During our last discussion on the problem of evil, David Ellis wrote this about the Cross of Christ:
There’s nothing wonderful about a man being tortured to death. Its noble that one is willing to do that. But its simply masochistic to act it out when there’s no good reason to have done so in the first place—and there isn’t one.
I want to respond to this in the more visible location of a new blog post.
Christian theodicy (answering the problem of evil in the world) absolutely depends on the Cross. Our view of suffering and evil cannot be separated from God’s willingness to bear suffering and evil himself. Without it there is no sense in it all for us, either. When my cousin was murdered, I recalled that God himself suffered the unjust and violent death of a son. In the Second Person of the Trinity he himself bore all that pain.
But you, David, object mightily to the Cross. You blame God for all the evil in the world (if there is a God). I don’t see you taking much responsibility for it yourself. As Solzhenitsyn said (paraphrased), the line separating good and evil runs through the heart of every person, and for God to cut off all evil would require him to cut off every person. This is the just and righteous consequence for evil.
The Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement says that God’s justice can be accomplished through a willing, righteous, and infinite person’s taking on that penalty as a substitute for those who must otherwise pay it. That is what the Cross is about. It is Christ’s sacrifice for evil in our hearts: yours and mine. He paid so that we would not have to, and so that we could be freed from the penalty.
An appreciation of the Cross requires an appreciation of our own need for it: an appreciation of the mess we ourselves are making of ourselves, our world, and our relationship with God.
When someone wrote, “Getting rid of evil is possible for God, but He has a good reason not to do it; it would require the end of the world,” you responded:
It would not require the end of the world for no child to be born with congenital defects.
It would not require the end of the world for no child to be swept to his death in a tsunami.
It would not require the end of the world for no child to be buried under rubble during an earthquake and die a slow agonizing death.
It would only require the exercise of a modicum of his infinite power.
Let’s think about that a moment. In other places you have stated your objections in terms of the quantity of evil in the world. Let’s go ahead, then, and imagine a world in which what you have asked for has come to pass: there are no natural ills. There are only human actions. As I have just said, for God to cut off evil human actions he would have to cut off all humans. So there are no natural ills, just humans hurting humans, through our greed, pride, scrambling for advantage, anger, revenge, injustice, hatred, and so on.
What would happen then to your argument in terms of the quantity of suffering remaining? I can’t hazard much of a guess, but I’d be very surprised if there was 1/10 of one percent of it left.
I’m not minimizing natural evils. I’ve been through a hurricane and the strongest earthquake in the continental U.S. in the last 100+years. I’ve suffered at great length from a hereditary illness, and from more than one naturally occurring one.
One of my sisters has never had a healthy day in her life because of congenital/hereditary issues. In her 50+ years she has had dozens of surgeries. She walked on just one leg for 30+ years, until a head injury took even that skill away. She’s pressing through, and recovering her skills slowly—and successfully!
But I think back on what she has said about life over the last ten or so years, and what has caused her the most pain and anguish. It wasn’t any of that: it was the way some co-workers were treating her on the job. It hurt her desperately, far more than her health problems. Apart from rare exceptions (like the tsunami) It’s human evil that hurts us the most.
By the way, my sister is a believer in Christ, and there is a glory in her, in the way she keeps trusting him, that is amazing. It’s the glory of God, displayed in a way it never could be if all we ever did in life was walk through gardens and pick pretty flowers. It’s the glory of God showing how he can defeat evil right at its source.
I have another good friend who is in advanced stages of ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease). Every time I see her she’s smiling. Again, there is the glory of God on display, showing his goodness that is stronger than evil.
So before I will listen any further to your complaints about God not cutting off the evil he could have cut off, I want to hear how you are cutting off the evil you could cut off. You could try some of the Ten Commandments, and consider the inner as well as the outer action: is your heart perfectly faithful to your relational commitments? Do you ever wish you had something that someone else had? Are you perfectly truthful? Do you ever get angry at someone and wish they could be removed from your having to deal with them. How about the Great Commandments? I don’t have to ask whether you love God with all your heart. But do you love your neighbor as yourself? Consistently?
Even though you’ve told Holopupenko he can’t mind-read, still I can guess your answers, because I know mine would be the same. And so would every other person’s.
God is dealing with evil of this sort. He’s offering you forgiveness for your own, through the Cross of Christ. He’s preparing a world of goodness. He’s defeating evil every day, especially through those who trust him. It’s not over yet, but there is good shining through the process even as the final consummation delays.
And then in the end, those who have accepted his forgiveness will live with God in freedom of love and righteousness. Those who have spurned him, on the other hand, will get to experience the result of their choice, too: they will be separated from his love and goodness, because that has been their chosen preference. Their evil will be dealt with, too.
So look to yourself first, before you tell us God has done a poor job of containing evil.
As long as you continue to hate and despise the Cross of Christ, we can be confident this discussion on theodicy will only be an argument with no resolution. As long as you fail to see your own need for the Cross—on account of the evil you yourself bear, as do I and all other humans—you are in no position to judge God for the evil you think he has unjustly allowed on the earth.
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
Thanks for this post.
I don’t often post, if ever. But this post was really something very good, and true, and before the objectors got here I just wanted to say that I agree, and support it – keep blogging.
Blessings,
David
An excellent point.
I’ve wondered about what would happen if there were no natural evil or negative effects from human evil in a world filled with fallen people.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the result would be utter and complete self-absorption, the Garden of Hedon.
I don’t understand the point of most of this posting. This, however…
… appears to take the issue of a theodicy off the table for everyone, or maybe it’s just for non-Christians. (I’m not entirely sure given the post above.)
I thought the problem of evil is an argument concerning the logic and evidence of metaphysical explanations. This post implies you’d prefer that argument instead be turned into one among individuals. I don’t think that’s a great point, or a great post.
It’s a matter of context with respect to David’s comments, Tony. The theodicy question is not off the table.
It does bring up an interesting point that I remember from my college philosophy classes, if there was no suffering, no evil in the world, would it really be a better place? Or as my professor put it, if there was one less suffering child in the world, would it be a better place to live?
