The existence of evil

[changed]

The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims.  When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves,  God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist  There is no free will for victims.  

The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument:  If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson?  Aparently god believes the best way to teach 20% of women and children what love is, is to allow them to be repeatedly raped and abused.  This has been my experience - and I am not making up the 20% number, that is what the percentage is for US college students ... the numbers are higher in other countries.  

The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others?  Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance?  Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom?  

 

[Gray]

There is no answer to the problem of evil that preserves any kind of traditional theism with an interventionalist deity. Non-traditional models, like Pantheism, don't have this problem.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, changed said:

The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims. 

I'm not sure what you mean by a "'free will' argument."

The exercise of free will is  . . . messy.  None of us exercises agency in a vacuum.  Our choices touch on and affect and have consequences on others.  Sometimes those consequences are severe.

However, we are taught some important truths relative to this eventuality, namely, that God is perfectly just, perfectly merciful, and that eternal principles associated with justice and mercy are applied through the Atonement.  In other words, the wrongs inflicted on innocents will be addressed and made right.

Quote

When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves,  God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist  There is no free will for victims.

Yes, there is.  The problem is that the wrongdoer has sought to overcome the victim's choice.  That is one of the great evils of disobedience to God's commandments.

Quote

The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument: 

I don't know what that is.

Quote

If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson? 

Obedience to God is, I think, the best way.

Quote

Apparently god believes the best way to teach 20% of women and children what love is, is to allow them to be repeatedly raped and abused. 

Bitter sarcasm is not reasoned argument.

Quote

The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument:

I am not sure what this means.

Quote

Why are some people tested more than others? 

This is a question.  And seemingly not a rhetorical one.  So it doesn't explain "{t}he trouble with the 'have to be tested' argument."

Quote

Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance? 

Again, this is not an explanation of "the trouble..."

Quote

Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests,

Again, this is not an explanation.

And the answer is . . . they aren't.  

Quote

while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom?  

Again, this is not an explanation.

And again, the answer is . . . they aren't.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 30, 2017 by smac97

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, changed said:

The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims.  When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves,  God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist  There is no free will for victims.

The free will defense isn't about rights it's about an ontological aspect to a logical question. You're right in that it doesn't really address why God isn't more interventionist, but that was never it's aim. It's only addressing the logical problem of evil. It can't do more than that.

Quote

 The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument:  If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson?  Aparently god believes the best way to teach 20% of women and children what love is, is to allow them to be repeatedly raped and abused.  This has been my experience - and I am not making up the 20% number, that is what the percentage is for US college students ... the numbers are higher in other countries.  

The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others?  Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance?  Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom?  

Without getting into a tangent about that figure and the well known criticisms of the 1 in 5 claim (the poll's questions were extremely problematic) let me say I largely agree. I think the "character building theodicy" has a problem explaining why this level of evil is needed and why it's unevenly distributed. The main defense is that each person knew the types of evils they'd be experiencing and thus the risk they were taking and chose individually to come. However it's unstatifactory in explaining things like torture, abuse and murder not to mention the many suffering due to diseases, famine and more.

But again most of those pushing this recognize it's deficiencies. It's much more the outline of a what a successful theodicy would be than having a successful theodicy. I'd add that an other important part of this theodicy isn't just the informed choice to come here but also the recognition that Christ's atonement could overcome the consequences of experiencing such suffering. That's a pretty key part of it.

 

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is no answer to the problem of evil that preserves any kind of traditional theism with an interventionalist deity. Non-traditional models, like Pantheism, don't have this problem.

I don't think that's correct, btw. The problem of evil is, if anything, worse in pantheism, depending upon the type of pantheism one embraces.

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's correct, btw. The problem of evil is, if anything, worse in pantheism, depending upon the type of pantheism one embraces.

In the pantheism I'm referring to God is not a person and has no power to intervene. God is simply everything that exists. There is no problem of evil there.

In what form of pantheism is the problem of evil worse than, in say, traditional Christian theism?

Edited October 30, 2017 by Gray

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is no answer to the problem of evil that preserves any kind of traditional theism with an interventionalist deity.

I think the LDS paradigm addresses "the problem of evil" in a very coherent way.  

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

Non-traditional models, like Pantheism, don't have this problem.

