More on the necessity of doubt. See previous comment.
I once taught college business courses and was usually assigned a night school course in addition to my normal load so I could make extra money. One night before class I was waiting alone in an office that I shared with others. In walks an elderly Jewish gentleman. I had never seen him before but he said he was an adjunct and was early and had been assigned this office.
We started to chat and somehow it turned to religion. That’s when I found out he was Jewish. It was a very friendly discussion since both he and I were believers in God and religion.
He told me there must be doubt because without it, faith was meaningless. He said doubt is a necessary condition for faith. We don’t have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, we have knowledge or certainty. And many of the things we do are based on this certainty. But other things in nature are not so certain but we have to act to lead our lives even if we didn’t know what is true or not.
He said God was such a thing. There are lots of evidence and logic pointing to God but there was nothing as close to certainty as there is for the sun rising tomorrow. (Yes, I know the sun doesn’t rise and the earth spins). So there must be things that give us doubt and that the existence of God must be doubtful. He said faith is necessary to believe in God.
Some other things that caused doubt were that bad events happen to good people. Or that so called evil or bad things exists because it’s necessary for doubt and then for faith to have value. Otherwise there is no virtue in anything we did, just people doing what this certain God wanted. We would be automatons.
So what is called evil is necessary for us to have doubt and for this life to be meaningful.
An interesting implication of all this is that good things become evil over time. As we eliminate bad thing after bad thing in our world, past happenstances that were called good now become undesirable or evil. We currently witness in our society that the level of income for some groups is much less than others. But the level of income for the lesser groups are much higher than it was for the upper income people only a hundred years ago. So a level of existence that was certainly not evil a short time ago is evil to many in our current world.
Thanks for the comments. What you say reminds me a little of what Stephen Evans argues. Namely, if God exists we should expect knowledge of God to be both widely available yet widely resistible. He contends a loving God would refrain from compelling belief or relationship but nevertheless make knowledge of himself possible for all. In all this we find room for resistance, doubt, faith, etc.
Have you read his Natural and Signs Knowledge of God?
I am reading Stephen Evan's. book. Very interesting and I am enjoying it.
Nothing to contradict anything I have said and actually a lot to reinforce my comments. But I am only in the first chapter so I will have to see what all he says. But I found the following statement in. the first chapter extremely relevant:
"if there is knowledge of God at all, we would not expect that knowledge to be limited to highly intelligent or highly educated people."
And so should discussions of God's existence and the evidence to support His existence - they should be accessible by anyone and not esoteric.
It's amazing that intellectuals and atheists such as Bertrand Russell and J. L. Schellenberg would be so ignorant of how a creator of the universe would make his creation optimal. Surety of His existence would be one guaranteed way for the creation to be meaningless.
Again, I am not expecting a reply but only clarifying my thoughts and previous position.
I have limited time to answer all but will continue to do so when I can.
First, I never associated Aquinas with discussions of evil in what I wrote. I have not read much Aquinas other than his conclusions about proofs of God and that was a long time ago. You have pointed out some of his discussions on evil of which I was not aware. What you said makes no difference as far as I can see. The privation definition seems to be just made up while suffering from a severe disease is something that one can relate to. I prefer "unwanted circumstances." This sounds very trivial but these unwanted circumstances are then on a spectrum from almost trivial to very painful life destroying circumstances. Recognizing that there is a spectrum is important because where on this spectrum of unwanted circumstances does something become evil?
Second, I mentioned Augustine because in the past, others have deferred to his thinking. He seems to be a decisive writer on discussions of evil. Here is a webpage that discusses Augustine and evil.
In it a distinction is made between natural and moral evil. It is one that I was familiar with, namely:
"as a working definition, I will include as ‘natural evil’ any kind of harm or suffering that does not have an obvious human cause."
This webpage like all discussions on evil get a little convoluted and is not easily understood to the average person, educated or otherwise. I prefer simple discussions that are easily understood.
Most who object to a God based on the presence of evil, are doing so because of natural evil and do not look at it as some privation of the good. To offer up this definition will get no traction with those who object. A deprivation can be applied to any current worldly situation as I mentioned. There is always something that could be better. Thus, anything less than absolute perfection can be considered a deprivation. (my example of current income levels for the poor as being a deprivation even though they are much higher than they were in the past. Whatever the level, it will never be enough)
I believe a different way of thinking is what will offer a more consistent and conclusive rationale for why unwanted circumstances are not only common but as I said are essential.
Also remember, the Catholic/Christian God is promising an eternal positive life. Any so called evil in this world is trivial compared to this. By putting things on a spectrum helps emphasize this triviality.
