The biggest problem facing monotheism.

H

Hume

Verified User
The problem of evil is one of the most profound philosophical challenges to the belief in an omnipotent God. How can the existence of evil and suffering be reconciled with an all-powerful good God? Epicurus is said to have provided a thought-provoking formulation of the problem at around the turn of the third century BCE, which can be summarised:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Click to expand...

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God | Issue 165 | Philosophy Now

Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism.
philosophynow.org philosophynow.org
 
I would argue two things..

First, it's not just The existence of evil. It's also the existence of suffering, particularly the suffering of God's so-called chosen people, children, etc.

I would also say that it's not a problem for monotheism. I would say it's a problem for theism.
 
ZenMode said:
I would argue two things..

First, it's not just The existence of evil. It's also the existence of suffering, particularly the suffering of God's so-called chosen people, children, etc.

I would also say that it's not a problem for monotheism. I would say it's a problem for theism.
Click to expand...

Leibniz tried to solve it with the "Best of all Possible Worlds" concept.

I generally agree, though, that the existence of pain and suffering are difficult to square with the concept of a loving God.
 
Hume said:
The problem of evil is one of the most profound philosophical challenges to the belief in an omnipotent God. How can the existence of evil and suffering be reconciled with an all-powerful good God? Epicurus is said to have provided a thought-provoking formulation of the problem at around the turn of the third century BCE, which can be summarised:



Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God | Issue 165 | Philosophy Now

Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism.
philosophynow.org philosophynow.org
Click to expand...
Melchizedek-Files.com explains the situation
 
Cypress said:
Click to expand...

I have a significant problem with what appears to be one of the theses of the first speaker.

He says that atheism has a "superficial" explanation for the suffering but does not offer any "hope" or "comfort". As if that is a legitimate critique of atheism.

I think that's the exact wrong way to look at atheism's job. Atheism is not there to provide "comfort" per se, any more than the door of my hall closet is there to provide me with "hope" or "comfort". That isn't the job of the hall closet door.

Atheism does not make the claim that this is a philosophy that is intended to make you feel better or safer or anything. It's just an attempt to face the possibility that there is nothing else to the universe. That the universe doesn't "owe" us anything like "hope" or "comfort", it just is what it is.

The tendency for humans to seek some overarching "meaning" or even "explanation as to why they wound up having a bad thing happen to them" is what religion is aimed at doing. And it has a long track record of getting a lot of verifiable factual claims wrong, but it moves forward with more answers.

The God of the Gaps theology is roundly rejected by many theologians because it winds up with God getting smaller with each instance where religion looked at an unknown and decreed that "God did THAT" only to then be shown how it was just another natural phenomenon. But God DEFINITELY did that thing over there. Until it too is shown to be a natural effect. And so and so forth.

The PROBLEM OF EVIL is just the ultimate question in this string. But the ONLY REASON the PoE exists is because the asker STARTS with the presupposition that God actually EXISTS.

IF God exists then the PoE becomes VERY VERY IMPORTANT because it ultimately explains the nature of God.

If God does NOT exist then the PoE doesn't exist anymore. And if you look around the universe and see that the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of it is antithetical to life you pretty much would have to undertaking a LOT of wishful thinking to assume that the universe cares about our happiness and comfort.
 
Cypress said:
Click to expand...

Justice is kind of like a drug for humans.

We seem to "need" it like it is owed to us. It is INCREDIBLY annoying to think that a person who did us wrong will get away with it. But that literally happens every single day in countless small ways. Some douchebag cuts you off in traffic and then doesn't immediately have an auto accident. In fact they go on with their day without so much as a hiccup.

Volcanoes erupt or tsunamis roll in and countless innocent lives are wiped out. Should there be justice for that? Why? The volcano and the tsunami were nothing more than physics in action. Is there justice for the dead? Well, not sure how that would look, do we punish the natural features?

Or is the "justice" nothing more than a nice "reward" of eternal life in Heaven?

What if justice is just another thing that really only makes a difference to the human mind? We can envision alternative futures which kind of makes us look unique in the animal world so the concept of "justice" can actually start to factor for us. We can see a world in which the victims of the volcano DIDN'T die and we assume that their sudden unexpected death was a grave injustice. So we start to YEARN for that alternative reality,

The Holocaust is a prime example. It wasn't through supernatural means that "justice" ultimately came to the murdered victims, but rather human actions ENFORCING that justice. Because Justice is an "us thing", not a "nature thing".

We value it, we MAKE it and we long for it like a junkie longing for a fix when we see justice denied.
 