Tom, I read your OP as implying that a lesser amount of evil (no natural disasters, but still human-initiated evil) is not preferable over the world as it is. Do I have that right?
Of course there is nothing wonderful about a man being tortured to death, nor is there anything wonderful about God being tortured to death. God became fully human in the flesh of Jesus Christ and walked the world healing the sick and teaching anyone who would listen how to overcome evil. He was executed (tortured to death) for his efforts, not by God, but by people just like you and I. Jesus (God in the flesh) Christ had signed up for the full tour of duty and didn’t cut and run when the going got tough, as He knew it would.
In a sense, God and the cross is street theatre, a Passion Play in real life, illustrating the moral depravity of humanity. The Roman governor would rather hang an innocent man than serve justice, the Jewish authorities would rather hang an innocent man than risk a riot, and all of Jesus disciples ran for cover. He was abandoned. I think it was Aristotle who speculated if a truly good man came into the world the world would kill him because it cannot face its own depravity. Jesus Christ is that man.
The very revulsion in which you hold the crucifiction of Jesus is reason enough. The difficulty arises when you fail to consider that Jesus is not “just a guy” that God picked to play a part. Jesus is God Himself, conceived, born, and raised to walk the world with His creatures and to bring them the Good News of redemption. It is conceivable that the first century audience of Christ could have listened to Him and followed His precepts, but it is equally certain that they did not. They, quite literally, killed God.
The common error today is to think that God killed a man. That is not what happened. The crucifiction was conceived and carried out by men and the victim is God. And you are quite right, there is nothing wonderful about that. But, Jesus (God in the flesh) Christ, even while hanging on the cross, holds out the offer of redemption. He pardons us for our wicked ways. And we still blame the victim.
Of course there is nothing wonderful about a man being tortured to death, nor is there anything wonderful about God being tortured to death. God became fully human in the flesh of Jesus Christ and walked the world healing the sick and teaching anyone who would listen how to overcome evil. He was executed (tortured to death) for his efforts, not by God, but by people just like you and I. Jesus (God in the flesh) Christ had signed up for the full tour of duty and didn’t cut and run when the going got tough, as He knew it would.
In a sense, God and the cross is street theatre, a Passion Play in real life, illustrating the moral depravity of humanity. The Roman governor would rather hang an innocent man than serve justice, the Jewish authorities would rather hang an innocent man than risk a riot, and all of Jesus disciples ran for cover. He was abandoned. I think it was Aristotle who speculated if a truly good man came into the world the world would kill him because it cannot face its own depravity. Jesus Christ is that man.
The very revulsion in which you hold the crucifiction of Jesus is reason enough. The difficulty arises when you fail to consider that Jesus is not “just a guy” that God picked to play a part. Jesus is God Himself, conceived, born, and raised to walk the world with His creatures and to bring them the Good News of redemption. It is conceivable that the first century audience of Christ could have listened to Him and followed His precepts, but it is equally certain that they did not. They, quite literally, killed God.
The common error today is to think that God killed a man. That is not what happened. The crucifiction was conceived and carried out by men and the victim is God. And you are quite right, there is nothing wonderful about that. But, Jesus (God in the flesh) Christ, even while hanging on the cross, holds out the offer of redemption. He pardons us for our wicked ways. And we still blame the victim.
I don’t see you taking much responsibility for it yourself.
I take responsibility for my own actions. But this discussion is not about whether I’m morally perfect—there’s not any dispute about whether that’s true.
The Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement says that God’s justice can be accomplished through a willing, righteous, and infinite person’s taking on that penalty as a substitute for those who must otherwise pay it.
Do you really fail to see that this idea just doesn’t make a bit of sense?
What twisted idea of justice is served by only absolving us if an innocent is punished in our stead?
Let’s think about that a moment. In other places you have stated your objections in terms of the quantity of evil in the world.
Lets be clear that I’m talking about suffering and suffering alone. I dislike the traditional term “problem of evil” but since it has such a long history and its the one you used in bringing up the subject I’m stuck with it.
As I have just said, for God to cut off evil human actions he would have to cut off all humans. So there are no natural ills, just humans hurting humans, through our greed, pride, scrambling for advantage, anger, revenge, injustice, hatred, and so on.
The problem of suffering from natural sources is more than sufficient as an objection to the compatibility of the claim that a loving God exists and that this is the way he would run the world.
So before I will listen any further to your complaints about God not cutting off the evil he could have cut off, I want to hear how you are cutting off the evil you could cut off.
As stated before, there is no disputing that I am morally imperfect, nor that I’m not omnipotent. So what does my imperfection have to do with this topic?
Besides, morally imperfect as I am if I were (like in the terrible movie BRUCE ALMIGHTY) given God’s powers you can be sure there would be massively less suffering in the world. I would be healing the sick. Making crops growth and water flow in famine stricken lands and in everyway I could think of making this world a better place.
By any reasonable measure the world would be a better place if I (or I suspect, you, or any other person of even modest good will toward others) had the powers you attribute to your God.
Of course, this is not a claim that I’m better than God—I think he fails to do anything about suffering simply because he’s fictional.
If he actually existed we would, I have little doubt, be living in a much better world than the one we find ourselves in.
As long as you continue to hate and despise the Cross of Christ
I don’t hate or despise it—I feel great pity for the actual person Jesus (assuming he existed, which I think likely) and the human suffering he went through. Same as I do for every other victim of torture throughout history.
What I object to is the absurdity of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.
you are in no position to judge God for the evil you think he has unjustly allowed on the earth.
Actually, I think it the responsibility of every person to carefully and thoughtfully weigh the moral implications of a religion’s doctrines and come to the best judgement they are able on those issues.
Else how would anyone ever correct the moral errors that are institutionalized in a societies religious practices and beliefs?
… how would anyone ever correct the moral errors that are institutionalized in a societ[y']s religious practices and beliefs? Hmmm… let’s conduct a body count resulting from atheist-animated societies in the 20th century alone, and compare that to the body count resulting from all religious faiths throughout human history.
