Per obligation (but fair warning, I'll likely disappear for another two weeks henceforth) . . .
Foil wrote:Honestly, there are a couple of things that trouble me about that particular explanation. I understand it was just a 'quick synopsis', but it's an argument I'm familiar with, so I'm curious how you and/or Lothar would address the following:
For clarification, I'm not sure Lothar's views on the topic are
exactly identical to mine . . . so I'm only speaking for myself.
Foil wrote:
A. Is your premise that good has its 'necessary opposite' derived from something about God's nature?
I'm not sure I totally understand the question, but I take it to mean, Do I think something about God's nature means evil necessarily has to exist? No, I don't think that. I don't think that any more than I think something about God's nature means bullfrogs necessarily have to exist. But he chose to create it (or allow it or will it to exist or what have you--I choose the stronger wording to avoid squeamishness), for reasons that are
consistent with his nature, and demonstrations of it.
Basically, some types of good can come from evil, or even necessitate evil, and some are the a particular type of good that God freely wanted to create.
Foil wrote:If so, then is God still intrinsically good, or does His goodness necessitate evil (and what does that imply)?
If not, then what is it about good that 'needs' evil to be valuable, and why would God create a universe where that was the case? (After all, we believe God could have created the universe any way he wanted.)
Well, I hold pretty strongly to the idea that whether you're good or evil has a lot more to do with why you do things than what exactly you do. I believe the same deed--the
same identical deed!--can be good or evil depending on why you do it.
A quick example (that's sneakily relevant to the topic): When I was running a Dungeons & Dragons campaign, I put a very dark villian named Kelzun into it. Creepy lady; destroyed villages in nasty creative ways, tortured kids, that kind of thing (it's a somewhat adult campaign). Now, if I put her in the campaign to revel in what she did because I secretly liked it, that would be evil. If I put her in to give the PCs an opponent worthy of their hatred and to see her defeated, that would be good. Note that in
both cases I've created evil in my own little playground of a world. But whether it's evil or not . . . all depends on why I'm doing it and what I hope to get out of it. Ultimately my reasons define what the deed says about me.
So . . . if something about God's nature necessitates evil, is God still intrinsically good? I don't agree that God's nature necessitates the existence of evil, but I do think the existence of evil is a result of his nature--a contingency he chose to exercise. Is God still intrinsically good? Yeah. Absolutely. Oversimplifying, I think God would only be evil if he created evil
because he liked it for its own sake. Otherwise, it's like me and Kelzun. I made something I hate, in order to overcome and destroy it. It only represents me if you view it in that larger context.
"What is it about good that 'needs' evil to be valuable?" I really don't get this question, so I'll just say that I don't think good needs evil to be valuable at all. Good can exist without evil. Good can exist without the possibility of evil. Good is valuable without the possibility of evil.
"Why would God create a universe where evil was necessary for good?" Because it's the kind of good he wanted to create.
Foil wrote:
B. You seem to have a two-fold premise, that "it's about what we become", and "it's about the journey".
What it is about either of those two that necessitates evil? (I.e. Why would God create us as beings who cannot become our full potential without experiencing evil during the journey?)
Well, to be clear, I didn't say "it's about the journey". I don't mean that the overall purpose is the journey. What I said is, "The world is not the destination. It is the journey." What I mean is that this universe is not the end product; heaven/the church is the end product. This universe is the scaffolding, if you will; the journey that makes us what we'll be in the end. You can't say, "Why did God create this world? It could have had way more good and way less evil." Well, he created it in order to create the
next world. You're measuring the wrong thing.
What is it about those that necessitates evil? Dealing with evil makes us who we are. Overcoming it in ourselves, overcoming it in the world, mourning over its consequences grants us a strength of character and a maturity in righteousness, for starters. I would say dealing with evil makes us the people God wants us to be.
"Why would God create us as beings who cannot come to our full potential without experiencing evil?" Because . . . that's the sort of beings he wanted to create? I don't know. Tolkein seems to think that had we not sinned in Eden, we would have become more mature, more wise, and altogeter greater than we are--angelic. He may be right. It's beyond my wisdom. I think we have our own unique story and strength as redeemed people, and that--at some very deep level--God wanted to love and redeem sinners as well as nurture angels. It is an expression of who he is, to have the breadth of character to do both.
Foil wrote:C. I'll jump on an earlier question, because I think it's a valid one... How would you respond to Jeff250's question above (something like, "Assuming evil is necessary for some greater purpose, why would God create so much evil?")?
Hah! From a technical perspective, I'd view that as a bit of a beard fallacy--just because we can't find the edges of something doesn't mean it isn't a clear concept or doesn't exist. No matter how much or how little evil there is in the world,
of course it would be possible to make it with a little more or a little less. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with picking a broad region and letting the chips fall where they may. To go back to the RPG analogy, if I want to run a 'gritty' campaign, there's going to be a certain amount of pain and suffering in the world. Could I accomplish the atmosphere without any individual instance of evil? Sure I could. So does the fact that I haven't carefully included the bare minimum for the tone I want indicate that I'm including evil for its own sake, for some other reason? Not at all. I'm in the business of telling a story, and I'll include what I think serves the story best; God's in the business of creating a world. The evil is there for a purpose, and needs to be muscular.