I'm seldom impressed by such references, both the cheapshot putdown of "traditional theism" and the vacuous and unexplained reference to . . . well, any other belief system except traditional theism.  They smack more of transgressivism, about as deep as celebrities' fleeting interest in Kabbalah:

Quote

Before Cartier Love bracelets or Yeezys, there was a time you couldn't open an Us Weekly without seeing one covetable accessory: a red string Kabbalah bracelet. The religion was the celebrity spiritual moment du jour during the 2000s, and everyone from Madonna to Ashton Kutcher to Lindsay Lohan dabbled in the mystical religion. But in the decade since its heyday, the spiritual movement has all but faded from the forefront of popular culture, suffering major blows along the way.

If "Pantheism" has all the answers, let's see 'em.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, changed said:

The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims. 

I'm not sure that's the problem.  I find it more complicated than that.  If it is said that God allows evil because He does not want to interfere with other's free will, then He must allow evil to happen for a greater purpose.  The problem is, some would suggest God does interfere in some cases, thus taking away free will of assailants, to protect the free will of victims at times.  If so, then one must ask what makes God interfere sometimes but not at other times?  I guess we'll never know.  The added problem of course is that God knows all before it happens.  Indeed, if someone imagines rape and then rapes, the thought of rape did not originate with him, nor the first one who ever raped.  God imagined the assault before anyone ever was.  If God is all powerful then He could have created without evil.  If he needed evil to help people become better, then he is not all powerful.  It's either God is not powerful enough to stop evil, or He not only allows it but invented it. 

The problem is not resolved in a traditional Christian perspective.  it persists.  From an LDS perspective it remains a problem with the caveat that God is not the only one who ever was.  All of us were, including evil agents.  He can't destroy them.  In this way God is not all powerful.  he is limited and is following, in this work, a pattern rather than creating out of nothing.  But if God set things in motion knowing some of those eternal spirits would be better off if they never were born (either spiritually or physically), then the problem comes back for LDS and there does not seem to be any reasonable way to resolve it.  If in the LDS perspective God has no idea if any of those born (spiritually or physically) will be evil, then I suppose the problem feels less, but it is exists. 

Quote

 

When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves,  God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist  There is no free will for victims.  

But that may not always be the case.  Not all rape attempts are successful.  not all those who desire rape, rape.  Some may say, if it was unsuccessful perhaps God interfered by inspiring someone to interfere, or in the violence God inspired the victim to fight back successfully.  Or...it may be that God interferes with the one who desires to rape by working in that person or through another to change the desire, or replace it with empathy. 

Quote

The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument:  If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson?  Aparently god believes the best way to teach 20% of women and children what love is, is to allow them to be repeatedly raped and abused.  This has been my experience - and I am not making up the 20% number, that is what the percentage is for US college students ... the numbers are higher in other countries.  

The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others?  Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance?  Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom?  

 

Traditional LDS would have it that God knows us so well He knows what we can take, what we need--in terms of education.  Some need a rape, on such a notion, while others do not.  Sometimes, or most times, the evil doesn't educate, but only brings a person down more, but there's always an opportunity to change. 

I would prefer to argue against the LDS tradition and suggest God doesn't interfere, not because He doesn't want to and wants us to learn, but because He can't.  Like Gray suggests. 

Edited October 30, 2017 by stemelbow

[CV75]

1 hour ago, changed said:

The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims.  When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves,  God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist  There is no free will for victims.  

The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument:  If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson?  Aparently god believes the best way to teach 20% of women and children what love is, is to allow them to be repeatedly raped and abused.  This has been my experience - and I am not making up the 20% number, that is what the percentage is for US college students ... the numbers are higher in other countries.  

The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others?  Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance?  Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom? 

The problem with evil is that you can enjoy it for only so long.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the LDS paradigm addresses "the problem of evil" in a very coherent way.  

It's an improvement over traditional Christian theism, but it doesn't successfully address it, IMO. No interventionist model can.

 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm seldom impressed by such references, both the cheapshot putdown of "traditional theism" and the vacuous and unexplained reference to . . . well, any other belief system except traditional theism.  They smack more of transgressivism, about as deep as celebrities' fleeting interest in Kabbalah:

Why do you think the term "traditional theism" is a cheapshot? Let's leave emotion out of it and stick to reasoned arguments.

What do you mean by transgressivism? Is it your view that anyone with non-traditional theistic views is just trying to be trendy?

 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If "Pantheism" has all the answers, let's see 'em.

Thanks,

-Smac

Pantheism posits that God = everything that exists. God is not a person, God cannot intervene. God just is. Without the ability to intervene, there is no problem of evil.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

The problem of evil refers to the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God

In pantheism, God is not omnibenevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent, or even conscious. So the problem of evil doesn't apply.

