The problem of evil

[bluebell]

I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread on one of the subjects being discussed in the "how was conference" (I think that's the one) rather than continue with it there.

While reading about it yesterday, i came across an address  given at BYU by David L. Paulsen in 1999 that was pretty interesting titled "Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil".  In it he talks about the three problems of evil:  The logical problem of evil, the soteriological problem of evil, and the practical problem of evil and gives his answers to each one.

I'll post the conclusions of each problem of evil here (because i know it's annoying to have only a link to an article to discuss and nothing more) but to really understand how Paulsen get's to his conclusions the whole section really needs to be read.  Obviously, LDS doctrine completely takes care of the second problem of evil so there's not much to discuss on that issue.

The Logical Problem of Evil

"Armed with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of entities co-eternal with God and our revised definition of divine omnipotence, let us consider again the logical problem of evil and Flew’s argument charging God with complicity in all the world’s evil. From Joseph Smith’s theological platform, it does not follow that God is the total or even the ultimate explanation of all else. Thus it is not an implication of Joseph’s worldview that God is an accessory before the fact to all the world’s evil. Nor does it follow that God is responsible for every moral and nonmoral defect that occurs in the world. Within a framework of eternal entities and structures that God did not create and that He cannot destroy, it seems to me that the logical problem of evil is dissolved. Evil is not logically inconsistent with the existence of God. Within the Prophet’s worldview there can be saving explanations of the world’s evil—explanations that in no way impugn God’s loving-kindness. To see what such explanations might be like, we need to fill out the picture considerably. And to do so it will be useful to move from argument and analysis to narrative. Time does not allow me to do it, but I invite each of you, in reflecting on these matters, to rehearse again the old familiar and yet ever new and renewing story of the plan of salvation. To do so is to articulate a Mormon theodicy."

The Soteriological Problem of Evil

"This problem that Morris and Davis state can be expressed in terms of an inconsistent triad, a set of three premises—all of which are apparently true, yet the conjunction of any two of which seemingly entails the denial of the third:

1. God is perfectly loving and just and desires that all of His children be saved.

2. Salvation comes only in and through one’s acceptance of Christ.

3. Millions of God’s children have lived and died without ever hearing of Christ or having a chance to receive salvation through Him.

Number 3 is indisputable, forcing us, it seems, to give up either 1 or 2—both of which seem clearly warranted on biblical authority. So how to resolve the puzzle? The issue is receiving much attention right now from keen and sensitive Christian thinkers. Proposed resolutions are many, ranging from “universalism” on one pole to “exclusivism” on the other. Universalists typically affirm premise 1, compelling them to deny the explicit New Testament teaching that salvation comes only in and through acceptance of Christ. Exclusivists usually affirm number 2, concluding that Oohku, and millions of others like her, must be lost. But this leaves them at a loss to square their view with number 1. Neither view is satisfactory.

Many of you in the audience are, no doubt, smiling, recognizing that adding a premise 4 to the triad resolves the puzzle:

4. Those who live and die without having a chance to respond positively to the gospel of Jesus Christ will have that chance postmortemly."

The Practical Problem of Evil

"Joseph was no stranger to sorrow. He spoke, though inspired by God, from the crucible of his own experience. In D&C 127:2, the Prophet reflected: “The envy and wrath of man have been my common lot all the days of my life. . . . Deep water is what I am wont to swim in.” Indeed, Joseph faced continual persecution. He was tarred and feathered, subjected to numerous lawsuits, and confined in intolerable conditions in dungeon-like jails. He was deeply affected by the deaths of his brothers Alvin and Don Carlos, and his father also died prematurely. Four of his 11 children, including twin sons, died at childbirth, and a fifth died at 14 months. Joseph was never financially well-to-do and was often impoverished. For much of his life he had no regular place to call home. After the failure of the bank in Kirtland, many of his friends turned against him. Members of the Church published the Nauvoo Expositor for the purposes of denouncing him, and this event eventually culminated in his martyrdom. Even Joseph, who walked so closely with God, on occasion in his life experienced the troubling sense of God’s absence when he felt God should have been there for him....