Practically, I see no evidence that God is in the business of trying to minimize pain and suffering, though it is abundantly obvious that he mourns it.
Though the other side of that is that God
does restrict evil. We don't see what he restricts, except in miraculous cases where he clearly shows mercy. But by and large, we don't see what doesn't happen.
But there's an emotional side to that question, too. It's not really a philosophical game of "there's a little too much evil here." It's an evidential observation that there's a
lot too much evil.
To that, I have only to say that evil makes good strong, and strong evil makes good stronger. That's an abstraction, and it's abstraction that is so unhealthy on this topic. Really horrid disease makes us devote our lives to medical research. Really horrid governments make for brave revolutionaries. Really horrid offenses make our love and forgiveness in spite of them that much more astonishing.
And, too, I think free will does enter into it. Not in the sense that people do evil so God's not responsible--because he is, and he takes it upon himself to make everything right in the end--but in the sense that God has to let us act freely so that he can judge us justly. You can't fairly condemn Hitler for what he
would have done and become if you assassinate him before it all happens. He isn't that person yet--he has neither committed the deeds nor become the person that committing them makes you into.
That might not be very satisfying, either, but it is what I think. Evil's there--in part--for us to overcome it. I mean, we won't in the end, but we'll overcome a lot of it in the mean time. That there's a lot of it speaks well of us. It's a grand challenge. God didn't put us in the nursery, he put us in the jungle. Don't hesitate; fight
hard.
Foil wrote:D. Regarding your "Show me a virtue, and I'll show you an evil" challenge, what about love? (I believe my newborn son loves Michelle and I in a certain way, but I don't see a need for any evil in order to make that kind of love a virtue.)
Ah--you say it yourself--
that kind of love. Yeah, that kind of innocent love is possible without any sort of evil. I mean, there is some, and it's kind of endearing that kids, in their innocence, love you in spite of your faults, but that's not really the essence of it.
Ah, but my challenge wasn't, "show me a virtue and I'll name an evil without which it can't exist", it was, "Show me a virtue, and I'll show you an evil without which it's all milk and water."
Back when I was taking Philosophy 101, we talked about the problem of evil (of course). My prof was an atheist, and my TA was a Christian (not that they said . . . but you could tell . . .), and so section often turned into a refute-the-lecture session. All in good philosophy, of course. Anyway, my TA said that we might be able to defeat the problem of evil if we could come up with a virtue for which evil was logically necessary. We brainstormed a bit, and I came up with "forgiveness". Hard to argue with that.
Years of internet debate went by, and I'm much smarter now than I was then. My TA had observed that some virtues logically necessarily require evil, and I think he was right. (And I think it's sufficient, from a technical perspective, to consider this universe one big exercise in forgiveness. Ah, but God's plans are so much deeper than that . . .). But the second or third zillion time I'd done the problem of evil on the internet, it occurred to me. It's not that
some virtues require evil. It's that
practically all of them do.
That's a practical observation, mind you, not a logical claim. Some wonderful things are possible in a world without evil, I'll grant you. But take a lot of your virtues--just take them as you encounter them in the wild--and you'll find that they take their strongest form when growing next to--and in reaction to--evil.
My original example--the case that originally persuaded me--was the advance of theology. Theology totally wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for heresy. You can trace many, many of our beloved doctrines, the canonization of scripture, etc., to a heresy that had to be rejected. Or if you prefer a secular example, take our ideals of freedom in the United States. That could have been articulated at any point during human history, but it took tyranny to make us do it. The western world wouldn't be the place it is today were it not for the blood-soaked European soil of the past. We don't bother to articulate truth until we have to reject falsehood--particularly evil. You certainly wouldn't get the fire and passion of the founders in an academic setting. It took the memory of oppression.
Love. That one's too easy.
Which is greater--the love you show an infant who can do no wrong, or the love you show an infant who hasn't let you sleep more than four hours consecutively this week? Or the love you show a misbehaving toddler in discipline, or a really misbehaving teenager in allowing freedom to err? I speak of things I haven't experienced, but it seems to me that parents' love is forged by their children's sins, not by their righteousness. I
have experienced it in marriage: the times I'm in love with my husband and all is going well are joyous, and I don't mean to devalue that. But the times that demand sacrifice, forgiveness, the times that are difficult . . . that's when we grow. That's when love is both shown and forged. That's what makes the good times great.
Jeff250 wrote:E. I believe I'm correct to surmise that you think that being in this world is all about character building. But would you say that this is an ideal world for character building? My concern: If the aim of this world is to produce people with better characters, it seems like we still could imagine better worlds, even for this aim.
Errr. . . well, sorta. I would say the goal of this world is to produce the church. In part. It's a complicated world, and I suspect it serves several purposes, but that's the main one I would name. Producing changed people through building character is one part of that.