Daylight63 said:
Atheism does not make the claim that this is a philosophy that is intended to make you feel better or safer or anything. It's just an attempt to face the possibility that there is nothing else to the universe. That the universe doesn't "owe" us anything like "hope" or "comfort", it just is what it is.
Click to expand...
Agreed. If materialism is correct, there is nothing but matter and energy; there is no ultimate right or wrong, DNA quarks and electrons don't care about good and evil, and there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to life.
Daylight63 said:
The God of the Gaps theology is roundly rejected by many theologians because it winds up with God getting smaller with each instance where religion looked at an unknown and decreed that "God did THAT" only to then be shown how it was just another natural phenomenon. But God DEFINITELY did that thing over there. Until it too is shown to be a natural effect. And so and so forth.
Click to expand...
That's not the reason the God of the Gaps is rejected.

It's a logical fallacy to claim god can only exist in the gaps.
Newton, Kepler, and many scientists today believe the known laws of nature, the rational organization of the universe, the finely tuned universal mathematical parameters, the big bang and physical origin of the universe are all manifestations of a divine providence.
 
Cypress said:
That's not the reason the God of the Gaps is rejected.
Click to expand...

It certainly was the reason from the theologians I read.

Cypress said:
It's a logical fallacy to claim god can only exist in the gaps.
Click to expand...

It is not a logic fallacy so much as a "pejorative description" of the effect.

The "God of the Gaps" is a bit more nuanced than that. No one claims they are a "God of the Gaps" believer. It doesn't say God only exists in "gaps" it says that people ALWAYS rely on God to explain things that they have no natural explanation for and has been ongoing for millennia.

And the reasons the theologians I read rejected it was NOT that someone said "I'm a God of the Gaps person!" but rather because it is a natural thing people tend to do automatically. Especially if they have been introduced to the concept of "God". And that a different means of appreciating the unknown without automatically assigning it directly to God's intervention.

Basically the problem is that the idea that "God did it" is nothing more than a placeholder until we understand why it happened. But if someone uses that "placeholder" they might tend to over-invest God with credit for making this particular reaction run when it isn't God doing it directly.

Cypress said:
Newton, Kepler, and many scientists today believe the known laws of nature, the rational organization of the universe, the finely tuned universal mathematical parameters, the big bang and physical origin of the universe are all manifestations of a divine providence.
Click to expand...

That isn't related to the "God of the Gaps" concept. That's something else.

And it is quite common among scientists to be people of faith who see all the scientific stuff they work with every day as being an outgrowth of God's gifts to the universe.
 
Daylight63 said:
It certainly was the reason from the theologians I read.



It is not a logic fallacy so much as a "pejorative description" of the effect.

The "God of the Gaps" is a bit more nuanced than that. No one claims they are a "God of the Gaps" believer. It doesn't say God only exists in "gaps" it says that people ALWAYS rely on God to explain things that they have no natural explanation for and has been ongoing for millennia.

And the reasons the theologians I read rejected it was NOT that someone said "I'm a God of the Gaps person!" but rather because it is a natural thing people tend to do automatically. Especially if they have been introduced to the concept of "God". And that a different means of appreciating the unknown without automatically assigning it directly to God's intervention.

Basically the problem is that the idea that "God did it" is nothing more than a placeholder until we understand why it happened. But if someone uses that "placeholder" they might tend to over-invest God with credit for making this particular reaction run when it isn't God doing it directly.



That isn't related to the "God of the Gaps" concept. That's something else.

And it is quite common among scientists to be people of faith who see all the scientific stuff they work with every day as being an outgrowth of God's gifts to the universe.
Click to expand...
I've never heard of anyone talking about a god of the gaps except laypersons and scientists who happen to also be atheists.

Galileo, Newton, Kepler certainly thought the physical laws of nature are the language of god, and provide direct insight into divine providence. They didn't try to cram God into the gaps of knowledge.
 
Daylight63 said:
Justice is kind of like a drug for humans.

We seem to "need" it like it is owed to us. It is INCREDIBLY annoying to think that a person who did us wrong will get away with it. But that literally happens every single day in countless small ways. Some douchebag cuts you off in traffic and then doesn't immediately have an auto accident. In fact they go on with their day without so much as a hiccup.

Volcanoes erupt or tsunamis roll in and countless innocent lives are wiped out. Should there be justice for that? Why? The volcano and the tsunami were nothing more than physics in action. Is there justice for the dead? Well, not sure how that would look, do we punish the natural features?

Or is the "justice" nothing more than a nice "reward" of eternal life in Heaven?

What if justice is just another thing that really only makes a difference to the human mind? We can envision alternative futures which kind of makes us look unique in the animal world so the concept of "justice" can actually start to factor for us. We can see a world in which the victims of the volcano DIDN'T die and we assume that their sudden unexpected death was a grave injustice. So we start to YEARN for that alternative reality,

The Holocaust is a prime example. It wasn't through supernatural means that "justice" ultimately came to the murdered victims, but rather human actions ENFORCING that justice. Because Justice is an "us thing", not a "nature thing".

We value it, we MAKE it and we long for it like a junkie longing for a fix when we see justice denied.
Click to expand...
It's fine if you don't want to believe there is no ultimate atonement or justice.