Confronted with what seemed to be overwhelming evil, Joseph found meaning in his suffering, maintained hope, trusted God, and kept the faith. And God spoke peace."

I know that Gray (and i'm sure he's not the only one) says that there is only one answer to the problem of evil-a God who is not involved with His children and keeps His distant.  Pauline seems to give other valid options.

 

[Damien the Leper]

See "God's Problem" by Bart Ehrman.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Valentinus said:

See "God's Problem" by Bart Ehrman.

Can you summarize it?

[Damien the Leper]

I'm going to retract. The book deals with suffering and scriptural attempts to understand, explain and answer suffering.

[bluebell]

Just now, Valentinus said:

I'm going to retract. The book deals with suffering and scriptural attempts to understand, explain and answer suffering.

Too bad, it sounded interesting.  I might pick it up someday.

[Ahab]

The problem I see with evil is that it can be overcome by righteousness.

Righteousness doesn't have that problem. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The Logical Problem of Evil

"Armed with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of entities co-eternal with God and our revised definition of divine omnipotence, let us consider again the logical problem of evil and Flew’s argument charging God with complicity in all the world’s evil. From Joseph Smith’s theological platform, it does not follow that God is the total or even the ultimate explanation of all else. Thus it is not an implication of Joseph’s worldview that God is an accessory before the fact to all the world’s evil. Nor does it follow that God is responsible for every moral and nonmoral defect that occurs in the world. Within a framework of eternal entities and structures that God did not create and that He cannot destroy, it seems to me that the logical problem of evil is dissolved. Evil is not logically inconsistent with the existence of God. Within the Prophet’s worldview there can be saving explanations of the world’s evil—explanations that in no way impugn God’s loving-kindness. To see what such explanations might be like, we need to fill out the picture considerably. And to do so it will be useful to move from argument and analysis to narrative. Time does not allow me to do it, but I invite each of you, in reflecting on these matters, to rehearse again the old familiar and yet ever new and renewing story of the plan of salvation. To do so is to articulate a Mormon theodicy."

Limiting God's omnipotence is a start to the Problem of Evil. The Theology of Mormonism seems particularly equipped to address some of the problems of the logical problem of evil. For example, our doctrine that our "intellegence" is co-eternal with God allows for evil people in the world. The idea that God must work within the framework of eternal laws allows for additional evil. Supposing that God cannot negate Lehi's law of opposition in all things allows for the need for some pain and suffering in our lives. Theistic evolution can explain the sadistic nature of certain animals.

All these still fail to address the seeming random and needless distribution of suffering. If allowing children to die in third world countries helps their parents develop some good attributes, why don't we want that in our own lives? If children suffocating to death in the trunk of a car (while their family is searching and praying to find them nearby) serves some great purpose in bringing a family closer to Christ why wouldn't we want more families to experience that? Why do natural disasters kill so many children and innocents in third world countries? While he makes a good start, and Mormon theology in general is uniquely situated to tackle some of the problems of theodicy, Paulsen falls well short of solving the problem of evil.

[Duncan]

When I was in University I wrote a paper on The Mormon view of Evil. I'll see if I can find it again! 

[Ahab]

Bad things that happen, although tragically sad sometimes,  aren't necessarily evil.

Evil is what happens when a person... and yes it must always be a person... intentionally does something that is not good ...intentionally doing it because it is evil, not by accident or in ignorance.

Just like sin is never by accident or in ignorance, evil isn't either.  

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread on one of the subjects being discussed in the "how was conference" (I think that's the one) rather than continue with it there.

While reading about it yesterday, i came across an address  given at BYU by David L. Paulsen in 1999 that was pretty interesting titled "Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil".  In it he talks about the three problems of evil:  The logical problem of evil, the soteriological problem of evil, and the practical problem of evil and gives his answers to each one.

I'll post the conclusions of each problem of evil here (because i know it's annoying to have only a link to an article to discuss and nothing more) but to really understand how Paulsen get's to his conclusions the whole section really needs to be read.  Obviously, LDS doctrine completely takes care of the second problem of evil so there's not much to discuss on that issue.

