church.

If evil causes suffering, and if suffering is to be avoided, then evil is to be avoided. If this is the case, then all evil could easily appear as unnecessary, as any action whatever that causes suffering can simply be defined as evil (Medical procedures that cause suffering, and other similar conditions, could be omitted as they are, at the outset, understood as "good" since their very point is the ultimate alleviation of suffering). If then God exists, and he is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, then he should, if he exists, preclude most evil, and hence suffering, from occurring.

This forumlation centers evil in its consequences as human suffering and then connects God's asserted perfect love to what is assumed should be his desire, if he exists, to extinguish human suffering when it occurs. For each occurrence of suffering then, God, if he is all loving, should either prevent such suffering from occurring, or calibrate the world in such a way that suffering is not possible.

The point of all this is, of course, that this is not the perspective one takes from within a gospel framework. A few points should be made from the assumption that God exists:

1. We can only see, from a naturalistic frame of reference, the suffering that does actually occur. We do not see the suffering God actually does prevent, and do not know, in most cases, what would count as evidence that God had intervened.

2. The naturalistic perspective assumes the central preeminence of the present, mortal state of existence, and hence, concentrates all of its moral scope upon the suffering humans experience in mortality. Physical suffering, from this position, looms as a far greater evil than moral/spiritual evil itself appears from the same secularist/naturalistic standpoint. "Unnecessary" evil is evil without meaning. But from a gospel perspective, no good or evil can possibly be meaningless because the cosmos itself is imbued with meaning and God's children are here in a mortal "probation" precisely to find their place within that morally weighted cosmos.

At bottom then, there can be no "unnecessary" evil in the sense of there being evil that is not and cannot be accounted for and mediated by the Atonement and the eternal background against which evil in the mortal world occurs. At the same time, we can also admit that no particular act of evil is necessary in the sense that our progression could not have gone on, and at a better clip, without it. What the gospel does tell us is that we will sin and encounter evil, both in ourselves and in others, in some form, along numerous points in our lives. That is the essential nature of mortality.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Robert F. Smith]

The question of God's omnipotence and omniscience and the relation of these divine attributes to the existence of evil has been the subject of concerted discussion and debate here for quite sometime, and never seems to dim with age. Pursuant to this, I'd like to continue the exploration of the subject, from an LDS standpoint, and engage the default positions of the broad secular culture (moral value relativism/situational ethics/nihilism) from that perspective. A civil, reasoned, rigorous philosophical discussion would be appreciated.

The primary issue of theodicy is that an omnibeneficient, omnipotent, and omniscient necessary prime mover (God) by definition cannot create a flawed universe or flawed contingent being. Any flaw must be a reflection of Him and this is a contradiction in terms. Moreover, He cannot even create beings which have free will -- for the same reason that He cannot create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it!! Any flaw calls into serious question His own goodness and power. This is the main dilemma of normative Judeo-Christian-Islamic dogma, and entails a number of other, collalteral notions: That God creates ex nihilo, and that he has complete sovereignty. Rational people frequently turn away from such transparent nonsense, and it is easy to see why.

Because LDS theology posits creation of organized matter from pre-existing materials, as well as organization of spirits (birth of spirits) from pre-existent intelligences, evil cannot be the fault of God, but is a matter of authentic free-will among coeternal beings, and any flaw in matter in the universe is based on the laws of physics (including Quantum mechanics), which are further based on probabilities. Non-contingent beings (necessary beings) must work out their salvation in just such a world fraught with risk, before advancing to a state of glory and apotheosis.

[Nofear]

While it doesn't address all the complexities of theodicy, Josesph Smith and the Problem of Evil by David L. Paulsen is a good start.

[mfbukowski]

A few preliminaries seem in order. First, as per what I have seen here over the course of some years observing and participating in these debates, at least three kinds of evil appear to be in play in most of these discussions.

1. Moral evil involving volitional abuse, victimization, or criminal acts taken against others of any kind.

2. Natural disasters/accidents. A very broad category of "evil" involving everything from a car accident due to a blown tire, earthquakes, tsunamis, bee stings and cancer.

3. The caveat of "unnecessary" evil. This, of course, involves a number of assumptions and presuppositions of a philosophical and, to be clear, metaphysical nature, but laying that aside for the moment, encompasses any conditions or states of affairs thought to be in some sense pointless and to be bereft of teleological relevance.

