Theodicy: why does God allow evil? (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, January 31, 2017, 18:58 (2851 days ago)
We have mentioned this area of theology in the past, but here is an essay on the subject with a full exposure:
https://aeon.co/ideas/bad-things-happen-for-a-reason-and-other-idiocies-of-theodicy?utm...
"The problem of evil is a classic dilemma in the philosophy of religion. The relative ease with which the problem can be stated belies the depth of the challenge that it presents to traditional monotheism. Roughly, it can be summarised as follows:
"If God is omnipotent, then He has the power to create a world without evil.
"If God is omniscient, then no moment of evil goes divinely unnoticed.
"If God is omnibenevolent, then He has the desire to rid the world of evil.
"Therefore, the world should be perfect, or at least free of undeserved suffering. Yet, a cursory glance reveals a world that clearly is not inherently just or free from undeserved suffering.
***
"Many solutions to the problem of evil – called ‘theodicies’ – have been proposed. There is the argument of free will, attributing evil not to God but to humanity’s misuse of its own freedom. Others have argued that certain kinds of moral goodness – compassion, for instance – are not possible in a world without evil, and the value of these types of goodness outweighs the evils on which their existence depends. There is also what I call ‘the big-picture defence’, claiming that evil only appears as such from our limited perspectives. Were we able to see things from the perspective of God, we would see that, in the grand scheme of things, every apparent evil plays a necessary role in making the world more perfect.
***
"The essential difficulty of the problem of evil is how to reconcile its apparent existence with a loving, all-powerful deity. One popular method has been to reassert the inherent justice of the world, implying, if not explicitly claiming, the righteousness of the suffering that we witness throughout it. The result is, essentially, a theological form of victim-blaming.
***
"Natural disasters and terrorist attacks are either random events in a chaotic world, or they are explicable events within a discernible pattern. In the former case, we inhabit an essentially amoral universe: bad things happen to good people, children die premature deaths, and tragedy strikes without remorse, all without rhyme or reason. In the latter case, we inhabit a much more hospitable universe where there is some sort of inherent order: a place where morality is inscribed into the very fabric of things, assuring us that, if only we play by the rules, evil will be punished, goodness will be rewarded, and justice will reign supreme.
***
"Theodicy authorises only the suffering of the less fortunate when it indulges in willful blindness and insists on justice as a foregone conclusion, denying reality in favour of comforting ignorance. Alternatively, when justice is construed as hope – as a vision of what the world could possibly be – it functions as a lodestar. This acknowledges the disturbing realities with which we are surrounded, and refuses to be disillusioned by them. By regarding justice as an ideal rather than a present reality, one’s vision of the inequalities and brutalities of the present moment remains unobstructed, allowing them to be faced. The just universe in which we should believe is the one that can be created only through dedicated effort and real action on our part. But that can happen only if we refuse to take shelter in soothing fantasies."
Comment: My thought is the same as before. The author's mistake is the usual one, using religion as a starting point. Part of the problem is ascribing to God that He loves us. We do not know that. But God has given us a giant brain to solve the problems presented at least as far as disease presents, as asteroids present, as earthquakes and severe weather present. We have cured much disease and will do more, we can learn to redirect asteroids, and develop better warning systems for earthquakes and weather, as examples of our capabilities. I believe in a tough-love God who expects us to solve problems. Life in the Garden of Eden is easy but boring.
Theodicy: why does God allow Covid 19 pandemic
by David Turell , Monday, March 30, 2020, 20:02 (1697 days ago) @ David Turell
Asking the question accepts the thought God exists:
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/to-ask-where-is-god-in-this-pandemic-is-to-acknowledg...
"But we should understand that the question “Where is God in this pandemic?” presupposes God’s existence. To see how, consider a world in which He didn’t exist. Without a Creator, there would be no objective moral standard — no standard of good or evil— that we could apply to this suffering. It would not be “wrong” in any objective moral sense for countless thousands of people to suffer and die.
"In a Godless world it would be unpleasant for those who suffer, of course, but there would be nothing morally wrong or morally perplexing in such suffering. If the universe is not under objective moral law, we have no warrant to ask “why” we or anyone suffers, any more than a machine has a warrant to ask why parts break. Parts of a machine may corrode or snap, but gadgets don’t suffer and there is no moral issue at stake.
***
"Suffering in a universe without God and thus without objective good or evil is meaningless, literally. Richard Dawkins expressed the atheist perspective quite well:
"'The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
"But we are part of the universe, and we are not at all piteously indifferent. The intense sense we have of suffering — our suffering and the suffering of our families and neighbors and of humanity — implicitly points to an objective law of good and evil outside of ourselves. If suffering is wrong and evil, then there necessarily exists a moral framework that transcends material reality. Good and evil presuppose a Source of moral law.