“No one is so competent a witness to the substance of Christianity as the sinner; no one, except, perhaps, the saint.” (Charles Péguy)
“With prayer, with humility of spirit tempering his temerity of mind, man has always sought to define the nature of the most important fact of his experience: God. To this unending effort to know God, man is driven by the noblest of his intuitions—the sense of his mortal incompleteness—and by hard experience. For man’s occasional lapses from God-seeking end inevitably in intolerable shallowness of thought combined with incalculable mischief in action. Modern man knows almost nothing about the nature of God, almost never thinks about it, and is complacently unaware that there may be any reason to…” (Niebuhr)
The common error today is to think that God killed a man. That is not what happened. The crucifiction was conceived and carried out by men and the victim is God.
Never mind the passage in the Bible in which Jesus begs God that this cup be allowed to pass from him. I’m going to assume for the sake of argument that your position is correct.
So God will only be reconciled with humanity if some of us torture him?
That’s somehow better? It just makes him sound deranged.
Hmmm… let’s conduct a body count resulting from atheist-animated societies in the 20th century alone, and compare that to the body count resulting from all religious faiths throughout human history.
Ah yes, that old chestnut.
Guess what? I’m a humanist. Not a communist.
It makes no more sense to smear a humanists by saying that since both humanists and communists are not theists, that humanists are implicated in the evil deeds of communist regimes than it does to say that since both Christians and Aztecs are not muslims, that Christians are implicated in the evil deeds of the Aztec religion.
Besides Christian societies have committed all sorts of atrocities themselves.
The same can’t be said in regard to humanists. No humanist inquisitions. No humanist witch-hunts.
So if you want to compare the evil deed of believers in christianity to those of believers in humanism all up for that.
Besides which a big chunk of those twentieth century atrocities were committed by Germany when the Nazi party was in charge. And Nazism was not an atheistic regime. Hitler, in fact, banned skeptic and atheist organizations.
@Paul:
That’s not really the point I was trying to make. I was trying instead to show something about two forks of David’s argument: One, that there is far too much suffering in the world (a matter of quantity), and two, that God should eliminate all naturally caused suffering. My point was that if God did that, it would do very little to reduce the quantity of suffering.
david ellis,
You said (at 8:24 pm),
The apostle Paul wrote with respect to that, in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25:
(Written by one of the best-educated men of his day, by the way.)
You also said,
Sure, it’s an objection. But it’s not an objection on its own. It’s effective as an objection if it can be shown that God has no morally sufficient reason to permit such suffering, or if it can be shown that no net good is produced by such suffering. So far what I see you coming forth with are emotional arguments that don’t seem even to try to show that kind of thing.
That doesn’t mean emotional arguments are out of court in a discussion on suffering. Far from it. But emotional arguments lead to different ends than logical arguments do. They lead to “what do we do about this?” or to “whoever or whatever let this be this way, I think it stinks!” or even to, “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” But they do not lead to “There is a logical incompatibility between this suffering and the existence of God.” That takes a different kind of argument. If you have presented one and I’ve missed it, please show it to us.
Or if you want to approach this on an emotional level, I’m certainly willing to go there with you. I hope what I’ve written above, and previously, gives you some taste of the fact that I’ve gone there in many ways and many times myself. But I won’t confuse the direction one kind of argument can take with the direction another kind can take.
You think you are the exception to Lord Acton’s dictum? I wonder.
Anyway, that’s a great description of the kind of work that Christians acting in God’s name have taken the lead in doing for the world. Especially in the sense of doing it for people not their own: others have done this kind of service for their own people through the ages, but it has been Christians who have taken the lead in going to other cultures and other peoples to water their deserts and heal their sick. Those who have done so in God’s name would argue that God is at work, doing through them just what you say he should do.
Are you doing that now, with the powers you do have?
And again, you have not presented anything to show why you think that suffering cannot bring about a greater good. I think I have shown why I think it’s possible that it can. You have stated your contrary opinion several times, but it comes (forgive me, but I think I should be frank about it) as a kind of petty blustering. Or else it’s an emotional argument masquerading as a logical statement. Again, I’m willing to deal with it on either level, but I don’t intend to confuse what the two kinds of approaches can do.
I did not say “communist”–I specifically said “atheist(-animated).” Once again, you intentionally deflect to avoid the problem… this time by means of the fallacy of special pleading:
I get it: communist atheism is “bad,” but humanist atheism is “good”… NOT.
It’s a little more complicated than that. To understand it you must understand the idea of being so much in love that you would willing pay any price to win the object of your affection. If you read the Old Testament book of Hosea, the prophet Hosea is told to marry a prostitute who will be unfaithful and betray him, over and over again. Hosea goes and redeams her from prostitution and then she leaves him and her children once more. “The LORD said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.”
It is the story of love betrayal, forgiveness, and betrayal again, once more forgiven. God had chosen these people, not because they were paragons of virtue, a cursory reading of the OT will dispell that illusion, but because they suited His purpose. They were average, everyday people, with all the flaws and foibles of everyman. They were set apart to be the conduit of Gods message to the world and to provide the context for the Incarnation. That message is, “I will do whatever it takes to win you back to Me!”
Note well, God will not use coercion. He will win you back, but He will not force you. That is why Jesus Christ was incarnated as the son of a carpenter and lived as an itinerant preacher. He did not conquer, He did not use force, He talked to people, He taught people, and He loved people enough to tell them the truth – even when they hated the truth.
And when they had heard enough truth to choke them they killed the messenger.
Tom, @ May 27, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Understood. But my point *is* whether you think it would be preferable for naturalistic suffering to be reduced. Because David’s point is, “Why doesn’t God reduce naturalistic suffering?” The first step toward answering that question is whether such reduction is preferable, and I got the sense from your post that you don’t care that much, that human (contra naturalistic) evil is much, much more important, such that naturalistic suffering doesn’t really count.
Please clarify.