I think all three of these notions require "a number of assumptions and presuppositions of a ...metaphysical nature", to the point it is difficult to see what they have in common, other than perhaps the fact that most humans find them to be adverse.

Step one, for me, would be to define "evil" in terms of immorality perhaps. I think clearly a tiger who eats a person, or a tsunami which kills thousands are not examples of "evil". On the other hand, a totalitarian dictator who has people put to death without a reasonable cause would be classified as "evil".

Also, as I see things, teleology is such a metaphysical pit of quicksand discussing it is nearly useless.

So I guess what I am saying is that I would love to discuss number 1, but the others seem hopelessly vague or not involving "evil" at all.

My dos centavos.

[mfbukowski]

Because LDS theology posits creation of organized matter from pre-existing materials, as well as organization of spirits (birth of spirits) from pre-existent intelligences, evil cannot be the fault of God, but is a matter of authentic free-will among coeternal beings, and any flaw in matter in the universe is based on the laws of physics (including Quantum mechanics), which are further based on probabilities. Non-contingent beings (necessary beings) must work out their salvation in just such a world fraught with risk, before advancing to a state of glory and apotheosis.

Oh and I might mention that we must make sure we have on our best team jerseys because this thread is being televised by closed circuit television directly to the Trailer Park Sports Bar with beers and guffaws all around.

Isn't it great to be famous? Or is it just that they have nothing to do?

[mfbukowski]

Because LDS theology posits creation of organized matter from pre-existing materials, as well as organization of spirits (birth of spirits) from pre-existent intelligences, evil cannot be the fault of God, but is a matter of authentic free-will among coeternal beings, and any flaw in matter in the universe is based on the laws of physics (including Quantum mechanics), which are further based on probabilities. Non-contingent beings (necessary beings) must work out their salvation in just such a world fraught with risk, before advancing to a state of glory and apotheosis.

For this reason, I think it is clear that good and "evil", whatever that means, are not "ontological categories" but moral decisions

The consequence of that is that perhaps we are not that far removed from a secular humanist discussion of these issues than may appear to be the case at the first blush.

[mfbukowski]

One more and then I will shut up for a while, or perhaps for the rest of the thread.

The atonement does not "cover" tsunamis and tigers eating people, it covers SIN. In other words, the fact that humans suffer accidents and other adversity is not removed by the atonement.

So again, I think we are restricted to a theory of "evil" which results only from number 1

[Robert F. Smith]

For this reason, I think it is clear that good and "evil", whatever that means, are not "ontological categories" but moral decisions

The consequence of that is that perhaps we are not that far removed from a secular humanist discussion of these issues than may appear to be the case at the first blush.

I think that you are right. Our assessment of what is and is not "evil" or "flawed" is very subjective. Our veiled and blurred human (and Humean) vision is a problem, which is what makes this "test" so interesting and meaningful -- like contemplating a Zen koan. It isn't supposed to be easy . . .

And, yes, the secular humanists certainly have a point, and I respect and sympathize with their necessarily flawed approach (the late Isaac Asimov was one, and he was my boyhood hero) -- an approach based squarely on the ridiculous notion of a necessary prime mover who creates everything from nothing, which leaves it to His contingent humans to unfairly take the blame for the evil which He authored. In other words, the very foundation of secular humanism is flawed because it is largely an understandable reaction to and rejection of a fundamentally mistaken Judeo-Christian-Islamic dogma. That dogma certainly deserves the hits it has taken from humanism, but the most penetrating attack of all would have been for humanism to point out that biblical religion (whatever it is!) has nothing to do with that dogma.

Theodicy is key. See Sterling McMurrin on Mormonism. He understood the distinctions, even if he didn't buy into the faith.

[mfbukowski]

I think that you are right. Our assessment of what is and is not "evil" or "flawed" is very subjective. Our veiled and blurred human (and Humean) vision is a problem, which is what makes this "test" so interesting and meaningful -- like contemplating a Zen koan. It isn't supposed to be easy . . .

I love the play on words, and the analogy with a koan. It is what we create out of "matter unorganized", after all!