As far as convincing people to be Catholic or Christian as a problem, just look at the attendance in churches especially amongst young people. So I do see this as a major issue. I believe it is due to lack of belief.
If an approach existed that countered this lack of belief and was 100% consistent with Church doctrine, it would be highly desirable (such an approach most definitely exists.) Rational approaches based on truth are resistant to emotional appeals from the opposite direction. People like was is true. Emotional approaches even if positive are not guaranteed to do so and are failing to false emotional approaches. People may want to believe but they are not offered logic and evidence but kindness and tradition. Both are good but they will not counteract the false emotional appeals against religion.
Patrick, thank you for pointing to Stephen Evans book. I was not aware of it and will have to get a copy. My encounter with the Jewish professor preceded this book by several years.
I have been writing about the word "evil" for over 17 years on a couple of websites since I became aware of the theodicy issue. My guess it that this represents over 200 pages, mostly repetitive. A couple of things
The word has a strong emotional attachment for many who are religious. They cannot seem to not use it to describe what they see as dysfunctional or anti-religious. When pressed (both Catholics and non-Catholics), they invariably attack the person questioning their use of the word, usually me. If Augustine used it freely and so have innumerable other religious thinkers, why cannot they also use it.
Second, I actually believe the word itself is dysfunctional since it leads one to non rational discussions that are mainly emotional. The word "evil" is nearly always used in emotional discussions. I believe what is missing in religious discussions is logic or rational thinking, and not the kind that would appear in Aquinas. Nothing wrong with emotional reasons for believing in God, but emotional reasons are subject to counter emotional reasons for not believing. And atheists are great at these counter arguments which are rationally bogus.
Rational beliefs are not subject to these counter emotional reasons if one is aware of what is going on. I recently questioned several life long Catholics and Jesuits on why they are Catholic. Not one could give me a rational answer. All the answers were emotional.
I first became aware of the issue of evil and God when someone discussed the Lisbon earthquake of November, 1st, 1755 when many attending Mass for All Saints Day were killed as the roof collapsed on them during Mass. Supposedly this changed a lot of the thinking of people during the so-called Enlightenment. How could God allow such a thing?
I highly recommend visiting Lisbon and if one does go there, go to the Carmo Convent church where the roof collapsed that day. It is now a museum.
I must confess to not understanding what you mean by Augustine or Aquinas using the word evil freely. Both used the term broadly to capture any negative states of affairs, including moral evil (evil done) and natural evil (evil suffered). Aquinas had a specific definition of evil, alongside a robust metaphysical theory of just what evil is (namely, a privation, and thus a logical being).
As for certain Catholics not being able to give you a good reason why they are Catholic, do you see this as a major problem? Or do you think people can be justified in religious belief apart from robust argumentation, even if this makes them more susceptible to emotional appeals in the opposite direction? Obviously, I agree that most religious people are not going to be able to offer a robust intellectual defense of their belief. But this is not a problem exclusive to religious believers.
I got lost in the technical philosophical words. They are not necessary to dismiss the argument from evil.
First, define evil. It is usually bad things happening to people. Some type of suffering or death.
Second, distinguish between natural and moral evil. The argument against God is under the natural evil delineation. Things such as disease, natural disasters etc.
Third, recognize that while we are talking about bad or unwanted outcomes, there is a spectrum of these bad things. Falling and breaking one’s arm, is an unwanted occurrence but not as bad as a tumor causing constant pain. Or a slow agonizing death. Where does something become evil on this spectrum because a stubbed toe is unwanted but I doubt anyone would call it evil.
Fourth, as we eliminate most of history’s seriously unwanted diseases or provide means of dealing with natural disasters, people find new things that they focus on as unwanted. So what was lesser in past times now preoccupies people’s concerns.
This means no matter what we eliminate, there will be new concerns to deal with. For example, parents do not want a child with a birth defect, but now or shortly in the future will focus on designer children. To be frivolous they will not want their child to have freckles. (One has just to read Pride and Prejudice to see how that was a major concern 200 years ago.)
More later on why unwanted events are necessary for a meaningful life. Our life has to be uncertain to be meaningful and it must look natural so we doubt the existence of God. If God were a sure thing, then there is no way to have a meaningful life. There would be no choice to be made in anything we did.
The argument from evil falls apart as soon as one realizes that “doubt” is a necessary ingredient for a meaningful existence in this world.
More on the necessity of doubt. See previous comment.
I once taught college business courses and was usually assigned a night school course in addition to my normal load so I could make extra money. One night before class I was waiting alone in an office that I shared with others. In walks an elderly Jewish gentleman. I had never seen him before but he said he was an adjunct and was early and had been assigned this office.
