Is evil really God's fault?

[Snow]

I had a philosophy professor make this very contention. While I understand it, I do not agree that God's foreknowledge makes him culpable. Can we be said to have free will if God knows ahead of time how we will choose? If no, we're not free. If yes, is God responsible for our choices, given he created the circumstances?

That's an interesting puzzle. I don't think about it in term of foreknowledge making God culpable, but if the outcome is already known, what choice exists - that is, I, and actor, cannot choose to act in any different way that would change the foreseen outcome.

I don't know that solution to that puzzle.

[rameumptom]

Snow,

Gratuitous evil? I think you are making up new categories just so you can continue your argument. Evil is evil. It can perhaps be broken up into natural and man-made, but that's it.

ALL of it is necessary for exaltation. Joseph Smith talked about each person having to go through a "trial of Abraham" in order to be exalted. The stories of early Nauvoo, where he tried the Brethren (and many sisters) with polygamy, etc., in order to test them are well founded.

Heber C Kimball was told by Joseph about eternal marriage and that he was to give up his beloved wife, Vilate, to him as a wife. They met at midnight on the banks of the Mississippi River, where Joseph embraced Heber and told him he'd passed his trial of Abraham. He then sealed Heber and Vilate together.

Or how about the discussions of the Willie and Martin handcart companies. The prophets often will mention the concept that none of the survivors ever strayed from the gospel.

Or how about the sufferings of Christ in Gethsemane and on the cross? Were those "gratuitous"?

If you are going to engage in discussion, get serious about the discussion. Will you?

[prisonchaplain]

That's an interesting puzzle. I don't think about it in term of foreknowledge making God culpable, but if the outcome is already known, what choice exists - that is, I, and actor, cannot choose to act in any different way that would change the foreseen outcome.

I don't know that solution to that puzzle.

IMHO, our individual conclusions will be based on trust. I trust God. So, in the puzzle of foreknowledge (predestination lite?) and the problem of evil, I am willing to believe that God gave us free will and did not rig the circumstances. Others, who's beliefs about God range from disbelieving, to academic acceptance, to Calvinist predestination, are more likely to say that God bears complete responsibility (if he exists).

When you do something that does not turn out the way your supervisor likes, does she blame you harshly, assume you knew what you were doing and things just went foul, perhaps even praise you for coming through the problem unfazed. That will depend on how much she trusts you. Our perspective on God ultimately must be subjective. Let the philosphers wrestle with God-as-a-concept.

[Snow]

Snow,

Gratuitous evil? I think you are making up new categories just so you can continue your argument. Evil is evil. It can perhaps be broken up into natural and man-made, but that's it....

If you are going to engage in discussion, get serious about the discussion. Will you?

rameumptom,

Granted, you're disadvantaged in this discussion because you haven't taken a college course, read a book, or in some other way researched the topic, but if you don't know something, you can ask instead of pretending and then trying to act condescending ("If you are going to engage in discussion, get serious about the discussion. Will you?"). At the very least you could google it before you falsely represent that I am making up stuff, i.e. "gratuitous evil." Contrary to your uninformed assertion, gratuitous evil is not a new category in addition to natural or moral evil. In a philosophical context it is simply that evil/suffering for which no morally sufficient reason exists... and “morally sufficient” simply refers to a state of affairs connected with that evil in such a way that if there were a God, that state of affairs would justify God in permitting it. (John O’Leary-Hawthorne & Daniel Howard Snyder, Philosophy & Phenomenal Research, 1993).

ALL of it is necessary for exaltation. Joseph Smith talked about each person having to go through a "trial of Abraham" in order to be exalted. The stories of early Nauvoo, where he tried the Brethren (and many sisters) with polygamy, etc., in order to test them are well founded.

It never ceases to amaze how the fundamentalist mind functions.

Wanda Barzee just pleaded guilty in the kidnapping of Elisabeth Smart ordeal. Elizabeth recently spoke and said that she had been raped, even several times everyday during her captivity. Could you please explain why all hundreds and hundreds of the rapes were necessary for her eventual exaltation? Couldn’t she be exalted with, say, 70 or 80 rapes?

A few years ago I went to our annual, interfaith prayer breakfast. The speaker was the mother of Samantha Runnion (the year before it was Ed Smart). Tiny Samantha had been kidnapped, battered, raped and then murdered by asphyxiation. I know that you do not believe that God is omnipotent but could you tell me why God can’t exalt little Samantha (or her mother) with just the kidnapping/murder or just with the battering/rape? Why were all four things, in your words, “necessary for exaltation?"

Or how about the sufferings of Christ in Gethsemane and on the cross? Were those "gratuitous"?