And, yes, the secular humanists certainly have a point, and I respect and sympathize with their necessarily flawed approach (the late Isaac Asimov was one, and he was my boyhood hero) -- an approach based squarely on the ridiculous notion of a necessary prime mover who creates everything from nothing, which leaves it to His contingent humans to unfairly take the blame for the evil which He authored. In other words, the very foundation of secular humanism is flawed because it is largely an understandable reaction to and rejection of a fundamentally mistaken Judeo-Christian-Islamic dogma. That dogma certainly deserves the hits it has taken from humanism, but the most penetrating attack of all would have been for humanism to point out that biblical religion (whatever it is!) has nothing to do with that dogma.

Not sure if I completely understand you- if I do I totally agree. Are you saying that secular humanism is based on scientism and an Aristotelian correspondence theory which perspective arguably brought about big bang theory, which in turn is now seen as a justification for ex nihilo creation?

That is what I think is true.

There are aspects of humanism which I find very interesting and coherent with the LDS view from the perspective that if God really is in some sense "human", true religious humanism becomes theology. I take the idea of human development intellectually and spiritually to parallel the notion of LDS eternal progression toward Godhood as certainly symbolically and pragmatically true, and as a faithful TBM, also literally true.

Theodicy is key. See Sterling McMurrin on Mormonism. He understood the distinctions, even if he didn't buy into the faith.

Yes, I read McMurrin 30 years ago when I first joined the church and remembered that he seemed to fit perfectly with my views then and I know my views on this haven't changed since then. I will have to find that book and dust it off and give it another read!

Interesting post!

[mfbukowski]

While it doesn't address all the complexities of theodicy, Josesph Smith and the Problem of Evil by David L. Paulsen is a good start.

Thanks for the link

[Brade]

The atonement does not "cover" tsunamis and tigers eating people, it covers SIN. In other words, the fact that humans suffer accidents and other adversity is not removed by the atonement.

Clearly, if the atonement is a real force in the universe it doesn't stop tigers from eating people or tsunamis from happening, but it seems to me LDS teaching is that the atonement covers the non-SIN pain associated with these types of events. Here, for example:

The Atonement Covers All Pain - Elder Kent F. Richards (Saturday Morning Session of the April 2011 General Conference)

Edited December 9, 2011 by Brade

[mfbukowski]

Clearly, if the atonement is a real force in the universe it doesn't stop tigers from eating people or tsunamis from happening, but it seems to me LDS teaching is that the atonement covers the non-SIN pain associated with these types of events. Here, for example:

The Atonement Covers All Pain - Elder Kent F. Richards (Saturday Morning Session of the April 2011 General Conference)

Read it again. He is talking about emotional pain. Just underline every word that deals with emotion and you will see what I mean.

The atonement gives you a subjective belief which allows you to do away with all emotional pain and grief. That is precisely what all religions do- but for me the LDS explanation is the best explanation which is most effective because it coheres with all the elements of my world view including theories of multiverses, the nature of truth, etc. All those rational views cohere perfectly with my spiritual and religious views of the atonement, and morality etc.

Using another linguistic context, the beliefs I have take away, or can take away, all my emotional pains when I understand the atonement. To me that is the meaning of "putting the atonement to work in my life".

It can be seen as literally true if desired, or symbolically true, or pragmatically emotionally true. They all work just fine and are coherent as different ways of seeing the same thing

[Brade]

Read it again. He is talking about emotional pain. Just underline every word that deals with emotion and you will see what I mean.

Is the emotional pain associated with a loved one being eaten by a tiger sin-pain or non-sin-pain?

[Rivers]

It is my understanding that Christ somehow felt all the pains of the world both, both sin and non-sin, so he could succor us. I don't know what it means for the atonement to cover pain.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Rivers

[mfbukowski]

Is the emotional pain associated with a loved one being eaten by a tiger sin-pain or non-sin-pain?

Doesn't matter. Call it what you will. The distinction is silly of course from the point of view of moral judgement.

Clearly it was not a moral event. It was like a tsunami. If you want to call that "neutral" be my guest. What you don't seem to understand is that on a Wittgensteinian view, linguistic meaning is not in the world but in the context- in the language game.

There is no objective classification of "sin pain" or "non-sin-pain" it's just pain and how you want to classify it for a given purpose.

The point is that relying on a belief in the atonement would be useful in coping with, and would enable one to give up that emotional pain perception.

In more classical LDS parlance, the belief in the atonement takes away all pain- it doesn't matter what kind, as if there is a kind.