If it matters to you, Pantheism also meets the first cause arguments for God as well (traditional Christianity is more concerned with this than Mormonism). Existence is necessary because non-existence is impossible. Therefore existence itself is the first cause that gives rise to all other "modes" of existence.

Pantheism even fits into Mormon theology, in a way. Existence itself gives rise to the gods, who are administrators of the universe(s). Existence could be said to be the Ur-God and first cause agent in Mormon theology.

 

[changed]

44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

...I'd add that an other important part of this theodicy isn't just the informed choice to come here but also the recognition that Christ's atonement could overcome the consequences of experiencing such suffering. That's a pretty key part of it.

 

 

informed choice - I do not think it was informed.  Before coming to earth we had no physical body, because we had never experienced it, we could not make an informed decision on it.

the atonement "not my will but thine be done", sorry, but I do not feel comforted by the atonement.  It does not take away my pain, it makes the situation worse by causing yet another person pain.

recent events in my life have caused me to doubt the plan - I no longer see god as being loving, merciful, just, or perfect.  

 

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's an improvement over traditional Christian theism, but it doesn't successfully address it, IMO. No interventionist model can.

I'm willing to listen to arguments and explanation.  One-sentence conclusory assertions . . . not so much.

Quote

Why do you think the term "traditional theism" is a cheapshot?

There is no effort at reasoning or explanation.  Just a conclusory putdown.  

Quote

Let's leave emotion out of it and stick to reasoned arguments.

Fine.  Let's also move beyond conclusory assertions.

Quote

What do you mean by transgressivism?

The West has its roots in Judeo-Christian philosophies and ethics.  Those philosophies and ethics have been expounded upon for literally millennia.  So an unadorned, one-sentence putdown of them, paired with an equally unadorned, one-sentence shoutout to some sort of as-long-as-it-sounds-exotic-and-is-sufficiently-alternative-to-Judeo-Christian-thought-it's-good-enough-for-me school of thought, usually comes across as an attempt to be transgressive.  Trendy.  Cool.  Not that stodgy, Judeo-Christian ethic!  That's just antiquated.  Un-hip.  Not groovay at all.

The article I quoted above references Kabbalah as "the celebrity spiritual moment du jour during the 2000s," but that it "as all but faded from the forefront of popular culture."  Your unexplained and conclusory assertion about pantheism, presented to a board full of steeped-in-Judeo-Christian-values Mormons, comes across the same way.  The metaphorical equivalent to a rebellious teenager showing off a new belly button piercing just to shock and appall stodgy old Grandma Nell.

If you have a reasoned and rational explanation for the merits of pantheism, if you can summarize why it is better at addressing "Free Will"-type philosophical conundrums, then let's have it.  But if driveby putdowns and conclusory declarations about some trendy alternative philosophy, then this discussion will not last long.

Quote

Is it your view that anyone with non-traditional theistic views is just trying to be trendy?

Nope.  But for me, people who come to an LDS message board, toss out a one-sentence putdown of Judeo-Christian thought and add an unexplained, one-sentence shoutout to an alternative ("non-traditional theistic views") are just trying to stir the pot, not have a substantive, meaningful discussion.

Quote

Pantheism posits that God = everything that exists. God is not a person, God cannot intervene. God just is. Without the ability to intervene, there is no problem of evil.

No, the problem of evil still exists.  Pantheism just has no explanation for it, and no remedy for it either.

Judeo-Christian thought, meanwhile, strives for an explanation and remedies.  Pascal's Wager comes to mind.  

A non-interventionist concept of God is nihilistic.  There is no right or wrong.  Laws are meaningless.  Each person is a law unto himself.  Do what you want, whenever you want, however you want, to whomever you want, because there is no God in heaven.  "God cannot intervene."  And because God cannot intervene, you can do whatever I want.  You can become any sort of monster you wish, because monsters do not exist.  Monsters, after all, are an embodiment of evil.  But if there is no evil, then there are no monsters.  So pantheism allows (encourages?) Person A to inflict as much pain and misery on Persons B-∞.

Quote

From Wikipedia:

In pantheism, God is not omnibenevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent, or even conscious. So the problem of evil doesn't apply.

Right.  Evil does not exist.  That's your remedy?  That is the defining attribute that makes pantheism superior to Judeo-Christian ethics?  That is denies the existence of evil?  That is removes any philosophical deterrent for individuals and societies to - in your example - constrain "a rapist {from raping} someone?"