Natural evil is the consequence of human sin. Think of the Second Law, everything is tending toward a state of equilibrium (chaos). This tendency toward chaos is the result of God’s partial withdrawal of His sustaining hand from the created world. He has not withdrawn completely or we would vanish in a puff of smoke, but He has restrained Himself and we still receive part of His sustanence. Were He fully engaged, as He intended from the beginning, we would not see decay. “But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet.” Deuteronomy 29:4-5
Think of going down to skid row to help the drunks and drug addicts, or perhaps working with lepers… you would feel an aversion, you wouldn’t want to get too close. They’re dirty, they smell, you never know what you might catch. That, we are told, is how God views our self-righteous and stubborn resistance. I suspect that it is difficult for Him to love and care for us. Our willful rejection has driven Him partially out of the world and the whole world suffers for it.
“The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” Romans 8:19-21
Natural evil cannot be dealt with apart from human evil. The one is the consequent of the other. And dealing with human evil requires that we first admit that there is an objective standard of good and evil, a standard above the fickle whims of humanity. Think of it as an owners manual… do not use this porcelain teacup as a hammer or the warranty will be void.
Thanks for those very helpful answers, Dave. Paul, that was a good question. I suspect that in addition to what Dave wrote, you probably want to hear my personal answer to the question.
First of all, I agree with Dave that natural evil is fundamentally tied to human evil, so that human suffering is in either case ultimately the result of human sin. Do I think therefore it is inconsequential? Of course not. I think it is far, far less damaging than the suffering we directly inflict on ourselves and each other, however.
Let’s be clear that even much “natural” suffering is the result of people not doing right. Famine is a distribution problem more than it is a weather or soil problem; greed and apathy keep food from those who need it most. Susceptibility to infectious illness is related to stress, which is highly related to the way we treat each other. Then there are the many so-called “lifestyle diseases” and STDs, for which the cause-effect relationship is very clear.
And then there is a strong distinction to be made between experiencing a difficulty, on the one hand, and suffering on the other hand. The difference is often (not always, but often) in the way one responds to the difficulty. I would not consider Hurricane Isabel to have been a circumstance of suffering for me or my family. One reason is because my wife and I had suffered (I use the word intentionally) through the Landers earthquake of 1992 and its aftershocks, and we learned through that experience. The most important lesson we learned was that in a time of disaster, look outward. Help someone else. Don’t just think of your own needs. (We also learned the value of being prepared in advance, partly so you can be free to do that.)
James 1:2-4 and Romans 5:1-5 explain part of the basis for joy in the face of difficulties. The major point there is that God is in the process of building people, “soul-building,” as it is sometimes called, and it takes a certain kind of exercise to grow.
It’s not that many of us attain to the level of trust that it takes to remove all sense of suffering in trial, but the point is that knowing the true eternal goodness of God can turn one’s experience completely around.
That’s a longish answer to your short question. I think natural evil and naturally-caused suffering are significant. Evil that comes by way of more easily identifiable human causes is far more significant, but that doesn’t make naturally-caused suffering of no account. Christians have been laboring for centuries to reduce it, so yes, I think it would be preferable if there were less of it; but it seems that God has put it in our hands to carry out that work of lessening. Evil that comes by way of more easily identifiable human causes is far more significant, but that doesn’t make naturally-caused suffering of no account.
I think Tom touched on an important point. For the most part, suffering is a result of inequality and injustice in the world. That doesn’t make it any less significant. But, there are things that one can do now to help lessen the suffering throughout the world and who is to say that isn’t God working in the world.
It brings to mind a cliche sermon illustration: A lady was sitting on the roof of her house her town was flooded. She prayed to God to rescue her. A man in a boat came by and offered to rescue her. As did a Coast Guard helicopter. Each time someone offered to rescue her, the lady responded that she was waiting for God to rescue her. After a while of this, she prayed again and said, “God, why haven’t you rescued me.” God responded, “I sent you a boat, a helicopter,…”
It’s effective as an objection if it can be shown that God has no morally sufficient reason to permit such suffering, or if it can be shown that no net good is produced by such suffering….and again, you have not presented anything to show why you think that suffering cannot bring about a greater good.
As I pointed out from the start of this discussion my position in regard to the idea of a greater good being served or some other morally sufficient reason is that the suffering in this world is so extreme and extensive that we are simply not justified in worshipping a God who has set the world up to work this way unless and until he actually informs us as to what that morally sufficient reason is. The idea of such a morally sufficient reason is too implausible on its face for any other response to be warranted.
What it comes down to is that we have either a morally sufficient reason of some mysterious nature and dubious plausibility that God doesn’t even trouble himself to tell us about.
Or we have a simple straightforward answer that perfectly fits the data: the world would be a much better place than it is if a loving God existed….but he’s fictional.
Only if there were massive contrary evidence of a loving God’s existence would this not be the far more sensible explanation—and, despite the best efforts of apologists for religion, we simply don’t have anything approaching such evidence.
Which is my last word on this topic for the time being. As I said before, I’ve discussed the POE countless times on other blogs in recent months and I’m pretty thoroughly tired of talking about it (much as you are concerning the euthyphro dilemma).
Tom, can you explain how natural evil is fundamentally tied to human evil? I read David’s May 28, 2009 at 12:38 am post and I didn’t see an explanation, just the claim and the point about God withdrawing his hand (which didn’t explicitly touch human evil).
What I’m ultiimately looking for is the reason why God *had* to create a world with natural evil, presumably for some higher moral purpose. Without the reason why he *had* to, he is then open to the claim that he is not all-loving.
@Paul:
This comes from the change in conditions in the world that happened at the time of the Fall. Genesis 3:17-19 encapsulate it, though it actually goes back to Genesis 1:28-31, where God gave man dominion over the earth. When man (and woman) fell into sin, their area of responsibility and authority fell with them, and because subjected to the curse that Dave mentioned this morning. The world was no longer (to put it mildly) such a friendly place to live.
The passage from Romans that he quoted is the key NT teaching on the topic.