Edited December 9, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It is my understanding that Christ somehow felt all the pains of the world both, both sin and non-sin, so he could succor us.

Yep. That's the classical LDS linguistic model.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know what it means the atonement to cover pain.

I meant it takes away our pain.

[mfbukowski]

Notice this in my siggy:

"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, defining that language as a form of art makes sense to me especially as I don't see it as a random production, but one aimed at creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah

She nailed it right there. Defining reality is ultimately an art- and religion is one way of defining reality.

But it doesn't have much to do with the art of defining scientific reality. That art uses different methods- like sculpture vs painting

Edited December 9, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rivers]

I think mormon theology answers the question of evil quite well. The entire concept of the plan of salvation makes the existence of evil necessary.

Actually, as Rob Osborn pointed out, the possibility of evil must exist. Our entire purpose in this life is to improve and progress. If we lived in a perfect world where nothing bad ever happened, then improvement and progression would be impossible.

John 16:30

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have ^apeace. In the ^bworld ye shall have ^ctribulation: but be of good ^dcheer; I have ^eovercome the world.

When performing the atonement, Christ overcame the world. And because He overcame the world, he can help us out along the way. I suppose that is how the atonement can cover pain. While evil is free to exist in the world, God didn't have to create evil. All God has to do is let natural law take its course.

The plan of salvation involves God sending us down to this natural world and seeing if we can overcome it. Rewards are promised for overcoming the world.

Rev 3:5,12, and 21

He that ^aovercometh, the same shall be clothed in ^bwhite ^craiment; and I will not ^dblot out his name out of the ^ebook of life, but I will ^fconfess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the ^aname of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is ^bnew Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

To him that ^aovercometh will I grant to ^bsit with me in my ^cthrone, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

We've also been promised that one day the lion and the lamb will lye down together and the child will play in the hole of the asp. Not sure how that's going to happen.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Rivers

[Robert F. Smith]

I think mormon theology answers the question of evil quite well. The entire concept of the plan of salvation makes the existence of evil necessary. Actually, as Rob Osborn pointed out, the possibility of evil must exist. Our entire purpose in this life is to improve and progress. If we lived in a perfect world where nothing bad ever happened, then improvement and progression would be impossible. John 16:30 When performing the atonement, Christ overcame the world. And because He overcame the world, he can help us out along the way. I suppose that is how the atonement can cover pain. While evil is free to exist in the world, God didn't have to create evil. All God has to do is let natural law take its course. The plan of salvation involves God sending us down to this natural world and seeing if we can overcome it. Rewards are promised for overcoming the world. Rev 3:5,12, and 21 We've also been promised that one day the lion and the lamb will lye down together and the child will play in the hole of the asp. Not sure how that's going to happen.

So did the Atonement eliminate entropy from our future?

[Robert F. Smith]

Not sure if I completely understand you- if I do I totally agree. Are you saying that secular humanism is based on scientism and an Aristotelian correspondence theory which perspective arguably brought about big bang theory, which in turn is now seen as a justification for ex nihilo creation? That is what I think is true.

Humanism doesn't require any knowledge of science or formal logic, but is largely a product of Enlightenment rationalism, along with a strong desire to extirpate the gods of magic, supernaturalism, and superstition.

The problem with extrapolating from the Big Bang is that, although it certainly happened, it is beyond our scientific reach. We do not know what actually preceded or led to the Big Bang, and we don't know how it happened -- not to mention the nature of the physical laws operative at that precise moment. Can anything be created ex nihilo? Impossible to know this side of the veil.

There are aspects of humanism which I find very interesting and coherent with the LDS view from the perspective that if God really is in some sense "human", true religious humanism becomes theology. I take the idea of human development intellectually and spiritually to parallel the notion of LDS eternal progression toward Godhood as certainly symbolically and pragmatically true, and as a faithful TBM, also literally true. Yes, I read McMurrin 30 years ago when I first joined the church and remembered that he seemed to fit perfectly with my views then and I know my views on this haven't changed since then. I will have to find that book and dust it off and give it another read! Interesting post!

I agree. I am glad that we do not need law-abrogating principles anywhere in natural law. God as a sentient being, vastly more advanced than us, in an infinite multiverse does not represent a challenge to humanism. That the laws of nature and of the Gospel are not in conflict, and that we are of the genus and species of God gives me a sense of peace and confidence despite the hurly burly of vicious politics, war, crime, and environmental destruction -- and perhaps a horrific, apocalyptic end to everything in these latter days.