The Logical Problem of Evil

"Armed with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of entities co-eternal with God and our revised definition of divine omnipotence, let us consider again the logical problem of evil and Flew’s argument charging God with complicity in all the world’s evil. From Joseph Smith’s theological platform, it does not follow that God is the total or even the ultimate explanation of all else. Thus it is not an implication of Joseph’s worldview that God is an accessory before the fact to all the world’s evil. Nor does it follow that God is responsible for every moral and nonmoral defect that occurs in the world. Within a framework of eternal entities and structures that God did not create and that He cannot destroy, it seems to me that the logical problem of evil is dissolved. Evil is not logically inconsistent with the existence of God. Within the Prophet’s worldview there can be saving explanations of the world’s evil—explanations that in no way impugn God’s loving-kindness. To see what such explanations might be like, we need to fill out the picture considerably. And to do so it will be useful to move from argument and analysis to narrative. Time does not allow me to do it, but I invite each of you, in reflecting on these matters, to rehearse again the old familiar and yet ever new and renewing story of the plan of salvation. To do so is to articulate a Mormon theodicy."

The Soteriological Problem of Evil

"This problem that Morris and Davis state can be expressed in terms of an inconsistent triad, a set of three premises—all of which are apparently true, yet the conjunction of any two of which seemingly entails the denial of the third:

1. God is perfectly loving and just and desires that all of His children be saved.

2. Salvation comes only in and through one’s acceptance of Christ.

3. Millions of God’s children have lived and died without ever hearing of Christ or having a chance to receive salvation through Him.

Number 3 is indisputable, forcing us, it seems, to give up either 1 or 2—both of which seem clearly warranted on biblical authority. So how to resolve the puzzle? The issue is receiving much attention right now from keen and sensitive Christian thinkers. Proposed resolutions are many, ranging from “universalism” on one pole to “exclusivism” on the other. Universalists typically affirm premise 1, compelling them to deny the explicit New Testament teaching that salvation comes only in and through acceptance of Christ. Exclusivists usually affirm number 2, concluding that Oohku, and millions of others like her, must be lost. But this leaves them at a loss to square their view with number 1. Neither view is satisfactory.

Many of you in the audience are, no doubt, smiling, recognizing that adding a premise 4 to the triad resolves the puzzle:

4. Those who live and die without having a chance to respond positively to the gospel of Jesus Christ will have that chance postmortemly."

The Practical Problem of Evil

"Joseph was no stranger to sorrow. He spoke, though inspired by God, from the crucible of his own experience. In D&C 127:2, the Prophet reflected: “The envy and wrath of man have been my common lot all the days of my life. . . . Deep water is what I am wont to swim in.” Indeed, Joseph faced continual persecution. He was tarred and feathered, subjected to numerous lawsuits, and confined in intolerable conditions in dungeon-like jails. He was deeply affected by the deaths of his brothers Alvin and Don Carlos, and his father also died prematurely. Four of his 11 children, including twin sons, died at childbirth, and a fifth died at 14 months. Joseph was never financially well-to-do and was often impoverished. For much of his life he had no regular place to call home. After the failure of the bank in Kirtland, many of his friends turned against him. Members of the Church published the Nauvoo Expositor for the purposes of denouncing him, and this event eventually culminated in his martyrdom. Even Joseph, who walked so closely with God, on occasion in his life experienced the troubling sense of God’s absence when he felt God should have been there for him....

Confronted with what seemed to be overwhelming evil, Joseph found meaning in his suffering, maintained hope, trusted God, and kept the faith. And God spoke peace."

I know that Gray (and i'm sure he's not the only one) says that there is only one answer to the problem of evil-a God who is not involved with His children and keeps His distant.  Pauline seems to give other valid options.

 

I read the article many years ago and thought it was pretty good. Not sure it gets us all the way there but I do think LDS doctrine does better than most other Christian systems in dealing with the problem of evil and suffering.   I may have some thoughts on this later.

