The problem of evil

[Teancum]

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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.

 

Yes there is a solution to the problem of evil and suffering but most those who want to hold to faith don't like the answer.

[Mars]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes there is a solution to the problem of evil and suffering but most those who want to hold to faith don't like the answer.

That's not a fair characterization of opposition to contrary arguments. 

[Mars]

52 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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.

 

Completely agree. 

It's where rubber meets the road. We make the choice to believe or not. 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

  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?

It's all a blip in the eternal perspective. 

Everything that happens here.

Someone said something in this last conference about how we are here to see what we are made of.  What kind of person each of us is. It is a test and only a test. We are still pretty much what we were when we came here and hopefully all of us will learn at least a little bit about what we are and what we are made of during this test, little blip that it is, to be maybe just a little bit better than what we were before we came here.  Maybe a little more loving, or compassionate, or empathetic to what others experience to maybe see and do something to help make life at least a little more enjoyable.

But there will still be death after we are done with it here.  There will still be other planets of people who will fall and experience mortality. And neither our Father or we will stop all of those people from experiencing death or pain or suffering because... well obviously if our Father thought death should never be allowed  anywhere he would have put a stop to it all a long, long, long time ago in another galaxy far, far away.  There is something to be learned from everything that is going on here.  Something we can not learn in any way other than to experience it.

I feel kinda cheated that I've had things so good, even though I've seen and experienced a lot of pain and suffering both personally and through my loved ones.  My own dear wife is still going through more pain and suffering than I can imagine because of her mortal body, as imperfect as it is, and it is not all her fault. We eat right and try to be very physically active but her body is still basically falling apart. I think of all that Job went through and I think she has it even worse than he did, although she doesn't have leprosy (yet?), but in its place she has a lot of other health problems. 

Anyway, we could either throw a pity party or just try to learn from it. She will have a perfectly glorified physical body soon enough.  And there is still a lot of good stuff to enjoy as bad as things get and can get for anybody. After this phase, once we are both resurrected together, we'll only have our memories of how bad things were for ourselves and others and we'll still be seeing and experiencing what we are made of as the kind of people we are.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Mars said:

That's not a fair characterization of opposition to contrary arguments. 

Is it a fair characterization or argument to the contrary that perhaps the problem of evil and suffering demonstrates that perhaps there is no God or if there is a God, God is more a type of God that Deists believe in to simply say:

"but God must have a good reason that we can't (or aren't ready to) understand"

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Mars said:

Completely agree. 

It's where rubber meets the road. We make the choice to believe or not. 

So you agree because you like this argument right?  Not necessarily that it is logical nor does evident bear it out.

I am not trying to be hostile.  I simply am pointing out that when I implied the contrary you say that my comments was not a fair characterization of the contrary arguments.   Yet you quickly support the argument that seems to state "just have faith."

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

............................................................................

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.

Prof Paulsen is only one of a number of scholars who have taken note of the implications of Mormon theology for the problem of evil (theodicy).  The traditional problem of a necessary God who is the Prime Mover (Uncaused Cause), and a universe which merely has contingent being, is the source of modern death-of-god theologies, and there is no way to escape from those traditional, logical implications.  The problem of evil destroys the rational integrity of the traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith and dogma.  Only Mormon theology escapes that dilemma.

Your complaint about the "seeming random and needless distribution of suffering" misses the point.  Suffering and disaster are natural concomitants of life, not some covert means of "bringing a family closer to Christ."  That we are all here experiencing human existence, with all its ups and downs, and temporal unfairness, is merely a waystation en route to glory.  It is not permanent, even though we humans take it hard.  It is all in the nature of reality, which even God must contend with.  It limits Him.

[Mars]

You are combining two positions. 

1. The real answer is that there is no God, but you probably won't like it. This reluctance to accept it is why you won't. 

2. The problem of pain and God letting it happen does not strike me as a good setting where faith can flourish. I choose not to believe in a God that let's children die for no good reason. 

#1 is a blanket characterization of believers. Asking them, in a challenging 'have you ever even thought about this?? Like why you have food when others starve?!' kind of way comes across as condescending.  (like saying 'you agree because you like it.' that's a total dismissal of all the thinking and pondering I've put into it... All that thinking doesn't matter, because, you know, I only believe because I like it.)You appear to be asserting the conclusion and saying the belief is false from the get go. 

#2 is just a declaration of lack of belief. I can respect this, even if I don't agree with it. 

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, Mars said:

You are combining two positions. 

1. The real answer is that there is no God, but you probably won't like it. This reluctance to accept it is why you won't. 

2. The problem of pain and God letting it happen does not strike me as a good setting where faith can flourish. I choose not to believe in a God that let's children die for no good reason. 