[supersnail]

I'm not sure I'm able to enter this discussion at the philosophical level desired. I do, however, have some comments to add about the kinds of evil that "appear to be in play in most of these discussions" of what might be called "absolutist" theodicy, as opposed to "finitist" theodicies, such as the LDS Church's.

Some critiques of theodicies based on Platonic absolutist views of God ignore more systemic or structural kinds of evil. I'd argue that these kinds of evil--for some reason excluded from discussion--are particularly relevant to LDS theodicy, which emphasizes the lawfulness of both creation and the creative act. I suggest that if God has found it unwise to eliminate, or it is not possible for Him to eliminate, things like hunger and disease completely, there is less reason to obligate God to eliminate all instances of certain evils that are less common.

The way many speak, it's like the only suffering that matters is due to "natural evil" such as disaster casualties, or immediate victimization by individuals. So we hear about murders and the kind of things discussed on an episode of the Nancy Grace show or the news. The tacit assumption is that these things should be more distressing or interesting. Another is that there is a clear boundary between these crimes and other categories of evil that make the former worthy of more attention among other things. In reality, there are far more deaths due to preventable/treatable disease than there are murders. Three thousand people die from malaria every day, five times more than the number who die from murder. The number of deaths due to malaria alone is a hundred times the number who die from even earthquakes. That is not to minimize murder etc., but to give them context.

Besides being a product of sensationalism or an entertainment-related mentality, the relative absence in discussions of the more systemic kind of evil that is malaria mortality may be philosophically significant. Why should God be expected to intervene miraculously to stop every murder by an assailant on a street, but not be expected to end infant malaria deaths?

If we got over the idea that suffering is due to either accidents or specific deliberate/negligent acts by individuals, or else has to be of direct divine origin and have a purpose, we might realize most of the suffering in the world is related to issues of socioeconomic development. The question is then how could God "calibrate" the world so that natural and social forces would never give rise to malaria mortality. It may be, though, that malaria mortality is more or less inevitable for a period of time. When God gave us mortal bodies, we had to start off in a situation of low socioeconomic development. Malaria mortality is just one result of low socioeconomic development. Malaria mortality doesn't have to have a specific purpose. We may nonetheless develop from our experience with it.

In absolutist theology, God can do anything logically possible: everything except things like making square circles. In finitist theology, it is conceivable that God isn't able to create a world that we can inhabit with mortal bodies, but without disease. To populate the world with our mortal bodies, we have to grow in population, and this implies the existence of social, economic and technological change--and an initial low level of development. Disease is inherent in the laws of this world. At the same time, we do have the power to stop malaria deaths. We shouldn't try to turn God into a crutch to take care of things for us that we have the power to handle through spiritual development and becoming more righteous. Though God may have been able to influence the development of the world so the particular disease malaria wouldn't be a cause of death, it's more difficult to imagine how God could calibrate a world to avoid deadly disease altogether. If it weren't malaria, it would be something else.

The issue of population brings me to another example: birth defects. Some of these are extremely emotionally difficult for parents. It's hard not to question God and wonder what is the point. If something like DNA is integral to reproduction, though, defects are inevitable. They are inherent in the reproduction process, and mutations are a mechanism of evolution in the first place. Even if one views God as having guided evolution or doesn't believe in evolution for humans at all, birth defects seem inherent in the very means by which we gain mortal bodies. If genetic birth defects weren't possible, meiosis, and other processes in which random changes in genes can be duplicated, wouldn't be thinkable.

Much evil is pointless in the sense that it serves as no particular or specific lesson. Evil can be a side effect of something necessary, like having a medium for genetic information. It does not mean God inflicts the evil or neglects to prevent it.

Edited December 10, 2011 by supersnail

[Brade]

Doesn't matter. Call it what you will.

I was trying to use language you already introduced:

The atonement does not "cover" tsunamis and tigers eating people, it covers SIN.

I was just raising the point that, yes, according to Mormon teaching the atonement covers sin, but, also according to mormon teaching it covers non-sin, or, if you like, distress not caused by sin.

There is no objective classification of "sin pain" or "non-sin-pain" it's just pain and how you want to classify it for a given purpose.