For some who are interested in this I also recommend an easy read:

God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our
Most Important Question — Why We Suffer

http://www.bartdehrman.com/gods-problem/

[rongo]

One key to understanding why God allows suffering and tragedy, for me, is that God is not behind everything. We live in a fallen, telestial world, and I don't think that every death was "called home" to serve a mission in the spirit world. Some/many deaths just happen in a fallen world, and that world includes weather/natural disasters (not all of which are divinely-appointed).

I actually think that God and the devil are both blamed for things that weren't their fault. Not every bad thought is whispered by the devil or his servants; some happen because we are mortal --- without being whispered to us.

B.H. Roberts, in his The Truth, the Way, the Life, summarized what he called the "Epicurean Dilemma" (i.e., the problem of evil). It is:

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, is he willing to stop suffering, but unable? Then he is not all-powerful.

Is he able to stop suffering, but unwilling? Then he is malevolent. 

I'm sure that David Paulsen discussed this, but overcoming the problem of evil is one of Joseph Smith's greatest contributions. The doctrine of eternal intelligences (and the related rejection of creatio ex nihilo and, for some LDS, absolute omnipotence or omniscience), makes God not responsible for evil. Creedal Christianity is painted into a corner on this issue (especially Five-point Calvinists). 

I spent six months in the former East Germany on my mission (my favorite area), and for the first two weeks, every person we talked to used the problem of evil to shut down discussion. It was still like living in a black and white movie in the mid 1990s, with very high unemployment, people living in abandoned structures, the effects of multi-generational communism still being felt, etc. Their retort was always "If there is a God, then why does ________ happen?" They loved to bring up World War 2 destruction, world suffering, corruption, hunger, etc. We learned to turn the tables right off the bat and ask people why bad things happen in the world, and their answers tended to revolve around people's choices and how they impact others. Without knowing it, their discussion-stopper was off the table! 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

I'm going to retract. The book deals with suffering and scriptural attempts to understand, explain and answer suffering.

Well yes and why the Bible fails to answer the questions adequately.

It is worth the read and an easy read for those interested in such things.  Ehrman also opens the book with a personal chapter with why as an evangelical Christian he lost his faith.  It is essentially rooted in the issue of this thread.  His story resonated with me because it is similar to my own truth quest but replace EV Christianity with Mormonism.

[Teancum]

44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The problem I see with evil is that it can be overcome by righteousness.

Righteousness doesn't have that problem. 

How about random and senseless suffering?

[rongo]

We live in a fallen, telestial world. With people who have agency, and their choices affect others. 

The question then becomes "Why does God intervene and divinely protect some and not others?" And, I would answer that with his wisdom and the big picture of what each of us needs. Like Elder Maxwell said, each person's judgment is going to be the best possible settlement, taking all factors into account (paraphrase). That some die and suffer randomly and seemingly-senselessly doesn't take this into account.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

We live in a fallen, telestial world. With people who have agency, and their choices affect others. 

The question then becomes "Why does God intervene and divinely protect some and not others?" And, I would answer that with his wisdom and the big picture of what each of us needs. Like Elder Maxwell said, each person's judgment is going to be the best possible settlement, taking all factors into account (paraphrase). That some die and suffer randomly and seemingly-senselessly doesn't take this into account.

This approach simply does not work for me because it is really just to simple.   Think about what Elder Oaks said about the Belgium bombings at the recent GC and ask yourself if you are a loving parent would you really be this capricious?

[Mars]

I often wonder what the world would look like if there were no senseless and random pain and suffering.  Where would that line be?  Could old people get cancer, but not kids?  How much hurt and pain and suffering would be acceptable before we collectively dismiss the argument that BECAUSE there is so much senseless pain and suffering, there could never be a God who existed who loved us who let it happen.

[Rivers]

This topic helps me have some empathy for the 1/3 that rebelled in heaven. 

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This approach simply does not work for me because it is really just to simple.   Think about what Elder Oaks said about the Belgium bombings at the recent GC and ask yourself if you are a loving parent would you really be this capricious?

We only get to die once.

Try to enjoy it, and remember it, and try to learn something from it, when it happens to you or someone you love.

Death is not the end of life, and all pain and suffering are only for a limited time.