It seems like we could still imagine better worlds? Heh. You're on your own there, buddy. I'll openly admit I'm on grounds of speculation even saying why I think God created the world. I wouldn't claim to have enumerated the purposes it serves. For the ones I do think I know, this world is a whole lot better than I would have dreamed up. You think you can do better, that's between you and God; you winning that argument is not a bet I'd take.
It's not one I have to, anyway, philosophically speaking. It's not my job, technically speaking, in defeating the argument from evil to provide you a complete explanation of all of the evil on the world. It's only to show that there are plausible reasons for God to have created it--that is, that being good doesn't totally preclude creating evil. That's it. I only have to show the argument doesn't work; I don't have to provide you a full explanation of the nature of reality. (That's the evolutionists' gig . . . I kid, I kid
).
Jeff250 wrote:F. How would we know if God sinned?
We couldn't. God is so utterly beyond us in power and wisdom, that we are helpless before him. He could have created this whole universe as a practical joke and plan to send us all to hell, and
we'd be helpless, and--if he wanted--we'd have absolutely no way to detect it.
I make absolutely no claim to be able to prove--and especially not to be able to prove evidentially--that God has never sinned.
The only evidence I have for this is that he says he has not. From what I know of his character evidenced by history, this is a believable claim--he is righteous on a whole different level than I can conceive of. It's a believable claim, and he is credeble enough to make a claim that fantastic. That is all I have, and all I can have.
Jeff250 wrote:If God knowingly withholds food from a child starving to death, we can claim that he did this for character-building purposes, so this is good. But if God does the opposite and gives food to the starving child, then we can claim that he was helping those in need, so this is good. Would there be an action here that is "best," that God would be obligated to do over the other?
No, I don't think there is. To geek out mathematically, given the set of all possible actions under the order of goodness, I see no reason that the set has to have a maximal member, or even be well-ordered. By which I mean, I don't think there's necessarily a best thing to do, or that you can even always compare actions and say one is better than another.
Sometimes goodness is restrictive--sometimes it means you can't do something, or that you have to do something. But sometimes it's creative. God didn't
have to create the church, but he did, and it was good. It's not a question of could he have done better or worse with the time or effort; it's a question of what he wanted to do.
I think when we speak in terms of 'good', we're being too abstract and we can tend to delude ourselves. God
can allow suffering to build character, to spur compassion, to allow freedom, or even just to let the course of the world procede naturally. Those are all good things, and by his action, he can bring them about. Or he can alleviate it to bring comfort, to show mercy, to show love, or just to interact with the world. Those are good, too. In fact, I think Biblically, he shows a pattern, not of consistently exercising a compromise solution, but of sometimes strongly doing one thing, and sometimes strongly doing another. When he mourns over Israel's sin, it's not a question of, "Well, they're evil and I need to punish them to serve justice, but I also love them . . . so let's go 50/50." No, in Hosea he agonizes over whether to do one or the other--whole-heartedly.
It's not a question of scoring a 9.8 or a 10.0 on the good-o-meter, but a question of serving those things he holds dear and of creating the things he wants to create. He is perfect in motive, and flawless in righteousness, but by that I don't mean that an optimal solution exists in every situation and he has exercised it. I mean he is utterly without evil motive or intent, that his deeds bring about only the best for the people and things he loves.
Jeff250 wrote:And why can't humans be held to this watered down goodness where not feeding starving children is the right thing to do? We could all be saints! As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If humans had created the world, could freely declare its purpose and design it to serve that purpose, and were going to judge it in the end, and were willing to shoulder the task of righting all injustice that occured during the course of history . . . then we could do whatever we wanted.
That's not our position in the world. We can't see all ends, and God can. We aren't powerful enough to reign in any destruction evil we allow we might cause; God is. We aren't responsible for how every life in the world is conducted, and how it ends.
God is.
-----
It occurs to me, on the re-read, that I may have missed the point of your question. It now seems to me that you're asking, "How could we make
any judgements about God's character? I mean, couldn't you justify
anything he did?"
Strictly speaking, yeah, I could. Then again, I could equally easily justify the entire world as an exercise in evil. Or a dream. Yay, philosophy.
Judging God's character is not a philosophical question. It's a practical, historical question. In those circumstances where God has interacted with history--where we see what he's done, where his motives are explained or self-evident, he evidences an unfailing, grand righteousness. We ask him questions, he answers wisely; we offend him, he redeems us; we bring nothing, he showers us with gifts. There is no reason to suspect him of evil, and every reason to be awed by his goodness. The historical record is ample ground for justified faith that he is righteous when we cannot fully examine his motives, too.
Men like that make me feel like taking justice into my own hands (not that I would, but I'd feel like it if I saw him in person).
But there's no fulfillment of any prophecies. But now for some reason, whenever Jesus in the second half of the book does/says something that was also done/said by someone in the first half of the book, it's a fulfillment of a "prophecy." At best, it's historical allusion.
) have the amazing ability to rationalise just about anything they believe, say or do. Again, you're entitled to believe what you want, but you have no hard evidence. If you're honest, you'll admit that and say that you believe because it's all you can do (and all you want to do).