Fair enough. So, the atonement covers pain.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not sure I'm able to enter this discussion at the philosophical level desired. I do, however, have some comments to add about the kinds of evil that "appear to be in play in most of these discussions" of what might be called "absolutist" theodicy, as opposed to "finitist" theodicies, such as the LDS Church's.

Some critiques of theodicies based on Platonic absolutist views of God ignore more systemic or structural kinds of evil. I'd argue that these kinds of evil--for some reason excluded from discussion--are particularly relevant to LDS theodicy, which is emphasizes the lawfulness of both creation and the creative act. I suggest that if God has found it unwise to eliminate, or it is not possible for Him to eliminate, things like hunger and disease completely, there is less reason to obligate God to eliminate all instances of certain evils that are less common.

The way many speak, it's like the only suffering that matters is due to "natural evil" such as disaster casualties, or immediate victimization by individuals. So we hear about murders and the kind of things discussed on an episode of the Nancy Grace show or the news. The tacit assumption is that these things should be more distressing or interesting. Another is that there is a clear boundary between these crimes and other categories of evil that make the former worthy of more attention among other things. In reality, there are far more deaths due to preventable/treatable disease than there are murders. Three thousand people die from malaria every day, five times more than the number who die from murder. The number of deaths due to malaria alone is a hundred times the number who die from even earthquakes. That is not to minimize murder etc., but to give them context.

Besides being a product of sensationalism or an entertainment-related mentality, the relative absence in discussions of the more systemic kind of evil that is malaria mortality may be philosophically significant. Why should God be expected to intervene miraculously to stop every murder by an assailant on a street, but not be expected to end infant malaria deaths?

If we got over the idea that suffering is due to either accidents or specific deliberate/negligent acts by individuals, or else has to be of direct divine origin and have a purpose, we might realize most of the suffering in the world is related to issues of socioeconomic development. The question is then how could God "calibrate" the world so that natural and social forces would never give rise to malaria mortality. It may be, though, that malaria mortality is more or less inevitable for a period of time. When God gave us mortal bodies, we had to start off in a situation of low socioeconomic development. Malaria mortality is just one result of low socioeconomic development. Malaria mortality doesn't have to have a specific purpose. We may nonetheless develop from our experience with it.

In absolutist theology, God can do anything logically possible: everything except things like making square circles. In finitist theology, it is conceivable that God isn't able to create a world that we can inhabit with mortal bodies, but without disease. To populate the world with our mortal bodies, we have to grow in population, and this implies the existence of social, economic and technological change--and an initial low level of development. Disease is inherent in the laws of this world. At the same time, we do have the power to stop malaria deaths. We shouldn't try to turn God into a crutch to take care of things for us that we have the power to handle through spiritual development and becoming more righteous. Though God may have been able to influence the development of the world so the particular disease malaria wouldn't be a cause of death, it's more difficult to imagine how God could calibrate a world to avoid deadly disease altogether. If it weren't malaria, it would be something else.

The issue of population brings me to another example: birth defects. Some of these are extremely emotionally difficult for parents. It's hard not to question God and wonder what is the point. If something like DNA is integral to reproduction, though, defects are inevitable. They are inherent in the reproduction process, and mutations are a mechanism of evolution in the first place. Even if one views God as having guided evolution or doesn't believe in evolution for humans at all, birth defects seem inherent in the very means by which we gain mortal bodies. If genetic birth defects weren't possible, meiosis, and other processes in which random changes in genes can be duplicated, wouldn't be thinkable.

Much evil is pointless in the sense that it serves as no particular or specific lesson. Evil can be a side effect of something necessary, like having a medium for genetic information. It does not mean God inflicts the evil or neglects to prevent it.

Very well said. You have raised the level of this discussion immeasureably by helping us all focus on what is really important.

[mfbukowski]

Fair enough. So, the atonement covers pain.

Typically all religions have some theoretical mechanism for removing pain by calling it "illusion" or by meditation, or by some other mental exercise which takes one "outside" pain.

I recall as a little Catholic boy the nuns encouraged us to "offer it up" when we had some discomfort or pain mentally or physically. The idea was that experienced pain could thus act like a "credit" against the pain we would experience in purgatory for our sins. That made it meritorious to experience pain with the right attitude.

Edited December 10, 2011 by mfbukowski