 

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This approach simply does not work for me because it is really just to simple.   Think about what Elder Oaks said about the Belgium bombings at the recent GC and ask yourself if you are a loving parent would you really be this capricious?

It comes down to how we define "caprice." As Mars said in the post right below yours:

I often wonder what the world would look like if there were no senseless and random pain and suffering.  Where would that line be?  Could old people get cancer, but not kids? 

Where should the line between "capricious" and "necessary experience" be? Would a loving parent banish all pain and suffering, or could he still be a loving parent and regard pain and suffering (even random and senseless) as necessary?

[Mars]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This approach simply does not work for me because it is really just to simple.   Think about what Elder Oaks said about the Belgium bombings at the recent GC and ask yourself if you are a loving parent would you really be this capricious?

assuming for the moment that God intervenes because it's His designs to save this person but not that person, and we call it capriciousness, this boils down to whether or not we trust God.  it's faith at its core.  this isn't meant to dismiss your concerns or label them as "oh you just don't have faith"

i see this question as THE question we all fought over in the war in heaven.  the conditions we're currently in, here on here on earth: where the entirety of the human race is told by "prophets" from the very beginning of time - for all believers in all faiths - that there is a God and that God is in charge, despite seeing the kind of pain and suffering all of us know exist.  and when we hear these testimonies, those of us who don't have that sure knowledge given to us by God and are starting from square 1 with a desire to believe but pressed by the problem of pain and suffering, we look around and we make our value judgments and our estimations and we conclude "yes that idea of God seems plausible" or "no it does not seem plausible, i choose not to believe"

we are being asked to trust that there is a God who lets terrible things happen because He's in charge and He alone knows when to intervene and when not to, and we have to resist the urge to trust ourselves and our own judgment and refrain from calling it capriciousness.  faith at its core.  not just that there IS a god, but these are his attributes.  that this is His plan.  that it's worth following and it's the right one.

there's a little boy in my neighborhood who will die in the next 9 months from a vicious form of cancer.  his parents are good people; baptist.  neither he nor they deserve this.  why did God allow it?  will He save the boy?  if not, why not that boy but i got an answer to my prayers about a job?  is a job an easier blessing to grant than fixing a boy's cancer?  or am i just finding God in good luck?

like i said...  this is the core of faith and what we fought over in the war in heaven.

as harsh as it sounds and as mean and throwing-in-my-lot with a jerk God who lets kids die but blesses rich people with even MORE money...  i think God is there and why some are blessed and others are not are in His hands.  and if we saw everything He saw, we wouldn't call it caprice.

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We only get to die once.

Try to enjoy it, and remember it, and try to learn something from it, when it happens to you or someone you love.

Death is not the end of life, and all pain and suffering are only for a limited time.

 

  I do not mean this disrespectfully, and I do not know what life has thrown and you....

But this is a simpleton response to a question that is anything but.

You live in a time and land of abundance as do I.

Would your answer be the same to the mother who watches more than one of her children die due to lack of food and clean water, to those who lost so many in the tsunami that wiped out 250,000 in one feel swoop in one of the poorest areas of our globe.

When you think God for your food do you wonder why he let's so many starve while your belly and mine are likely fuller than they need to be?

 

And what of the death of a child at the handsof a sexual predator.  Would you tell that child to simply enjoy it and learn something from it as while has her parents?

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

It comes down to how we define "caprice." As Mars said in the post right below yours:

 

 

Where should the line between "capricious" and "necessary experience" be? Would a loving parent banish all pain and suffering, or could he still be a loving parent and regard pain and suffering (even random and senseless) as necessary?

I do not argue that some suffering and pain is lacking benefit for us in learning and growing.  But so much of it is random and unbiased to the point of concluding that there is nothing more than nature and chance behind so much of it. 

No I would not spare my own children from all suffering.  But I would not purposefully inflict on them so much of the over the top suffering so many of the human race go through nor would I be capricious about it.

What did I do to be born in a time and place of such comfort and wealth while so many do without basic essentials?  If you had 6 children would you willfully give plenty of food to four and simple let the other two starve?