Bad things happen to people.  Re-defining reality to obliterate the concept of "bad" does not resolve the issue.  Those acts which we have previously defined as "bad" still happen.  All you've done is A) justified those who commit those acts (by removing any notion that those acts are "bad," or that there will be consequences for committing them), and B) replaced Judeo-Christian philosphy with nihilistic anarchy.   

That is how you propose we address the Problem of Evil?

Well, thanks but no thanks.

-Smac

Edited October 30, 2017 by smac97

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's an improvement over traditional Christian theism, but it doesn't successfully address it, IMO. No interventionist model can.

I'm not sure that's true. Part of the problem is of course our ignorance over the nature of a spirit and what it's limits are. Further we're also ignorant of how we'd view our traumas after death. Psychologically the reason traumas have the effect they due is very much a product of the particular organization of our brain.

If one uses the problem of evil to become skeptical of God, then that immediately moves one into looking at trauma from a more secular perspective tied to cognitive science. In that sense humans aren't that far removed from animals. Trauma and the effects of trauma either are due to an evolutionary advantage or a side effect of some system with adaptive value. Once you already have to accept such a conception of the brain from a view where God isn't involved, it's worth return to ones original premises. That is given such a conception of brain, what implications does this have if we don't have our brain?

Put an other way the secular critique presupposes that trauma is the same for spirits and resurrected beings as it is for us. That almost certainly isn't the case. It seems to me there are big implications of that view.

Quote

Pantheism posits that God = everything that exists. God is not a person, God cannot intervene. God just is. Without the ability to intervene, there is no problem of evil.

From Wikipedia:

In pantheism, God is not omnibenevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent, or even conscious. So the problem of evil doesn't apply.

If it matters to you, Pantheism also meets the first cause arguments for God as well (traditional Christianity is more concerned with this than Mormonism). Existence is necessary because non-existence is impossible. Therefore existence itself is the first cause that gives rise to all other "modes" of existence.

Pantheism even fits into Mormon theology, in a way. Existence itself gives rise to the gods, who are administrators of the universe(s). Existence could be said to be the Ur-God and first cause agent in Mormon theology.

There are a wide variety of pantheistic views. Spinoza's or the Stoic's pantheism are of course the most famous but not the only ones. (Process theology has a view close to pantheism although the differences are enough that some call it panentheism since God is the universe but also transcends the universe.

To the wikipedia article, with all due respect this is a good reason to be careful using it. It's certainly true that such terms become problematic. Whether the universe is "conscious" becomes question begging I think. It's not conscious the way we are. But if consciousness is an element of the universe then by definitely pantheism entails consciousness as part of God. I'd also dispute the idea of intervention. I'd say that again by definition a pantheistic god is nothing but intervention.

In any case it's not at all clear the problem of evil doesn't apply. Part of it depends upon what one means by evil. But the traditional pantheistic views in late antiquity still saw the problem of evil as a big problem. The neoplatonists saw evil as privation from good famously. This in turn had a huge effect on early through medieval Christianity. However these questions can't be raised independent of the theoretic scaffolding these movements were part of. Typical in Greek philosophy was the idea that to know something is to do it. Thus ignorance was usually the reason we couldn't do something. This seems alien to us today since we assume we can know and want something yet competing desires or weakness keep us from it. (Say a smoker who knows smoking is bad - for the greeks as soon as they knew it was bad they'd stop. If they don't stop they don't really know it.) This obviously has huge implications for the problem of evil since the Greeks simply see evil as ignorance. It's much later developments - arguably starting with the rise of Christianity as the main Roman religion that changes things. So the neoplatonic conception of evil as privation is really the notion of evil as ignorance. Ditto for the Stoics.

I bring this up because when discussing the problem of evil relative to pantheism one can't help but deal with these issues. If only because in the western tradition you can't separate out pantheism from neoplatonism or stoicism. (That's just as true in Spinoza or the more theistic Leibniz) Even if you read Hegel ontologically as espousing a kind of pantheism then similar issues pop up. This is why Leibniz says this is the best of all possible worlds. The typical pantheistic view tends to see evil as apparent due to our finitism. If we could see things from a global perspective we'd see it all as good. But this is precisely where the problem of evil remains a problem for pantheists. There's an assumption (explicit in the greeks and romans) that God is good. Thus there's a certain circularity to the argument. It's quite possible to look at things globally, reject the knowledge/finitism idea of evil as privation, and then have the problem of evil.