I like Plato, but he does tend toward sophistry from time to time. Euthyphro strikes me as one of the more sophistical dialogues. The horns of the dilemma are
a) Good is only good because the gods arbitrarily command it so
or
b) The gods are subject to a standard of good beyond themselves
This argument ‘works’ in the Greek context because the gods are as much a part of creation as men. The universe is formed from pre-existing matter, in Plato’s philosophy shaped by the demiurge according to ideal forms, in the philosophy of Epicurus shaped by random collisions and accretions. The dilemma, framed in this context, is the same dilemma that faces each of us and may be restated thus.
a) Good is only good because men arbitrarily command it so
or
b) Men are subject to a standard of good beyond themselves
Christian philosphy shatters the dilemma because the Christian God created the entire universe according to a set of standards that include standards of good and evil, just as they include the standards of mathematics and physics. These standards are not set arbitrarily but flow from the moral agency of the Creator, nor is there a standard beyond the Creator because, by definition, there is nothing beyond Him.
We, as human beings, have a moral sense because we were created as moral agents in the “image” of God, the source of moral agency. This is why we all think that there are categories which we label ‘good’ and ‘evil’ even if we generally assign slightly different things to these categories. C. S. Lewis illustrated this far better than I in “The Abolition of Man”, pointing out the universality of moral codes and the similarity of their precepts. While people may disagree about the specifics or order of the moral precepts they agree that there are moral precepts that should be obeyed.
An example I used recently was in the abortion debate. The disagreement over abortion arises not from a moral vs. immoral argument, but from the ordering of a moral hierarchy. The pro-life side places life as the ultimate good and argues all other rights are subsidiary to the right to life whereas the pro-choice side places free choice as the ultimate good. Both agree that there is a moral standard but disgree as to the ordering of those moral goods.
The Euthyphro dilemma doesn’t deal with the origin of the moral goods or their hierarchy other than to suggest that there exists a moral standard by which even ‘the gods’ may be judged. But the Greek gods are not the “creator of heaven and earth and all that is in them”, they too are created beings. The God of the Bible is the one who designed the system according to His standard. The Fall is the story of humanity arrogating to itself the right to define good and evil according to subjective and arbitrary standard. The dilemma applies to man, and to ‘the gods’, but not the One True God.
@david ellis:
There you go again:
Do you see what you said? God has to explain his morally sufficient reasons, and by the way, there are no plausible morally sufficient reasons, because that’s the way you feel about it.
You see, I’ve already written (at least in an introductory way) what we know about God’s morally sufficient reasons: that he has given us freedom to make morally significant choices, that God’s goodness is seen more clearly in the way he overcomes evil, that there are virtues humans can experience and express only in a sub-perfect world, that God is building souls for eternity.
I have searched your comments over the last week (a feature available on my admin page) for your arguments in response to this. Here you say,
But we do have an idea, and I had already answered the point about utilitarianism. If you thought I was wrong, you didn’t say so. You just repeated your same point.
Further in that same comment you wrote,
But we have addressed that. Briefly reiterating, it’s necessary because the greater goods named above cannot exist without it.
You begged the question on “unnecessary suffering” here and here.
What I don’t see anywhere in there is an actual argument. But you pronounce your judgment, “implausible on the face of it.” Are you thinking deeper than the face? How would we know if you were? Because you’ve been skimming along the skin for a long time here, offering your emotional responses as if they were proofs of your position.
If you want to pull out of the discussion, that’s fine. If you decide to stay in, I’m inviting you—calling on you—to get in for real, which you haven’t really done much of so far.
David:
Let me tread carefully here: I honestly and deeply sympathize with the loss of your mother to cancer. Last year we lost a close family member to cancer–a person so good, kind, unselfish, loving, etc. that you can bet I not only grieved but questioned what good could come out of it. I’m not saying the depth of pain I experienced is the same as you certainly did… because it was your mother, after all. So may I ask you, with no intention of belittling your mother, your arguments here, your current views, etc.: to what extent was your current position influenced by the death of your mother? I promise I will NOT come back, even if you unequivocally answer in the affirmative, with \See, I told you so!\ Rather, I may suggest to you that you may be in a better position than most to understand that kind of terrible grief, and that therefore there may be a way for you to gain some insight into why a Person, understanding very well ALL human grief and suffering and injustice, etc., would give His life precisely to overcome death? I mean all this in the most humble way possible.
Because you’ve been skimming along the skin for a long time here, offering your emotional responses as if they were proofs of your position.
Dragged into this topic again. Oh well.
Emotional responses are at the heart of the issue of suffering. It would not be a concern for heartless machines or sociopaths.
But I am not simply saying that I find such suffering moving and want it to end (though that’s certainly an appropriate response).
I’m saying that its implausible that a morally sufficient reason for allowing such suffering is even a possibility.
This is not a particularly controversial concept. If your best friend tortured his child for 5 days and then killed him and then told you he had a morally sufficient reason for doing so you would be, quite appropriately, enormously skeptical of this claim and would not be inclined to take it seriously—even though its impossible to actually disprove. In like manner I can’t disprove that God doesn’t have a morally sufficient reason. But its clearly implausible on its face (even if your religious commitments make you disinclined to acknowledge this obvious fact) and we already have an explanation that accounts for the data perfectly: God’s fictional.
And now to your supposed “morally sufficient” reasons:
You see, I’ve already written (at least in an introductory way) what we know about God’s morally sufficient reasons: that he has given us freedom to make morally significant choices….
An obviously weak argument. Inability to commit acts of extreme violence on one another is not a restriction of free will. Its a restriction of freedom of action. If God made pedophiles black out every time they tried to molest a child it would not eliminate their free will—he would still know their hearts (being omniscient) and would know which ones with such impulses would follow those impulses and molest children if given the chance.
There is no reason to think that a greater good would be prevented if such were the case.
….that God’s goodness is seen more clearly in the way he overcomes evil…..
Its not clear what you mean by this since he does, apparently, nothing at all about the suffering in the world.
Perhaps you mean Christ’s death on the cross. But I’ve already stated my criticisms of penal substitution so I won’t repeat them here. Besides which it doesn’t do anything to provide morally sufficient basis for allowing children to be born with congenital defects….or any other of the extreme varieties of suffering our world contains.
….that there are virtues humans can experience and express only in a sub-perfect world…..
Be specific. What virtues can we only experience and express to such a degree which are so vital that children must suffer as terribly as they do?
that God is building souls for eternity.