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, Mars said:

assuming for the moment that God intervenes because it's His designs to save this person but not that person, and we call it capriciousness, this boils down to whether or not we trust God.  it's faith at its core.  this isn't meant to dismiss your concerns or label them as "oh you just don't have faith"

i see this question as THE question we all fought over in the war in heaven.  the conditions we're currently in, here on here on earth: where the entirety of the human race is told by "prophets" from the very beginning of time - for all believers in all faiths - that there is a God and that God is in charge, despite seeing the kind of pain and suffering all of us know exist.  and when we hear these testimonies, those of us who don't have that sure knowledge given to us by God and are starting from square 1 with a desire to believe but pressed by the problem of pain and suffering, we look around and we make our value judgments and our estimations and we conclude "yes that idea of God seems plausible" or "no it does not seem plausible, i choose not to believe"

we are being asked to trust that there is a God who lets terrible things happen because He's in charge and He alone knows when to intervene and when not to, and we have to resist the urge to trust ourselves and our own judgment and refrain from calling it capriciousness.  faith at its core.  not just that there IS a god, but these are his attributes.  that this is His plan.  that it's worth following and it's the right one.

there's a little boy in my neighborhood who will die in the next 9 months from a vicious form of cancer.  his parents are good people; baptist.  neither he nor they deserve this.  why did God allow it?  will He save the boy?  if not, why not that boy but i got an answer to my prayers about a job?  is a job an easier blessing to grant than fixing a boy's cancer?  or am i just finding God in good luck?

like i said...  this is the core of faith and what we fought over in the war in heaven.

as harsh as it sounds and as mean and throwing-in-my-lot with a jerk God who lets kids die but blesses rich people with even MORE money...  i think God is there and why some are blessed and others are not are in His hands.  and if we saw everything He saw, we wouldn't call it caprice.

Thank you for your fair response.

This used to work for me.

It currently does not.

[Mars]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Thank you for your fair response.

This used to work for me.

It currently does not.

i'm sorry to hear that, but i honestly don't blame you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Mars said:

assuming for the moment that God intervenes because it's His designs to save this person but not that person, and we call it capriciousness, this boils down to whether or not we trust God.  it's faith at its core.  this isn't meant to dismiss your concerns or label them as "oh you just don't have faith"

i see this question as THE question we all fought over in the war in heaven.  the conditions we're currently in, here on here on earth: where the entirety of the human race is told by "prophets" from the very beginning of time - for all believers in all faiths - that there is a God and that God is in charge, despite seeing the kind of pain and suffering all of us know exist.  and when we hear these testimonies, those of us who don't have that sure knowledge given to us by God and are starting from square 1 with a desire to believe but pressed by the problem of pain and suffering, we look around and we make our value judgments and our estimations and we conclude "yes that idea of God seems plausible" or "no it does not seem plausible, i choose not to believe"

we are being asked to trust that there is a God who lets terrible things happen because He's in charge and He alone knows when to intervene and when not to, and we have to resist the urge to trust ourselves and our own judgment and refrain from calling it capriciousness.  faith at its core.  not just that there IS a god, but these are his attributes.  that this is His plan.  that it's worth following and it's the right one.

there's a little boy in my neighborhood who will die in the next 9 months from a vicious form of cancer.  his parents are good people; baptist.  neither he nor they deserve this.  why did God allow it?  will He save the boy?  if not, why not that boy but i got an answer to my prayers about a job?  is a job an easier blessing to grant than fixing a boy's cancer?  or am i just finding God in good luck?

like i said...  this is the core of faith and what we fought over in the war in heaven.

as harsh as it sounds and as mean and throwing-in-my-lot with a jerk God who lets kids die but blesses rich people with even MORE money...  i think God is there and why some are blessed and others are not are in His hands.  and if we saw everything He saw, we wouldn't call it caprice.

And this is about as far as we can go. Acknowledge that it looks bad to us, but God must have a good reason that we can't (or aren't ready to) understand. Given this, I'd say we don't have the solution to the problem of evil. A better understanding than most, sure, but not THE solution.