Put an other way, if you your reject the idea that pantheism entails this is the best of all possible worlds, then pantheism does't resolve the problem of evil at all.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, changed said:

informed choice - I do not think it was informed.  Before coming to earth we had no physical body, because we had never experienced it, we could not make an informed decision on it.

Before I joined the military, I had never been in the military before.  By your reasoning, I "could not make an informed decision on it."  

Before I got married, I had never been married before.  By your reasoning, I "could not make an informed decision on it."

Before I bought my house, I had never owned real property before.  By your reasoning, I "could not make an informed decision on it."

And yet I feel that these decisions were all "informed."  Prior to each decision I had generalized notions about what I was getting into.  I did not know all in the ins and outs.  I did not know every nook and cranny of every good thing and bad thing and in-between thing that I would experience after these decisions were made.  I did, however, have sufficient information to proceed.  And faith.  Lots of faith.

I think your interpretation of "informed choice" is problematic.  By your reckoning, I have some sort of Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card.  The only way to obtain the "information" you seem to be calling for (thus enabling your "choice" to be "informed") is to make the choice.  You are creating a paradox.  You suggest that a choice, to be "informed," must be preceded by the experience of having made that choice.  How does that work?  How do you propose to achieve "informed choice" then?

Quote

the atonement "not my will but thine be done", sorry, but I do not feel comforted by the atonement.  It does not take away my pain, it makes the situation worse by causing yet another person pain.

I encourage you to give more thought and study to the Atonement.  I would also encourage you to not try and sort out difficult issues like this by turning to strangers online.  We are too much of a mixed bag.

Quote

recent events in my life have caused me to doubt the plan - I no longer see god as being loving, merciful, just, or perfect.  

I am sorry to hear that you are in the midst of difficulty.  I hope you will given this matter further thought and study.

Sincerely,

-Smac

Edited October 30, 2017 by smac97

[clarkgoble]

42 minutes ago, changed said:

informed choice - I do not think it was informed.  Before coming to earth we had no physical body, because we had never experienced it, we could not make an informed decision on it.

the atonement "not my will but thine be done", sorry, but I do not feel comforted by the atonement.  It does not take away my pain, it makes the situation worse by causing yet another person pain.

recent events in my life have caused me to doubt the plan - I no longer see god as being loving, merciful, just, or perfect.  

The typical view is that a spirit is physical. Thus in some sense it was a physical body even if it was limited in ways we aren't entirely clear on. We know though there had to be some level of choice and knowledge in heaven otherwise the rebellion by ⅓ makes very little sense. To assume that we can only make an informed choice if we've experienced the evils though raises a logical problem. How can we ever make informed choices? At which point we need only say we were informed about that particular nature of inability to make an informed choice. That is we had sufficient experience to know we lacked that experience to have that sort of knowledge. We freely made the choice to come to a place where we could have such experiences. Maybe we weren't sufficiently informed to know fully what they'd be like. But we were sufficiently informed of our ignorance to be willing to make the free choice to come.

For the atonement I think the atonement can resolve our pain. It might take time but I take it as a matter of faith that God can heal us if we let him.

However beyond faith I think there are good reasons to think this as well. If much of our trauma is, as I mentioned earlier, due to the particular nature of our brain, then that would be healed in the resurrection. We might not be able in terms of force of will reduce our trauma now. But if trauma is how the brain responds to past experience, then modifying the brain would logically change that. (We don't know about the equivalent in our spirit body - yet if it's just ultimately physical states those states can be modified via a sufficiently advanced technology)

The idea of Christ suffering not mattering I'm not sure I buy. Of course we're ultimately ignorant of the exact nature of the atonement. There a common somewhat uniquely Mormon perspective that the real suffering and real work of the atonement took place not on the cross but earlier in Gethsemene. The common view (admittedly not clearly backed by revelation) is that at Gethsemene Christ literally experienced what we experience so that he knows how to heal us. That is it was ultimately experiencing what every person experienced so he can fix us. It's precisely because of that knowledge that in the resurrection he can give us what we want.

The idea that there was just some arbitrary punishment Christ suffered to heal us seems to me to be problematic. I'm not sure I buy it although it does obviously have some scriptural support.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, changed said:

The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims.  When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves,  God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist  There is no free will for victims.  

Perhaps you are misusing the term "free will".  Free will is not the ability to do whatever we want whenever we want, free of restriction.  It does not mean that we can choose to avoid natural disaster or harm from others.  Free will in LDS theology is perhaps better termed "moral agency".  That is what it is called in the scriptures anyway.  