Well no rameupmton you silly thing. The expiating sacrifice was morally sufficient. Are you asking because you really don’t know?

Edited November 22, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

IMHO, our individual conclusions will be based on trust. I trust God. So, in the puzzle of foreknowledge (predestination lite?) and the problem of evil, I am willing to believe that God gave us free will and did not rig the circumstances. Others, who's beliefs about God range from disbelieving, to academic acceptance, to Calvinist predestination, are more likely to say that God bears complete responsibility (if he exists).

When you do something that does not turn out the way your supervisor likes, does she blame you harshly, assume you knew what you were doing and things just went foul, perhaps even praise you for coming through the problem unfazed. That will depend on how much she trusts you. Our perspective on God ultimately must be subjective. Let the philosphers wrestle with God-as-a-concept.

I agree but I am still stuck understand HOW it is that pre-knowledge on God's part does not "rig" the outcome.

If God KNOWS the outcome, there is no possible way that I can act that will change the outcome. I'd love to understand how such foreknowledge allows for free choice given that we cannot alter the already known outcome.

The problem or solution may be that we misunderstand the real meaning of "omniscience."

[prisonchaplain]

I'll readily confess that I do not fully understand the meaning of omniscience. If God knows in an all-consuming sense everything that will ever happen, then He truly lives in an eternal present, in which there is no time and all simply is. That is beyond my comprehension. And, perhaps it need not be so.

That God knows what I will do, allows me to do it, and yet has ultimate power and authority over all that happens is an interchange that only God can balance. He values our volition, finds our best and fullest potential for love in that free will or agency, and yet retains ultimate control over the flow of history.

Could it be that God's foreknowledge is something other than all-encompassing? Would that limit God's power in ways unacceptable to our understanding? Would that be okay? Fascinating stuff to speculate about. And some wrestling is surely necessary, if we are teach accurately. But ultimately I believe that God is ultimately Sovereign and in control, and yet he allows us great freedom over our own wills and destiny.

[Sethin09]

I love the fact that the Ouroboros is your avatar. It made me wary of anything you had to say before you said it.

Would you rather I use my unit insignia?

Sorry for the misogyny statement, I just dislike the slant often given in religious texts concerning women

[OneEternalSonata]

Question... does God allow all evil to take place? I'm not sure how to word that better. It seems that if there is some evil He doesn't allow to happen there must be criteria for it.

[Pegasus]

Yeah I've always been taught that he allows it, because we need to be tested.

[FunkyTown]

Would you rather I use my unit insignia?

Sorry for the misogyny statement, I just dislike the slant often given in religious texts concerning women

That's a fair statement - Fair, not because I agree with it, but fair because it's repeated so often that people have started to believe it.

There's a belief called (And apologies to those who are offended, but because this is the proper name, I have to use it) the 'Madonna/Whore Dichotomy'. That is: Every female in the bible is either virginal or a prostitute.

That is simply not true: Ruth from the Book of Ruth, for instance, or Naomi. Abigail, who was the sister of David. The numbers go on and on, but because people are looking for mysogyny in the bible, they find it.

The truth is that the bible discusses truly exceptional people: Both the wicked and the good. You won't hear about a man who woke up one morning, walked to the breakfast table and did have a sandwich 'And it was good'. You will hear about those who manipulated and lied, or rose up and with great faith followed God. Yes, the vast majority of women in the bible will be discussed for either their acts of wickedness or faith. No, that's not important: The vast majority of everyone in the bible will be discussed for either their acts of wickedness or faith.

[rameumptom]

rameumptom,

Granted, you're disadvantaged in this discussion because you haven't taken a college course, read a book, or in some other way researched the topic, but if you don't know something, you can ask instead of pretending and then trying to act condescending ("If you are going to engage in discussion, get serious about the discussion. Will you?"). At the very least you could google it before you falsely represent that I am making up stuff, i.e. "gratuitous evil." Contrary to your uninformed assertion, gratuitous evil is not a new category in addition to natural or moral evil. In a philosophical context it is simply that evil/suffering for which no morally sufficient reason exists... and “morally sufficient” simply refers to a state of affairs connected with that evil in such a way that if there were a God, that state of affairs would justify God in permitting it. (John O’Leary-Hawthorne & Daniel Howard Snyder, Philosophy & Phenomenal Research, 1993).

It never ceases to amaze how the fundamentalist mind functions.

Wanda Barzee just pleaded guilty in the kidnapping of Elisabeth Smart ordeal. Elizabeth recently spoke and said that she had been raped, even several times everyday during her captivity. Could you please explain why all hundreds and hundreds of the rapes were necessary for her eventual exaltation? Couldn’t she be exalted with, say, 70 or 80 rapes?