In that worldview, evil ultimately wins, and the victims never receive any ultimate atonement. Joseph Stalin just killed millions of people and then died peacefully in his dacha, never being held accountable. Maybe existence really is that nihilistic, who knows?

The religious perspective is that evil does not ultimately win, and there is hope for ultimate atonement and justice. And that's true whether one is talking about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism.

You don't have to accept that perspective, and it certainly shouldn't bother you if other people do.
 
Cypress said:
It's fine if you don't want to believe there is no ultimate atonement or justice.
Click to expand...

You mistake my point. I would LOVE for their to be some "utlimate justice", it's just that it may not exist.

Cypress said:
In that worldview, evil ultimately wins, and the victims never receive any ultimate atonement. Joseph Stalin just killed millions of people and then died peacefully in his dacha, never being held accountable. Maybe existence really is that nihilistic, who knows?
Click to expand...

That's the thing. Your statements here are all quite reasonable (not necessarily true that evil ultimately wins), and I can viscerally feel how much that doesn't sit well with you. To be quite honest it doesn't always sit well with me.

But we don't always get what we want even if it is a good thing.


Cypress said:
The religious perspective is that evil does not ultimately win, and there is hope for ultimate atonement and justice. And that's true whether one is talking about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism.
Click to expand...

It is not a foregone conclusion that "evil always wins" because we are still agents. WE ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE for bringing the good into the world that we really want to see.

The real value of this philosophy is that it forces us to think in terms of the fact that this is all we get. If we want people to be good we need to be good ourselves. If we want a stable society which benefits us all we all work toward eliminating the pain and suffering.

It's all on us. Because the universe simply doesn't care.

Cypress said:
You don't have to accept that perspective, and it certainly shouldn't bother you if other people do.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't per se. We're just having a conversation here. My friends are almost all Christians who have that view that ultimate justice can be had. And that's cool

I just don't necessarily think it is so..

One of my favorite songs by the Cure actually sums it up best:


"The world is neither fair nor unfair
The idea is just a way for us to understand
But the world is neither fair nor unfair
So one survives
The others die
And you always want a reason why

"But the world is neither just nor unjust
It's just us trying to feel that there's some sense in it
No, the world is neither just nor unjust
And though going young
So much undone
Is a tragedy for everyone

"It doesn't speak a plan or any secret thing
No unseen sign or untold truth in anything...
But living on in others, in memories and dreams
Is not enough
You want everything
Another world where the sun always shines
And the birds always sing
Always sing..."
 
Cypress said:
I've never heard of anyone talking about a god of the gaps except laypersons and scientists who happen to also be atheists.
Click to expand...

Yes it is apparent you have missed the theological discussions. But that's not a problem for the conversation.

Cypress said:
Galileo, Newton, Kepler certainly thought the physical laws of nature are the language of god, and provide direct insight into divine providence. They didn't try to cram God into the gaps of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Again, that isn't really the point of "God of the Gaps". I already explained the difference so I'll just leave that here.
 
Daylight63 said:
You mistake my point. I would LOVE for their to be some "utlimate justice", it's just that it may not exist.



That's the thing. Your statements here are all quite reasonable (not necessarily true that evil ultimately wins), and I can viscerally feel how much that doesn't sit well with you. To be quite honest it doesn't always sit well with me.

But we don't always get what we want even if it is a good thing.




It is not a foregone conclusion that "evil always wins" because we are still agents. WE ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE for bringing the good into the world that we really want to see.

The real value of this philosophy is that it forces us to think in terms of the fact that this is all we get. If we want people to be good we need to be good ourselves. If we want a stable society which benefits us all we all work toward eliminating the pain and suffering.

It's all on us. Because the universe simply doesn't care.



Oh I don't per se. We're just having a conversation here. My friends are almost all Christians who have that view that ultimate justice can be had. And that's cool

I just don't necessarily think it is so..

One of my favorite songs by the Cure actually sums it up best:


"The world is neither fair nor unfair
The idea is just a way for us to understand
But the world is neither fair nor unfair
So one survives
The others die
And you always want a reason why

"But the world is neither just nor unjust
It's just us trying to feel that there's some sense in it
No, the world is neither just nor unjust
And though going young
So much undone
Is a tragedy for everyone

"It doesn't speak a plan or any secret thing
No unseen sign or untold truth in anything...
But living on in others, in memories and dreams
Is not enough
You want everything
Another world where the sun always shines
And the birds always sing
Always sing..."
Click to expand...
You're right, it's entirely possible we are fundamentally nothing more than quarks and electrons, and there is no hope or vestige of any ultimate justice, atonement, or meaning. That's the price we have to pay for strict physical materialism.
 
Cypress said:
You're right, it's entirely possible we are fundamentally nothing more than quarks and electrons, and there is no hope or vestige of any ultimate justice, atonement, or meaning. That's the price we have to pay for strict physical materialism.
Click to expand...

It is not unlike learning there is no Santa Claus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top