The phrase “free agency” does not appear in the scriptures? Instead, the scriptures teach “that every man may act in doctrine and principle … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins” (D&C 101:78; emphasis added).

Edited October 30, 2017 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

In the pantheism I'm referring to God is not a person and has no power to intervene. God is simply everything that exists. There is no problem of evil there.

In what form of pantheism is the problem of evil worse than, in say, traditional Christian theism?

So, in the pantheism you are speaking of, God is evil and that's why evil isn't a problem?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Mormonism, I think, handles this issue rather well. My favorite passage of scripture which responds to this question is 2 Nephi 2. Lehi tells us that part of the purpose of mortality is to experience a limited agency - where we both act and are acted upon. This comes from the fall. And the atonement reverses aspects of the fall, leading to a post-mortal state where we experience real agency: "And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given." (verse 26). The further explanation is that accountability only exists where we act (and not where we are acted upon). And Lehi tells us that this limited agency is sufficient for God's purposes of using mortality as a probationary state.

Because of this approach to agency (that it is limited both in scope and in consequences) in mortality, we don't actually end up with the question asked in the OP: "The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims." The notion of a limited free will assumes exactly this. But, it also doesn't require free will in any absolute sense for everyone all the time. So it isn't exactly a "trouble". And then next: "The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument:  If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson?" The challenge is that (at least according to Lehi), an intellectual or theoretical knowledge of Good and Evil is insufficient as a basis for absolute free will. A limited (and perhaps purely theoretical) knowledge may be sufficient within a mortal probation (depending on the circumstances). But, on some level, we all have to experience the fall that Adam and Eve experienced just so that we can come to this knowledge. God's purposes (in 2 Nephi 2), are about the end of man, and not about his creation,  or even so much about this probationary state. I don't think that this creates the same sort of trouble that you mention here. I think that the sort of example you provide doesn't begin to approach the issue from that longer perspective (from a perspective external to mortality). Lehi tackles this a bit further in his discussion of opposition.

Finally: "The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others?  Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance?  Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom?" I think that this fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the probationary state. People aren't tested beyond their limits of endurance. That doesn't meant that people aren't pushed beyond those limits in mortality - merely that at that point, it is no longer a part of the "test". Mormonism doesn't have a 'finish line' so to speak, because the test is completely individual. And the destination for one person isn't the destination for anyone else. In this way, people simply aren't sent to outer darkness.

On the other side of this coin is of course, an old debate in Mormonism over progression on the other side of mortality. I tend to side with those who believe that progression is something that happens - and that those who struggle the most in mortality simply find that they have a farther distance to go than others in their progression in the next life. As President Clark noted: "I am not a strict constructionalist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here. It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can: and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come.” (J. Reuben Clark, Church News, 23 April 1960, p. 3).

What is especially significant, I think, in all of this discussion, is that our awareness of issues like rape (that you bring up) creates for us a moral and ethical obligation to be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem. We can also bring up the other great ills of our mortality - issues like displaced people and the issues that cause their situation (war, famine, prejudice). We need to keep in mind that these are all God's children, and we bear a collective responsibility to "bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; Yea, and ... mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death ..."

Edited October 30, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So, in the pantheism you are speaking of, God is evil and that's why evil isn't a problem?

I think Gray is speaking of a philosophy in which there is no such thing as "good" and "evil."  Those categories only make sense if there is an arbiter and lawgiver to do the categorizing.  As Korihor put it:

Quote

And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

If the God of Pantheism has no role to play, no law to give and no judgment to mete out, then we're left with . . . moral anarchy.  No good.  No evil.  "{E}very man fare{s} in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prosper{s} according to his genius, and {} every man conquer{s} according to his strength; and whatsoever a man {does is} no crime."

Scary, IMO.  Give me the Judeo-Christian ethic any day of the week (or even its watered down form found in Pascal's Wager).  At least these philosophies allow for some self-imposed constraint on behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 30, 2017 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

....................................... Existence is necessary because non-existence is impossible. Therefore existence itself is the first cause that gives rise to all other "modes" of existence.

In Buddhism, desire is the beginning of sorrows, just as you seem to be saying that existence is the beginning of sorrows.

Quote

Pantheism even fits into Mormon theology, in a way. Existence itself gives rise to the gods, who are administrators of the universe(s). Existence could be said to be the Ur-God and first cause agent in Mormon theology.