#1 is a blanket characterization of believers. Asking them, in a challenging 'have you ever even thought about this?? Like why you have food when others starve?!' kind of way comes across as condescending.  (like saying 'you agree because you like it.' that's a total dismissal of all the thinking and pondering I've put into it... All that thinking doesn't matter, because, you know, I only believe because I like it.)You appear to be asserting the conclusion and saying the belief is false from the get go. 

#2 is just a declaration of lack of belief. I can respect this, even if I don't agree with it. 

Again this is a fair post.

But I can tell you for more than 48 years I thanked God for my food while never really considering it was like me feeding 4 of my six children and letting the other 2 starve.  I don't meant the question to be condescending.  Maybe I was not bright enough to consider the implications and everyone else of faith already has.

 

 

[Mars]

I doubt it was a question of intelligence.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours 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"

..........................................................................

This reminds me of the humanist scholar Isaac Asimov in his Foundation series of maybe six books:   His non-religious notion, which was mined by George Lucas for "Star Wars," was that small, incremental changes in human activity could have vast implications over time.  Instead of a god, Asimov posited a secret Foundation of scientists, who sought to see the galaxy through some very tough (evil) times, in order that the humans might survive and come out the other side of a metaphorical long, dark night.  Their faith was in the statistical math which projected the likelihood of various futures, and in their ability to tweak that likelihood with something like the "butterfly effect."

Just so, the Mormon God (gods) is a finite being who seeks to obtain the best possible end for all his children.  To this end, He has at His beck and call merely natural means, but they are adequate to the task.  No miracles necessary.  Mormonism is not only very humanist in such implications, but it is also universalist.  That is something you will not hear over the pulpit on Sunday.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Mars said:

I doubt it was a question of intelligence.

You might be surprised about how much a person's level of intelligence on a specific issue has to do with their level of understanding on that issue. 

Everything people don't know or understand on every issue could be cured by the necessary amount of intelligence. 

And all stupid means is a lack of intelligence. 

[Nofear]

I have some things to say but doubt I'll get much into this discussion. But Sister Reeves comments are potentially relevant to some of the thinking here (my own philosophical take is from a different approach but fully compatible with her comments). Here is a snippet, but the whole talk is worth it:

Quote

Sisters, I do not know why we have the many trials that we have, but it is my personal feeling that the reward is so great, so eternal and everlasting, so joyful and beyond our understanding that in that day of reward, we may feel to say to our merciful, loving Father, “Was that all that was required?”  Worthy of Our Promised Blessings

 

[Meadowchik]

The conditions that make growth and joy possible are also the conditions  which make "random, senseless suffering" possible and unavoidable.

[stemelbow]

The issues raised resulting from the problem of evil raises many questions for LDS, even though as well as any theology or perspective in the world the LDS view addresses this problem better than all else.  BUt I don't know everything, so that last statement may be too much.

It's troubling to me to think that we are composed intelligences which when formulated puts us as those with prior inclinations.  I don't know about the whole "we were more faithful in the pre-mortal world than others" teaching, but thiking on in this way lends some possibility to that teaching.  We were a bunch of spirits whose learning needed to expand, but the path to such expanding seemed to preference those who were prone to become the exalted.  Most else would still gain but would end up eternally in a lesser state and condition than their more faithful peers. Of course we also have those relative few who were better off that they were never born.  There's a lot of sadness and tragedy to go around in that area.  I'm not sure we get it completely even if we often talk like we do.  it leaves me with a terrible feeling overall.  I hate the idea of sharing an exalted status while many to most have something less particularly when it feels like that which qualifies me is somewhat arbitrary. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your complaint about the "seeming random and needless distribution of suffering" misses the point.  Suffering and disaster are natural concomitants of life, not some covert means of "bringing a family closer to Christ."  That we are all here experiencing human existence, with all its ups and downs, and temporal unfairness, is merely a waystation en route to glory.  It is not permanent, even though we humans take it hard.  It is all in the nature of reality, which even God must contend with.  It limits Him.

If we propose that suffering and disaster are natural and necessary to life, and God is helpless to interfere, then I would agree that solves the problem of evil. On my better days this is the God that I believe in. However, the God that most Mormons believe in helps some find their lost car keys, while failing to help others find their children dying in the back of the car trunk. The problem of evil is certainly unsolved (at least in my opinion) for this God.

[Gray]

While God in LDS theology is not omnipotent, that doesn't erase the problem of evil. The examples of dramatic divine intervention on the part of God (within the LDS paradigm) are numerous. Yes, free agency and the theory of growth through opposition can explain away some evil, but it cannot account for all of it. There is still needless suffering that goes unexplained and unaccounted for in LDS theology. 

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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.