A few years ago I went to our annual, interfaith prayer breakfast. The speaker was the mother of Samantha Runnion (the year before it was Ed Smart). Tiny Samantha had been kidnapped, battered, raped and then murdered by asphyxiation. I know that you do not believe that God is omnipotent but could you tell me why God can’t exalt little Samantha (or her mother) with just the kidnapping/murder or just with the battering/rape? Why were all four things, in your words, “necessary for exaltation?"

Well no rameupmton you silly thing. The expiating sacrifice was morally sufficient. Are you asking because you really don’t know?

How stupid of me, Snow. I thought this was an LDS discussion list, not a philosophy discussion list! Of course philosophers believe in gratuitous evil. But the scriptures and prophets do not teach it.

As for your slam on my supposed ignorance, I have had philosophy classes, have read Blake Ostler's books, have discussed such issues for many years on the LDS Phil list, and on other lists. So, obviously you don't know who I am. And your slams are getting tedious.

I am NOT a fundamentalist.

If you are going to discuss on a purely philosophical level, this thread needs to be moved to General Discussions.

[FunkyTown]

I'm actually going to go to the other end of the spectrum: God does know everything we can and will do.

Knowing what someone will do doesn't take away from the importance of them doing what they do: If I'm at a fire and see a Firefighter show up, I know that he will fight that fire. That doesn't take away from the heroism of him fighting the fire. This is just as much foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is not foreordination.

However, it does make me wonder: Despite the fact that we can choose a different path, God knows if we will. Since the consequences of failing to choose the correct path is eternal damnation, why would God create those he knows will fail? Why not simply never create someone who will fail?

That wouldn't remove free will. It would simply limit our experiences as it would remove those who will wish they were never born, anyway.

I'll readily confess that I do not fully understand the meaning of omniscience. If God knows in an all-consuming sense everything that will ever happen, then He truly lives in an eternal present, in which there is no time and all simply is. That is beyond my comprehension. And, perhaps it need not be so.

That God knows what I will do, allows me to do it, and yet has ultimate power and authority over all that happens is an interchange that only God can balance. He values our volition, finds our best and fullest potential for love in that free will or agency, and yet retains ultimate control over the flow of history.

Could it be that God's foreknowledge is something other than all-encompassing? Would that limit God's power in ways unacceptable to our understanding? Would that be okay? Fascinating stuff to speculate about. And some wrestling is surely necessary, if we are teach accurately. But ultimately I believe that God is ultimately Sovereign and in control, and yet he allows us great freedom over our own wills and destiny.

[Hemidakota]

I'll readily confess that I do not fully understand the meaning of omniscience. If God knows in an all-consuming sense everything that will ever happen, then He truly lives in an eternal present, in which there is no time and all simply is. That is beyond my comprehension. And, perhaps it need not be so.

That God knows what I will do, allows me to do it, and yet has ultimate power and authority over all that happens is an interchange that only God can balance. He values our volition, finds our best and fullest potential for love in that free will or agency, and yet retains ultimate control over the flow of history.

Could it be that God's foreknowledge is something other than all-encompassing? Would that limit God's power in ways unacceptable to our understanding? Would that be okay? Fascinating stuff to speculate about. And some wrestling is surely necessary, if we are teach accurately. But ultimately I believe that God is ultimately Sovereign and in control, and yet he allows us great freedom over our own wills and destiny.

Or perhaps through pervious experiences with other worlds/children, HE learns through using the same 'play' with different actors, the results in probablility will be close.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm actually going to go to the other end of the spectrum: God does know everything we can and will do.

Knowing what someone will do doesn't take away from the importance of them doing what they do: If I'm at a fire and see a Firefighter show up, I know that he will fight that fire. That doesn't take away from the heroism of him fighting the fire. This is just as much foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is not foreordination.

However, it does make me wonder: Despite the fact that we can choose a different path, God knows if we will. Since the consequences of failing to choose the correct path is eternal damnation, why would God create those he knows will fail? Why not simply never create someone who will fail?

That wouldn't remove free will. It would simply limit our experiences as it would remove those who will wish they were never born, anyway.

This is why in previous threads we have had that conversation about there being at least some part of the creation process that is out of His control. It must be as random as us having children. As spirit children there has to be some either random or some part of it that is not under Gods control in the creation of spirits. Because you can ask the same thing about the third of the host of heaven failing and even Lucifer himself failing.

[rameumptom]

I'm ambivalent on the God-foreknowledge thing. I've studied the concepts on each side, and see strengths and weaknesses for both.