Maybe God is the umpire, and all this is just a game -- the game of life.

In Mormon theology there can be no "Ur-God," since there was no beginning (Abraham 3:18).  Infinity is like that, you know.

Quote

"The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits."  Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844, History of the Church, 6:310–312, online at https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-17?lang=eng .

Quote

"How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods."
Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 7:333)

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Mormonism, I think, handles this issue rather well. My favorite passage of scripture which responds to this question is 2 Nephi 2. Lehi tells us that part of the purpose of mortality is to experience a limited agency - where we both act and are acted upon. This comes from the fall. And the atonement reverses aspects of the fall, leading to a post-mortal state where we experience real agency: "And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given." (verse 26). The further explanation is that accountability only exists where we act (and not where we are acted upon). And Lehi tells us that this limited agency is sufficient for God's purposes of using mortality as a probationary state.

Because of this approach to agency (that it is limited both in scope and in consequences) in mortality, we don't actually end up with the question asked in the OP: "The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims." The notion of a limited free will assumes exactly this. But, it also doesn't require free will in any absolute sense for everyone all the time. So it isn't exactly a "trouble". And then next: "The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument:  If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson?" The challenge is that (at least according to Lehi), an intellectual or theoretical knowledge of Good and Evil is insufficient as a basis for absolute free will. A limited (and perhaps purely theoretical) knowledge may be sufficient within a mortal probation (depending on the circumstances). But, on some level, we all have to experience the fall that Adam and Eve experienced just so that we can come to this knowledge. God's purposes (in 2 Nephi 2), are about the end of man, and not about his creation,  or even so much about this probationary state. I don't think that this creates the same sort of trouble that you mention here. I think that the sort of example you provide doesn't begin to approach the issue from that longer perspective (from a perspective external to mortality). Lehi tackles this a bit further in his discussion of opposition.

Finally: "The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others?  Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance?  Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom?" I think that this fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the probationary state. People aren't tested beyond their limits of endurance. That doesn't meant that people aren't pushed beyond those limits in mortality - merely that at that point, it is no longer a part of the "test". Mormonism doesn't have a 'finish line' so to speak, because the test is completely individual. And the destination for one person isn't the destination for anyone else. In this way, people simply aren't sent to outer darkness.

On the other side of this coin is of course, an old debate in Mormonism over progression on the other side of mortality. I tend to side with those who believe that progression is something that happens - and that those who struggle the most in mortality simply find that they have a farther distance to go than others in their progression in the next life. As President Clark noted: "I am not a strict constructionalist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here. It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can: and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come.” (J. Reuben Clark, Church News, 23 April 1960, p. 3).

What is especially significant, I think, in all of this discussion, is that our awareness of issues like rape (that you bring up) creates for us a moral and ethical obligation to be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem. We can also bring up the other great ills of our mortality - issues like displaced people and the issues that cause their situation (war, famine, prejudice). We need to keep in mind that these are all God's children, and we bear a collective responsibility to "bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; Yea, and ... mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death ..."

I'd agree.  In terms of this question the best thing the LDS position has going for it is:

1.  evil must have always been--since all have always in some existed.  God did not create out of nothing.

2.  God is limited to eternal laws that extend beyond Him. 

I think those, opposing the traditional perspective, really do temper the effects of the problem.  The problem, in essence, assumed creating out of nothing, and God knowing all and capable of doing all. 

[thesometimesaint]

We don't get to choose what others do to us. We do get to choose how we respond to them.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

We don't get to choose what others do to us. We do get to choose how we respond to them.

That's not universally true.  In some cases we do get to choose what others do to us.  And at times we don't get to choose how we respond. 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, changed said:

The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims.  When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves,  God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist  There is no free will for victims.  

The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument:  If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson?  Aparently god believes the best way to teach 20% of women and children what love is, is to allow them to be repeatedly raped and abused.  This has been my experience - and I am not making up the 20% number, that is what the percentage is for US college students ... the numbers are higher in other countries.  

The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others?  Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance?  Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom?  

 

One, I don't believe in an interventionist God, largely because of this problem. 

Two, the idea of free will is one that I have an emotional tie to, I really like it, but the skeptical questioning side of me is not sure how much free will we actually have.  There are multiple contributing factors, and a lot of interesting conversations happening that bring into serious question the idea of free will.  I hope we have some free will at the end of the day just because I like the idea that I have some control over my destiny, but I recognize that this might just be my bias speaking.  