I agree that he doesn't answer it completely.  I think part of that is because he's not trying to answer the why for all suffering, but just the why for evil.  Earthquakes, for example, are not evil.  Disease is not evil, etc. etc.  Those are products of a fallen world and they do often create suffering, but not all suffering is a byproduct of evil.

I think Paulsen would use this argument to help explain suffering that isn't caused by evil, only evil would be replaced with the word suffering-

"God is omnipotent, but He cannot prevent evil without preventing greater goods or ends—the value of which more than offsets the dis-value of the evil: soul-making, joy, eternal (or godlike) life."

The reasoning would seem to go that God cannot always change the natural conditions of the fallen world (which tend toward suffering by definition) without preventing the greater good of eternal life.

 

[Ahab]

Without righteousness there would be no evil.

And without pleasure there would be no pain.

Everything must have it's opposite otherwise it would not exist. 

You can't get rid of any bad thing that happens unless you also get rid of the good that allows it to exist.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

While God in LDS theology is not omnipotent, that doesn't erase the problem of evil. The examples of dramatic divine intervention on the part of God (within the LDS paradigm) are numerous. Yes, free agency and the theory of growth through opposition can explain away some evil, but it cannot account for all of it. There is still needless suffering that goes unexplained and unaccounted for in LDS theology. 

Who says that needless suffering has to be explained and accounted for? (People whom it really bothers, of course).

While "we won't understand this on earth and will have to wait until the hereafter to understand this" can be cliche and overly glibly used, it is also sometimes true, and that's just the way it is. I don't think the purpose for our mortality includes that we are supposed to have a full understanding of why.

As you hint above, the interesting question for me is divine intervention. Sometimes God intervenes, and sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he sends an angel to Alma the Younger, and sometimes he doesn't for other people's wayward children. We can't answer why here and not there, but not being able to answer this doesn't cause me to doubt God's existence. Clearly, it sometimes does for some people.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Who says that needless suffering has to be explained and accounted for? (People whom it really bothers, of course).

If you're concerned about the problem of evil, then it needs to be accounted for. If you're ignoring the problem of evil, then it doesn't. 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

While "we won't understand this on earth and will have to wait until the hereafter to understand this" can be cliche and overly glibly used, it is also sometimes true, and that's just the way it is. I don't think the purpose for our mortality includes that we are supposed to have a full understanding of why.

It may be true, but it is not an answer to the problem. It is a deferment to dealing with the problem. Meanwhile, interest accrues. 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

As you hint above, the interesting question for me is divine intervention. Sometimes God intervenes, and sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he sends an angel to Alma the Younger, and sometimes he doesn't for other people's wayward children. We can't answer why here and not there, but not being able to answer this doesn't cause me to doubt God's existence. Clearly, it sometimes does for some people.

Obviously what conclusions we draw are subjective. I don't doubt God's existence, but I can no longer believe in a God who intervenes. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree that he doesn't answer it completely.  I think part of that is because he's not trying to answer the why for all suffering, but just the why for evil.  Earthquakes, for example, are not evil.  Disease is not evil, etc. etc.  Those are products of a fallen world and they do often create suffering, but not all suffering is a byproduct of evil.

I think Paulsen would use this argument to help explain suffering that isn't caused by evil, only evil would be replaced with the word suffering-

"God is omnipotent, but He cannot prevent evil without preventing greater goods or ends—the value of which more than offsets the dis-value of the evil: soul-making, joy, eternal (or godlike) life."

The reasoning would seem to go that God cannot always change the natural conditions of the fallen world (which tend toward suffering by definition) without preventing the greater good of eternal life.

 

I'm not sure that Paulsen draws the same distinction as you. Under the heading of "The Logical Problem of Evil" Paulsen lists both human suffering and moral evil as two distinct subcategories. Additionally, traditionally the "problem of evil" includes naturally occurring "evil." 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think Paulsen would use this argument to help explain suffering that isn't caused by evil, only evil would be replaced with the word suffering-

"God is omnipotent, but He cannot prevent evil without preventing greater goods or ends—the value of which more than offsets the dis-value of the evil: soul-making, joy, eternal (or godlike) life."

The reasoning would seem to go that God cannot always change the natural conditions of the fallen world (which tend toward suffering by definition) without preventing the greater good of eternal life.

This reasoning is fine as far as it goes, but it certainly seems to break down in particular instances and seems to raise as many questions as it answers. How does not helping a mother find her trapped kids in the trunk of a car create any greater good at all? If God helps the mother's neighbor find her car keys, but decides not to intervene the case of trapped children, it seems like there ought to be a very good reason. If we understood this reason, then we could say that we have the answer to the problem of evil. 

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 6:28 PM, Ahab said:

It's all a blip in the eternal perspective. 

Everything that happens here.