If God has complete foreknowledge, then even if he doesn't cause the change, there really isn't true free will, as the future is already established and cannot be changed. If the future can be changed, then God does not have absolute foreknowledge, but is more like the master chess player, who can look forward at all the possible moves and determine the most likely moves; adapting and updating his forecast as the future comes nearer and the prediction levels become higher.

Some suggest that is how the revelations in the scriptures appear to be. The more recent the prophesy, the more detailed they are. And the further out the prophesy, the less detail one gets.

Some suggest that God's knowledge is full in that he knows all there is to know; yet he does not know the future. There are concepts that support this, and a belief in libertarian free will must be supported by such a concept. However, there are issues: how would God know which parts of the gold plates to have Nephi/Mormon preserve so that 1400 years later, Joseph would have the right number of pages available to replace the Book of Lehi with the Small plates? What if Joseph would have lost 350 pages? or only 25 pages? How would that have affected the loss of the manuscript and retranslating later?

So, there are issues on all sides of the debate. And as I said, I'm ambivalent.

[Moksha]

If God knows in an all-consuming sense everything that will ever happen, then He truly lives in an eternal present, in which there is no time and all simply is. That is beyond my comprehension.

The worm hole aliens of Star Trek would say that you are thinking in terms of linear time.

[prisonchaplain]

Sadly, my belt does the same.

[RipplecutBuddha]

If your statement were accurate - which it is not - God would still be responsible for evil. If a creator creates the parties, creates the conditions, creates the dynamics and then gives free choice, from which evil must and will inevitably flow, that creator can't very well look the other way and claim innocence.

However, in LDS theology, Satan, like man, is co-eternal with God. Satan and man were fashioned in some sense by God but Satan brought his own eternal essence to the game.

If you're right, then we as humans have absolutely no responsibility at all for any of our actions. If you're right, then there is no such thing as justice. If we can simply point to God and say...'Hey, it's your fault...you let this be possible', then any child can say the exact same thing to their parents, no matter the offense they commit.

Think of it...that means Hitler, Dahmer, Gacy,Hussein...all of them can simply point to their parents and say "hey, don't look at me...it's their fault they didn't stop me."

Such a line of thinking is merely a cop-out in order to avoid responsibility for one's actions.

[Dravin]

The big difference there is that your parents (or Hitler’s) are neither omniscient, omnipotent, nor his creator ex nihilo*. It is the last one, unless I'm mistaken, that Snow is commenting on. My nor your parents created all of what we are, they made a body, but they did not make our spirit. It's like writing a computer program that crashes on purpose, it isn't the programs fault it crashes, it is the fault of the one who made it. On the other hand, if I take a seed and grow a tree and it is faulty it isn't the fault of the one who grew it as they did not have control over the source material.

Edit: I'm not saying LDS theology supports ex nihilo, I just think that such is what Snow read into your comment RipplecutBuddha. If one doesn't take your comment as ex nihilo creation then I whole heartedly agree with your response.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Dravin

[RipplecutBuddha]

In using the computer analogy you are assuming a God that insists upon ultimate control of every aspect of his creations.

In using the seed analogy you are assuming a God that cannot exercise ultimate control of every aspect of his creations.

However, both gods can be considered omnipotent and omniscient. When a father sees his child take the first steps upon a path involving recreational drug use, that father (omnipotent or not) can immediately see a dark future ahead for his child invloving crime, prison, serious health issues, or even death. The simple fact that a loving, caring parent can see that future does not mean that it absolutely must happen. The same loving father could also see an immeditate turn from that path, or a long difficult road of recovery.

In giving us the ability to choose right and wrong, god deliberately gave us the power to fail. He gave us the ability to become evil because it has to be our choice, not his. We cannot reach our full potential without learning the essential ability of making good choices consistently. Think for a minute...what infant learned to walk without falling several times in early attempts? What musician learned an instrument without hitting countless wrong notes in the process? Name an artist that never made a painting or sculpture they would have liked to do differently, or forgotten altogether?

Mistakes and failure are key to human success. Without the risk of failure, there is no impetus for success. If it doesn't matter, why bother trying to be better?

The fact is that it does matter because we have within ourselves a potential we cannot but barely imagine. We cannot reach that potential without understanding the reality of right and wrong, or without understanding the importance of choosing right over wrong.

we cannot gain that understanding without being first exposed to evil, to understand what it is, and why it is not the correct choice. We must understand evil. We must understand failure. That is key to avoiding both and becoming stronger in spite of our own weaknesses.

[Dravin]

In using the computer analogy you are assuming a God that insists upon ultimate control of every aspect of his creations.