And how is the suffering of an infant with congenital defects necessary for our spiritual development again? I seem to have missed where you explained that?
Holo: So may I ask you, with no intention of belittling your mother, your arguments here, your current views, etc.: to what extent was your current position influenced by the death of your mother?
My mother’s death was in 1998. I have been a nonbeliever since about 1987. My views on this issue predated the death of my mother by many years.
And thank you for stating the question in a more respectful way than you have so many of your other comments.
David:
Thanks for the clarification. Please accepted my very belated condolences.
@david ellis:
Well, d’oh. My best friend (if I had one like you’ve described here) is not the kind of being who could have a morally sufficient reason for an act like that. He is the kind of being who could have a morally sufficient reason to cause suffering, though: he might be a surgeon or a dentist, for example; or he might be a father who has to discipline a misbehaving child.
But the analogy fails on several grounds. God does not directly cause suffering. He created a world in which suffering was possible, but he does not inflict it. He is the creator of all reality, not just the father of one child; thus he can manage all reality by his wisdom and omniscience such that suffering is redeemed, and leads to a greater good. The father cannot do that. There are more disanaologies here, but that gives you a piece of the picture at least.
So a restriction of freedom of action is not a violation of free will? Then would you freely decide to go talk a walk from the roof of your house to the roof of your neighbor’s house?
If God absolutely blocked every possible unkind or harmful act the way he blocks you from taking that walk, there would be no freedom of the will to decide to do any harmful or unkind act. That’s not freedom of the will, my friend.
My daughter spent spring break with a church group alleviating suffering in Texas caused by Hurricane Ike. That was God in action. The same kind of thing could be multiplied by the millions.
And of course I do mean the Cross, which you despise (though you say that word doesn’t accurately apply to your feelings, I still think you do).
And there is the future state of all persons and all reality where suffering will be finally redeemed. Just because you don’t see God at work doesn’t mean he isn’t, or did you think God would tell you the end of every story from the beginning?
I’m really tired of repeating this answer over and over and over again. But wait a minute. There’s a virtue called patience. That’s one of them. So I’ll repeat it one more time. The others (which I actually have stated specifically more than once) include things like forbearance, forgiveness, fortitude, courage, strength, love for those who are difficult to love, trust, helping, serving, perseverance….
Well, we agree on something! You did miss it.
In every long discussion, there comes a time for an ending, when I realize I should take my leave of it. It happens when things get repetitive, or when it seems to be producing no forward motion. We’ve reached that point here, I think, and I’m done with this one now.
See also here on the parallel thread.
Y’all are welcome to have the last word.
Last word 8^>
Well, d’oh. My best friend (if I had one like you’ve described here) is not the kind of being who could have a morally sufficient reason for an act like that.
How do you know?
A being does not have to be an inscrutable superintelligent alien nor a god to simply know something we don’t and have a morally sufficient reason we, unlike him, are unaware of.
What makes the claim more plausible in the case of a God? Especially in the absence of strong evidence for that God’s existence.
God does not directly cause suffering. He created a world in which suffering was possible, but he does not inflict it.
He ordered the world in such a way that enormous suffering was inevitable (assuming, for the sake of argument, he exists at all). One can cause suffering, injury or death in indirect ways and still be fully responsible for doing so.
So a restriction of freedom of action is not a violation of free will? Then would you freely decide to go talk a walk from the roof of your house to the roof of your neighbor’s house?
I could (stupidly) make such a decision….and would fail to carry it out and would fall instead.
If God absolutely blocked every possible unkind or harmful act the way he blocks you from taking that walk, there would be no freedom of the will to decide to do any harmful or unkind act. That’s not freedom of the will, my friend.
Imagine, for example, a person with pedophilic impulses in a world such as you describe.
He is free to want to rape children. He’s free to hang out at playgrounds and watch them and feed that desire. And he might, occasionally, make the attempt on the barest hope that maybe, just MAYBE, this time he won’t black out. And his urge and his giving in to and feeding of that urge may be so strong that he does, in fact, make the attempt on a regular basis.
There will be ample opportunity for moral choice and struggle and the cultivation of virtue rather than vice.
But the difference is that NO CHILD WILL BE HARMED.
This comment calls for a response, but I’ve already given mine.
What a beautiful world it would be, if God had designed pedophiles in the way david ellis suggests. Think about it–no more sexual abuse of children, ever. Do you have any idea how much suffering that would alleviate? Not just the suffering of the child victims, but all the suffering of all those connected to the abuse, through generations. Now a God who did that, I might believe in.
Having my soul prepared for eternity…that I don’t give a fig about.
OS:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re a self-declared moral relativist, aren’t you? Ultimately, then, your personal moral protestations are empty: by your own world view, there is no objective reason to limit the actions of pedophiles, is there? Frankly, we don’t give a fig about your personal, subjective moral needs.
Forgive me, but as I’ve been a long time lurker here, this is the first thread about which I felt I could offer something uniquely beneficial to the discussion and so this is my first post.
Having been a victim of childhood sexual abuse, I think I can speak with some authority on the subject.
God has given me an understanding, perspective, and patience that others without first hand experience of the affects of abuse simply don’t have, and I have been blessed and humbled by His allowing me to act as councilor, mentor and friend to other victims of evil, and not just of evils associated with childhood sexual abuse.
Therefore, my first hand experience would fully support Tom’s assertion that God can take a horrible evil and allow Good to somehow make itself known through it.
orrect me if I’m wrong, but you’re a self-declared moral relativist, aren’t you? Ultimately, then, your personal moral protestations are empty: by your own world view, there is no objective reason to limit the actions of pedophiles, is there? Frankly, we don’t give a fig about your personal, subjective moral needs.
The argument from the POE is workable even for the person who does not believe in the existence of moral truths. They can argue for an inconsistency between God’s supposed loving nature and his actual behavior rather than for an inconsistency between his moral goodness and his behavior. The strength of the argument remains much the same either way.
Therefore, my first hand experience would fully support Tom’s assertion that God can take a horrible evil and allow Good to somehow make itself known through it.