Someone said something in this last conference about how we are here to see what we are made of.  What kind of person each of us is. It is a test and only a test. We are still pretty much what we were when we came here and hopefully all of us will learn at least a little bit about what we are and what we are made of during this test, little blip that it is, to be maybe just a little bit better than what we were before we came here.  Maybe a little more loving, or compassionate, or empathetic to what others experience to maybe see and do something to help make life at least a little more enjoyable.

But there will still be death after we are done with it here.  There will still be other planets of people who will fall and experience mortality. And neither our Father or we will stop all of those people from experiencing death or pain or suffering because... well obviously if our Father thought death should never be allowed  anywhere he would have put a stop to it all a long, long, long time ago in another galaxy far, far away.  There is something to be learned from everything that is going on here.  Something we can not learn in any way other than to experience it.

I feel kinda cheated that I've had things so good, even though I've seen and experienced a lot of pain and suffering both personally and through my loved ones.  My own dear wife is still going through more pain and suffering than I can imagine because of her mortal body, as imperfect as it is, and it is not all her fault. We eat right and try to be very physically active but her body is still basically falling apart. I think of all that Job went through and I think she has it even worse than he did, although she doesn't have leprosy (yet?), but in its place she has a lot of other health problems. 

Anyway, we could either throw a pity party or just try to learn from it. She will have a perfectly glorified physical body soon enough.  And there is still a lot of good stuff to enjoy as bad as things get and can get for anybody. After this phase, once we are both resurrected together, we'll only have our memories of how bad things were for ourselves and others and we'll still be seeing and experiencing what we are made of as the kind of people we are.

1: It is not all a blip given all we really know is the beginning of this life and the end.  For you your faith says is it all a blip.   For many it is not.  And for many who suffer horribly the day, hours, weeks, months and years sure will feel like more than a blip.

2: Personally I find it nonsensical to simply say it is all a test.  What a wonderful test.  To learn for perhaps billions of years all God said we were able to learn then go to the final exam and have all the past remembrance blotted out.  Further, the vast majority of humans in LDS doctrine are born into situations that stack the cards agains them in this test.  And even those who have a better opportunity to pass the test have only a few hints to go on.   Lastly, for many the test is simply cruel. I could never test my own children in such cruel ways as so many of human kind has, is and will be "tested."

3:  It is not the issue of death.  We all die.  It is the absolute seeming randomness of it all as well as the horrific suffering so many go through while living and even in meeting their deaths.  I see any innocent child suffering horribly at the hands of a murderous deranged psychopath simple in acceptable simple because the agency of the psychopath is the prime directive that trumps all. According to scripture God intervenes in other seemingly trivial matters.  

So I have a question for you, if there were a 4 year old child standing in the middle of the street and you saw a car coming that would kill the child would you do everything in your power to save the child?  If yes why?  If no why not?  What if you saw a child being abducted by a deranged killer?  Same questions.

4:  It is not a pity party to ponder and wonder about such things. I am sorry that your wife is suffering. If your faith gives you strength and this even strengthens your faith good for you and I am happy for you.  But don't demean others who may struggle reconciling such thing with what theistic religions teach about God.

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

While God in LDS theology is not omnipotent, that doesn't erase the problem of evil. The examples of dramatic divine intervention on the part of God (within the LDS paradigm) are numerous. Yes, free agency and the theory of growth through opposition can explain away some evil, but it cannot account for all of it. There is still needless suffering that goes unexplained and unaccounted for in LDS theology. 

It does not seem there is agreement among LDS theologians whether or not God is omnipotent, Omniscient, etc.  Elder Maxwell certainly taught He is.  McConkie as well.  Joseph Smith's canon also teaches the principles of the Omni's.   Others like Blake Ostler don't agree.  But they have no authority like the three I have mentioned.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

Who says that needless suffering has to be explained and accounted for? (People whom it really bothers, of course).

While "we won't understand this on earth and will have to wait until the hereafter to understand this" can be cliche and overly glibly used, it is also sometimes true, and that's just the way it is. I don't think the purpose for our mortality includes that we are supposed to have a full understanding of why.

As you hint above, the interesting question for me is divine intervention. Sometimes God intervenes, and sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he sends an angel to Alma the Younger, and sometimes he doesn't for other people's wayward children. We can't answer why here and not there, but not being able to answer this doesn't cause me to doubt God's existence. Clearly, it sometimes does for some people.

1:  Nobody says needless suffering has to be explained. Thoughtful thinkers may ask why?  Others may try to reconcile it with what religion tries to say about a God.  Anyone, even those of deep faith, who are not bothered by needless suffering have a flaw in the mental and emotional make up IMO.

2:  To be honest and not flippant I find the cliché over used, glib and thoughtless. 

3:  Your last point is a good argument for a capricious random and not very benevolent God.