"I don’t know why God allows pandemics. But I know that my — and Richard Dawkins’s — moral objection to human suffering is an implicit acknowledgement of God’s existence. I know that the suffering of innocents is evil, and is not merely unpleasant. That would not be the case if there were no moral Lawgiver outside of my own opinions. Heck, if I were a mere vehicle for selfish genes evolved wholly by natural selection, I would love mass death, as long as my own genes weren’t deleted. Coronavirus is efficient — natural selection on an industrial scale. Those of us who are alive are the winners.
"I would not know or care about good or evil unless there were a standard of good and evil independent of me. But we care a lot, and millions risk their own lives to save strangers. There is a Source of Good, of which evil is a privation. I ask Him why innocents suffer, and He hasn’t told me, or told anyone, as far as I know.
"My sense is that suffering on this scale is the working out of things far beyond human understanding. Perhaps theologian David Bentley Hart was right when he said, concerning the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004, that suffering on this scale is not morally intelligible, and that it would be far more terrible if were. "
Comment: I agree with Egnor, but add the point God gave us the superb brain/consciousness/soul to fight and solve the problem by our own wits.
Theodicy: why does God allow Covid 19 pandemic
QUOTES: "But we should understand that the question “Where is God in this pandemic?” presupposes God’s existence.
If you put the question in such terms, then of course it presupposes God’s existence!
“Without a Creator, there would be no objective moral standard — no standard of good or evil— that we could apply to this suffering. It would not be “wrong” in any objective moral sense for countless thousands of people to suffer and die.”
For heaven’s sake, who says there IS an objective standard? If Fred Bloggs stands up and says murderous viruses are a good thing, you, Egnor and I will disagree, and so will a few million others. That's it. Even if God exists, nobody knows what he’s thinking. Maybe HE thinks murderous viruses are a good thing. Egnor should know as well as the rest of us that it’s humans who decide what is good or bad for them, and the best we can have is a consensus.
“….and I don’t know why God allows pandemics. But I know that my — and Richard Dawkins’s — moral objection to human suffering is an implicit acknowledgement of God’s existence.”
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. The word “moral” changes nothing. Our objection to human suffering is an explicit acknowledgement that - surprise, surprise - we humans (apart from sadists and masochists) don’t like suffering, and so most of us agree it's bad. Again, that’s it.
“I would not know or care about good or evil unless there were a standard of good and evil independent of me.”
Firstly, you would know what is good for you, and that is one “standard”. Secondly, you should be able to gauge what is good for other people. That is another “standard” on which various legal systems are based (what is good for society in general). These definitions of good and bad are created by humans for humans. The fact that Egnor doesn’t know why God allows pandemics shows that even he doesn’t know the “objective” standard, so the only standard we have is still our own.
I’m sorry, but this article is on the same intellectual level as Dawkins’ “natural selection (not only) explains the whole of life…”. The authors should be squirming.
Theodicy: why does God allow Covid 19 pandemic
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 31, 2020, 21:41 (1696 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTES: "But we should understand that the question “Where is God in this pandemic?” presupposes God’s existence.
dhw: If you put the question in such terms, then of course it presupposes God’s existence!
“Without a Creator, there would be no objective moral standard — no standard of good or evil— that we could apply to this suffering. It would not be “wrong” in any objective moral sense for countless thousands of people to suffer and die.”
dhw: For heaven’s sake, who says there IS an objective standard? If Fred Bloggs stands up and says murderous viruses are a good thing, you, Egnor and I will disagree, and so will a few million others. That's it. Even if God exists, nobody knows what he’s thinking. Maybe HE thinks murderous viruses are a good thing. Egnor should know as well as the rest of us that it’s humans who decide what is good or bad for them, and the best we can have is a consensus.
“….and I don’t know why God allows pandemics. But I know that my — and Richard Dawkins’s — moral objection to human suffering is an implicit acknowledgement of God’s existence.”
dhw: Sorry, but this is ridiculous. The word “moral” changes nothing. Our objection to human suffering is an explicit acknowledgement that - surprise, surprise - we humans (apart from sadists and masochists) don’t like suffering, and so most of us agree it's bad. Again, that’s it.
“I would not know or care about good or evil unless there were a standard of good and evil independent of me.”
dhw: Firstly, you would know what is good for you, and that is one “standard”. Secondly, you should be able to gauge what is good for other people. That is another “standard” on which various legal systems are based (what is good for society in general). These definitions of good and bad are created by humans for humans. The fact that Egnor doesn’t know why God allows pandemics shows that even he doesn’t know the “objective” standard, so the only standard we have is still our own.
I’m sorry, but this article is on the same intellectual level as Dawkins’ “natural selection (not only) explains the whole of life…”. The authors should be squirming.
This shows you how people of faith think and produce rules like the Ten Commandments, which they say God dictated to Moses. The way I look at it, God gave us the brains/soul to find solutions to the challenges and understand what is moral and ethical. No other organism happens to have that ability. I'm sure you noticed, as Adler did.