I’m truly sorry to hear that you’ve suffered abuse of that sort. But even if you used the experience to deepen your compassion it, of course, doesn’t follow that this level of trauma is necessary for the cultivation of compassion and spiritual growth to a similar degree to occur.
So I don’t think the fact that some individuals overcome the trauma and make some good come of the experience provides any support for the consistency between a loving God and the suffering in the world. Especially given the fact that so many DON’T manage to overcome the trauma and that so many child molesters were themselves molested as children. It doesn’t seem to me that exceptional cases of personal strength do much to obviate the problem for theism represented here.
So, despite your personal experience, I must still respectfully disagree.
Hello David
(With apologies to Shackleman as I play devil’s advocate)
There are many people, including some very influential educators and sociologists who do not consider pedophilia abuse. There are, in fact, many advocates of what is euphemistically called “intergenerational love” within the ranks of those who shape public opinion. Why should they accept your apparently arbitrary (and possibly bigoted) prejudice against “intergenerational love”.
There are, in fact, many advocates of what is euphemistically called “intergenerational love” within the ranks of those who shape public opinion. Why should they accept your apparently arbitrary (and possibly bigoted) prejudice against “intergenerational love”.
If you wish to argue that child molestation is a morally neutral act feel free to do so. I will be happy to argue the contrary.
If no such arguments are presented I’m content to consider its moral reprehensibility sufficiently obvious not to require my defense simply because it has been mentioned that some advocate it. And I doubt that the numbers who endorse it are as large as you suggest—”many” seems a gross exaggeration—I suspect that not 1 in 10,000 people defend it, probably less, and of the people who do that almost all probably have pedophilic impulses themselves and are, therefore, not exactly lacking in personal bias on the issue.
But I think Shackleman can probably speak to this topic far better than I—if he thinks your comment worth responding to at all. I wouldn’t blame him if he doesn’t.
In addition, I must say, I find it incredibly insensitive to “play devil’s advocate” for pedophilia, whether as a theoretical exercise or for whatever reason (I can’t really fathom why you do so) after someone has just told us that they were a victim of molestation.
Holo writes,
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re a self-declared moral relativist, aren’t you? Ultimately, then, your personal moral protestations are empty: by your own world view, there is no objective reason to limit the actions of pedophiles, is there? Frankly, we don’t give a fig about your personal, subjective moral needs.”
Yup, guilty as charged: I am indeed a self-declared moral relativist. However, I must again protest that it is a misunderstanding of moral relativism that leads you to believe that by my own world view there is no reason to limit the actions of pedophiles.
Your disinterest in my person, subjective morals is fine, as I expect my disinterest in having my soul prepared for eternity is fine for you.
I think david ellis beat me to a response to Shackleman. I have compassion for his experience of abuse, but must point out that his recovery is the exception, not the rule.
If no such arguments are presented I’m content to consider its moral reprehensibility sufficiently obvious not to require my defense simply because it has been mentioned that some advocate it. And I doubt that the numbers who endorse it are as large as you suggest—”many” seems a gross exaggeration—I suspect that not 1 in 10,000 people defend it, probably less, and of the people who do that almost all probably have pedophilic impulses themselves and are, therefore, not exactly lacking in personal bias on the issue.
If no such arguments are presented I’m content to consider its moral reprehensibility sufficiently obvious not to require my defense simply because it has been mentioned that some advocate it. And I doubt that the numbers who endorse it are as large as you suggest—”many” seems a gross exaggeration—I suspect that not 1 in 10,000 people defend it, probably less, and of the people who do that almost all probably have
pedophilicadultery/divorce/homosexual/abortion/marijuana/beastiality/etc. impulses themselves and are, therefore, not exactly lacking in personal bias on the issue.In addition, I must say, I find it incredibly insensitive to “play devil’s advocate” for pedophilia, whether as a theoretical exercise or for whatever reason (I can’t really fathom why you do so) after someone has just told us that they were a victim of molestation.
I suspect that Shackelman gets the point as, I hope, do you, notwithstanding your protestation vis a vis my sensitivity or lack thereof. The fact of the matter is that there can be no argument for a moral claim within your philosophy other than personal preference and, as we have seen time and again, my preference can trump your preference given sympathetic media and courts.
Your moral strictures are an unwarranted imposition of the unfettered right of to define my own reality, a right affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).
As you may have gathered from the list of “impulses” above, that which was once considered morally reprehensible is now protected by law and, in many cases, presented as virtuous. I am old enough to remember the decriminalization of homosexuality and the protests of the “reactionaries” that if homosexuality was legalized then homosexuals would next want to get married. They were universally condemned in the media as reactionary fearmongers and bigots. There is now a “hate crimes” law moving through the legislature which will protect sexual “orientation”, an undefined term which could, and probably will, be interpreted by the courts to include any sexual inclination.
The most dangerous man is not the one who can fool others, the most dangerous man is the man who can fool himself.
BTW – Shackleman isn’t the only one who has been there. And the perps generally walk or get a slap on th wrist. Do you really think the courts and legislators consider it a heinous crime?
The fact of the matter is that there can be no argument for a moral claim within your philosophy other than personal preference and, as we have seen time and again, my preference can trump your preference given sympathetic media and courts.
Not so. But I have already explained, at length, my views on meta-ethics so I will not repeat them yet again.
I’m no philosopher, but I try to think as clearly and as carefully as I can. Yet, some things are not knowable, in my view, by reason alone. Some things we know in our guts and our reason gets in the way. While this is obviously bad philosophy, it’s good living. We all do it. OS is a fine example. He can’t argue or reason his relativistic way out of the fact some things are just *wrong* and he knows this in his gut. As do we all. And childhood sexual abuse is among those things which are wrong, period. In all possible worlds. And if I fail to convince anyone by reason alone, so be it. I would appeal to your gut and challenge you to *honestly* deny my assertion that it’s wrong. I suspect *all* healthy-minded individuals would fail to meet that challenge.
Reason is *not* the sole arbiter of truth.
====================
Also, thanks for all who took care in their responses to my post (David include—I got the point, and was not offended in the least and didn’t find it to be insensitive).