Which would be the case (replacing insists with can exercise) with omnipotent, omniscient and ex nihilo creation. Tell me if I had full control over the creation of a toy, materials, design, manufacture and designed/created it such that a piece would break off and choke somebody and knew (not suspect but actually knew) it would do so and did nothing to prevent it (either at creation or through intervention) would I be responsible for that?

As for the seed analogy, I was talking about human parents, sorry that wasn't clear.

The ultimate problem with arguing with the logic is the premises used. Namely the traditional concepts of God’s omnipotence and omniscience, you say God does things the way he does because it is the only way for him to exalt us (which I agree with) the problem is that means (using traditional concepts) he lacks omnipotence, the power to do it another way, or omnisence, lacks the knowledge to do it another way. Using those premises the conclusion is pretty straight forward. Just like the conclusion of:

*All people who wear green are evil.

*John wears green.

Is pretty straight forward, John is evil. It is mainly a problem of premise not logic (evil people wear green).

Edit: I'm leaving town for the week, don't know if I'll be able to respond before the thread drops off the radar, if you want to ignore me go ahead, I won't be offended. No use expending energy in a rebuttal that won't get any attention. :)

Edited August 23, 2014 by Dravin

[Snow]

How stupid of me, Snow. I thought this was an LDS discussion list, not a philosophy discussion list! Of course philosophers believe in gratuitous evil. But the scriptures and prophets do not teach it.

As for your slam on my supposed ignorance, I have had philosophy classes, have read Blake Ostler's books, have discussed such issues for many years on the LDS Phil list, and on other lists. So, obviously you don't know who I am. And your slams are getting tedious.

I am NOT a fundamentalist.

If you are going to discuss on a purely philosophical level, this thread needs to be moved to General Discussions.

Please don't let anger get the better of you rameumpton, I'd hate for this thread to be closed.

If you have taken classes and read book, I wonder how it is that you thought that evil could only be divided into two classes and that I was making up a new category - gratuitous evil - but let's compromise and say you just forgot.

Fundamentalism: "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." (American Heritage)

Given your intolerance of my less fundamental views (for example - above) and your belief that all evil, every bit of it, is necessary for exaltation, I'd say that fundamentalist is an apt description though I don't know why you take umbrage at the observation; they're your views after all.

Could you please answer the question I posed in my previous post - Why did the young kidnapped lady need to be raped hundreds of times in order to be exalted? Couldn't she be ultimately exalted after 70 or 80 rapes... which would make the additional rapes "gratuitous?"

Finally, do you really believe that this thread should be moved to the general section because you personally do not believe that unnecessary suffering is a religious topic? Have you not read the book of Job? Are you not aware that Christianity has grappled with it for almost 2000 years? After all, the problem of unnecessary evil or divine injustice is one of the most fundamental reasons or perceived reasons that leads to loss of faith. It's not just a religious issue. It's a foundational religious issue.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

If you're right, then we as humans have absolutely no responsibility at all for any of our actions. If you're right, then there is no such thing as justice. If we can simply point to God and say...'Hey, it's your fault...you let this be possible', then any child can say the exact same thing to their parents, no matter the offense they commit.

Think of it...that means Hitler, Dahmer, Gacy,Hussein...all of them can simply point to their parents and say "hey, don't look at me...it's their fault they didn't stop me."

Such a line of thinking is merely a cop-out in order to avoid responsibility for one's actions.

Don't go to the other extreme. I personally believe that man is ultimately responsible - more so than non-LDS perhaps because I believe that man's essence is not created ex nihilo by God. God is not the absolute ultimate cause. I was describing one implication, or better said, possible implication of another poster's point of view. Even so, by acknowledging the hand of God in setting up the context and content does not absolve free agents from their own personal behavior.

[pam]

Reminds me of the saying "The Devil made me do it." I agree that agents are responsible for their own behavior therefore putting the blame on another entity unfortunately still doesn't absolve them of any responsibility.

[prisonchaplain]

Ultimately, there is a classic defense of God in free will. It suggests that God allows evil free reign in this dispensation precisely because he gave us free will. The alternative would be a trouble free world of automatons. If these are the only two real options, then God believes our freedom is even more precious than the consequences of evil are horrific. Additionally, this environment, in which freedom is total, is the only one in which those of us who will gain relationship with God can truly experience meaningful love.

Said another way, if God mitigated some evils, he'd be partial. If he mitigated all, we'd be souless. If he mitigates none (other than, perhaps in response to prayers), then we accuse him of allowing or even willing evil consequences. It appears God found the latter to be the most worthy course for history.