[Gray]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm willing to listen to arguments and explanation.  One-sentence conclusory assertions . . . not so much.

 

Quote

There is no effort at reasoning or explanation.  Just a conclusory putdown.  

Please point out the put down. You seem to be just emoting, with no effort at reasoned arguments.

 

Quote

Fine.  Let's also move beyond conclusory assertions.

The West has its roots in Judeo-Christian philosophies and ethics.  Those philosophies and ethics have been expounded upon for literally millennia.  So an unadorned, one-sentence putdown of them, paired with an equally unadorned, one-sentence shoutout to some sort of as-long-as-it-sounds-exotic-and-is-sufficiently-alternative-to-Judeo-Christian-thought-it's-good-enough-for-me school of thought, usually comes across as an attempt to be transgressive.  Trendy.  Cool.  Not that stodgy, Judeo-Christian ethic!  That's just antiquated.  Un-hip.  Not groovay at all.

This is not a reasoned argument.  Again, you're just emoting and mocking. Let's leave that to the side and actually discuss the arguments.

 

Quote

The article I quoted above references Kabbalah as "the celebrity spiritual moment du jour during the 2000s," but that it "as all but faded from the forefront of popular culture."  Your unexplained and conclusory assertion about pantheism, presented to a board full of steeped-in-Judeo-Christian-values Mormons, comes across the same way.  The metaphorical equivalent to a rebellious teenager showing off a new belly button piercing just to shock and appall stodgy old Grandma Nell.

More emoting and mocking. Let's leave that aside, yes?

 

Quote

If you have a reasoned and rational explanation for the merits of pantheism, if you can summarize why it is better at addressing "Free Will"-type philosophical conundrums, then let's have it.  But if driveby putdowns and conclusory declarations about some trendy alternative philosophy, then this discussion will not last long.

Nope.  But for me, people who come to an LDS message board, toss out a one-sentence putdown of Judeo-Christian thought and add an unexplained, one-sentence shoutout to an alternative ("non-traditional theistic views") are just trying to stir the pot, not have a substantive, meaningful discussion.

On the contrary, you're the only one making put-downs here - your arguments are full of them so far. All because I used the phrase "traditional theism" - a perfectly legitimate and neutral term.

 

Quote

No, the problem of evil still exists.  Pantheism just has no explanation for it, and no remedy for it either.

You don't seem to understand the problem of evil. It's not just "why does evil exist." The problem is squaring the existence of evil with a God who is good and intervenes in human affairs. Since the latter does not exist in pantheism, the problem of evil is not a theological problem for pantheists. You understand that's different than saying that evil is not a problem. There are terms in this issue that have a specific meaning - you should familiarize yourself with them before proceeding.

 

Quote

Judeo-Christian thought, meanwhile, strives for an explanation and remedies.  Pascal's Wager comes to mind.  

Not sure if serious?

 

Quote

A non-interventionist concept of God is nihilistic.  There is no right or wrong.  Laws are meaningless.  Each person is a law unto himself.  Do what you want, whenever you want, however you want, to whomever you want, because there is no God in heaven.  "God cannot intervene."  And because God cannot intervene, you can do whatever I want.  You can become any sort of monster you wish, because monsters do not exist.  Monsters, after all, are an embodiment of evil.  But if there is no evil, then there are no monsters.  So pantheism allows (encourages?) Person A to inflict as much pain and misery on Persons B-∞.

This is pure strawman. Your conclusions in no way follow from the premise. In fact your conclusions apply just as much to LDS theology as to pantheism.

 

Quote

Right.  Evil does not exist.  That's your remedy?  That is the defining attribute that makes pantheism superior to Judeo-Christian ethics?  That is denies the existence of evil?  That is removes any philosophical deterrent for individuals and societies to - in your example - constrain "a rapist {from raping} someone?"

Again, you misunderstand. See my statement a few lines up.

 

Quote

Bad things happen to people.  Re-defining reality to obliterate the concept of "bad" does not resolve the issue.  Those acts which we have previously defined as "bad" still happen.  All you've done is A) justified those who commit those acts (by removing any notion that those acts are "bad," or that there will be consequences for committing them), and B) replaced Judeo-Christian philosphy with nihilistic anarchy.   

That is how you propose we address the Problem of Evil?

Well, thanks but no thanks.

-Smac

The problem of evil is unsolvable while maintaining an interventionist and benevolent God. If you think you've solved it, you more than likely haven't taken the problem seriously enough.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Gray