To this point about my being the exception, how does one know this to be the case? In my experience helping others, immense progress was able to be made toward healing. *Every* time. In fact, I would guess, based on my experience that it would be the exception who, despite loving and supportive and professional council, fell into unrecoverable despair. I would like to see some real data to support this intuition I have. I wonder, might you, who declares that I’m the exception, simply be asserting an intuition as fact?
Shackelman, are there ever times at which we “know” something in our gut but it is actually wrong? If so, what method can we use to distinguish the correct from the incorrect gut-knowledge?
If we knew it was actually wrong, then we’d know our gut was wrong. So no, we can’t sense that our gut is right, and know that it is actually wrong – at the same time. If you’re asking, can our gut ever be wrong, then the answer is obviously ‘yes’.
Not intuition but experience, Shackleman. I work with the victims of sexual abuse every day
I was asking if our gut could ever be wrong.
So how do we figure out when our gut is right and when it is wrong (assuming that both conditions feel the same way to us, our gut “feels” the same when it is right and when it is wrong).
If so, what method can we use to distinguish the correct from the incorrect gut-knowledge?
When it comes to moral questions (and that seems to be what he had in mind) I think ideal observer theory gives us the best approach.
IOT, in brief, being the position that our moral judgements and responses are likely to be reliable to the degree that we approximate an “ideal observer”—that being someone with all relevant factual knowledge, a minimum of bias and the imagination (intellectual and emotional) to understand, from the inside, as broad as possible a range of possible responses to the issue in question and its ramifications for people’s lives—in this case that would mostly involve understanding the experience of the victim of child molestation, the experience of the person driven by pedophilia and its ramifications, long term and short term, for the lives of the individuals affected and for society in general.
A tall order. Which is, I’m sure, why there is so often disagreement on moral questions—-few of us even approximate the ideal observer. For that matter, few of us even try to.
…are there ever times at which we “know” something in our gut but it is actually wrong?
Of course there are times when our ‘gut’ is wrong, that’s the whole point. If we are operating on the basis of ‘gut’ feeling (i.e. personal preference) and my gut feeling about right and wrong conflicts with your gut feeling about right and wrong then how do we determine which gut feeling should become law.
In matters of taste (flavor of ice-cream, color of drapes) it is a non-issue, but in other cases (murder, rape, theft) it is vital to have a means of determining which gut feeling actually accords with reality (i.e. which is true). I like grape ice-cream is not in the same category as I like young children.
Some people have a gut aversion to people who speak a different language, or have different skin tones, or who have different hair color. We must ask if that gut feeling fits in the category of things we label ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and then determine which label should be applied in this particular instance.
This whole discussion is predicated upon the assumption that the categories ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, or in the more traditional parlance, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ actually apply to real things. If you agree with Richard Dawkins comment that “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” then the categories of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are nothing more than placeholders for the phrases ‘I like…’ or ‘I dilsike…’ and the discussion is over.
However, if you, like Richard Dawkins, actually think in moral terms and act upon those moral judgements as if they really do correspond to an objective condition of reality (The Root of All Evil), then perhaps the fact that all humans (apparently) think in moral terms, even when we explicitly deny the existence of morality, then perhaps moral agency also corresponds to an objective condition of reality. If so, then we are justified in asking, “What is the source and standard of that objective condition.” Which brings us right back to the Euthyphro Dilemma as it applies to human beings (see above).
If so, what method can we use to distinguish the correct from the incorrect gut-knowledge?
If gut knowledge is nothing more than an expression of subjetive preference then all decisions of right and wrong, good and evil, are determined by force. It may be gentle force of persuasion, or the somewhat firmer force of law, or the ultimate force of war, but it is “He who has the power calls the tune.”
If there exists an objective moral standard to which our moral sense, more or less correctly, corresponds then we reason, more or less correctly, to a moral standard. This is the foundation of Natural Law theory in its manifold versions. Natural Law theory has fallen out of favor because of some inherent difficulties.
Or, we can accept the fact that our moral sense is reflective of a true stae of affairs and that the universe, or at least that niche in the universe occupied by humanity, is a moral niche. That we, at least, of all creatures, appear to be able to act contrary to the laws of cause and effect that govern the known universe and that those actions have a moral dimension. If this is indeed that case, then there must be a moral dimension to the universe that exists alongside the physical dimension. It is my considered opinion that orthodox Christian theology is the best explanation for that moral dimension.
If we are operating on the basis of ‘gut’ feeling (i.e. personal preference)
I think he had in mind a person’s moral intuition (or something similar) rather than personal preference.
If you agree with Richard Dawkins comment that “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” then the categories of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are nothing more than placeholders for the phrases ‘I like…’ or ‘I dilsike…’ and the discussion is over.
From the idea that the universe not being designed with moral purposes in mind and its being unconscious and therefore necessarily indifferent it does not follow that there are no moral truths.
Moral truths pertain to moral agents (beings capable of reflecting on and making judgments about their values)—not universes. The universe is not itself a moral agent but it does contain them.
If this is indeed that case, then there must be a moral dimension to the universe that exists alongside the physical dimension.
There simply needs to exist moral agents and it must be true that certain values they can hold are intrinsically better than others (I’ve already gone over what I mean by intrinsic goods so I won’t repeat all that yet again).
Leff states that absent an ultimate authority figure (i.e. God) handing down moral laws from on-high there is no reason for any person to prefer one set of behavior identified as “moral” to another. Leff terms this “the Great Sez Who.”
Love needs no external sanction. It is of value in and of itself. For what it is and does within the lives of beings and communities guided by it.
And this is true even if there are those sufficiently lacking the understanding or depth of experience of love to say “sez who” when told that it is an intrinsic good.
What is a moral agent, if there is nothing to be moral about? Where does something to be moral about come from? From the amoral universe?
Intrinsically better? Compared to what scale?
That’s a value statement, and I guess you are taking on the position of the Great Sez Who in stating it, because nothing in the ontology of the universe is sufficient to make it so.
But these issues and questions are well and easily answered if love and morality are at the foundation of reality, in the creator God.
Last word: see here on the parallel discussion thread.