We started to chat and somehow it turned to religion. That’s when I found out he was Jewish. It was a very friendly discussion since both he and I were believers in God and religion.
He told me there must be doubt because without it, faith was meaningless. He said doubt is a necessary condition for faith. We don’t have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, we have knowledge or certainty. And many of the things we do are based on this certainty. But other things in nature are not so certain but we have to act to lead our lives even if we didn’t know what is true or not.
He said God was such a thing. There are lots of evidence and logic pointing to God but there was nothing as close to certainty as there is for the sun rising tomorrow. (Yes, I know the sun doesn’t rise and the earth spins). So there must be things that give us doubt and that the existence of God must be doubtful. He said faith is necessary to believe in God.
Some other things that caused doubt were that bad events happen to good people. Or that so called evil or bad things exists because it’s necessary for doubt and then for faith to have value. Otherwise there is no virtue in anything we did, just people doing what this certain God wanted. We would be automatons.
So what is called evil is necessary for us to have doubt and for this life to be meaningful.
An interesting implication of all this is that good things become evil over time. As we eliminate bad thing after bad thing in our world, past happenstances that were called good now become undesirable or evil. We currently witness in our society that the level of income for some groups is much less than others. But the level of income for the lesser groups are much higher than it was for the upper income people only a hundred years ago. So a level of existence that was certainly not evil a short time ago is evil to many in our current world.
Jerry,
Thanks for the comments. What you say reminds me a little of what Stephen Evans argues. Namely, if God exists we should expect knowledge of God to be both widely available yet widely resistible. He contends a loving God would refrain from compelling belief or relationship but nevertheless make knowledge of himself possible for all. In all this we find room for resistance, doubt, faith, etc.
Have you read his Natural and Signs Knowledge of God?
Patrick,
I am reading Stephen Evan's. book. Very interesting and I am enjoying it.
Nothing to contradict anything I have said and actually a lot to reinforce my comments. But I am only in the first chapter so I will have to see what all he says. But I found the following statement in. the first chapter extremely relevant:
"if there is knowledge of God at all, we would not expect that knowledge to be limited to highly intelligent or highly educated people."
And so should discussions of God's existence and the evidence to support His existence - they should be accessible by anyone and not esoteric.
It's amazing that intellectuals and atheists such as Bertrand Russell and J. L. Schellenberg would be so ignorant of how a creator of the universe would make his creation optimal. Surety of His existence would be one guaranteed way for the creation to be meaningless.
Again, I am not expecting a reply but only clarifying my thoughts and previous position.
Appreciate you sharing your thoughts, Jerry. I'll try to offer some comments of my own once I have a little more time. Book edits, you know!
Patrick,
I have limited time to answer all but will continue to do so when I can.
First, I never associated Aquinas with discussions of evil in what I wrote. I have not read much Aquinas other than his conclusions about proofs of God and that was a long time ago. You have pointed out some of his discussions on evil of which I was not aware. What you said makes no difference as far as I can see. The privation definition seems to be just made up while suffering from a severe disease is something that one can relate to. I prefer "unwanted circumstances." This sounds very trivial but these unwanted circumstances are then on a spectrum from almost trivial to very painful life destroying circumstances. Recognizing that there is a spectrum is important because where on this spectrum of unwanted circumstances does something become evil?
Second, I mentioned Augustine because in the past, others have deferred to his thinking. He seems to be a decisive writer on discussions of evil. Here is a webpage that discusses Augustine and evil.
https://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2021/05/03/augustine-on-natural-evil/
In it a distinction is made between natural and moral evil. It is one that I was familiar with, namely:
"as a working definition, I will include as ‘natural evil’ any kind of harm or suffering that does not have an obvious human cause."
This webpage like all discussions on evil get a little convoluted and is not easily understood to the average person, educated or otherwise. I prefer simple discussions that are easily understood.
Most who object to a God based on the presence of evil, are doing so because of natural evil and do not look at it as some privation of the good. To offer up this definition will get no traction with those who object. A deprivation can be applied to any current worldly situation as I mentioned. There is always something that could be better. Thus, anything less than absolute perfection can be considered a deprivation. (my example of current income levels for the poor as being a deprivation even though they are much higher than they were in the past. Whatever the level, it will never be enough)
I believe a different way of thinking is what will offer a more consistent and conclusive rationale for why unwanted circumstances are not only common but as I said are essential.
Also remember, the Catholic/Christian God is promising an eternal positive life. Any so called evil in this world is trivial compared to this. By putting things on a spectrum helps emphasize this triviality.
As far as convincing people to be Catholic or Christian as a problem, just look at the attendance in churches especially amongst young people. So I do see this as a major issue. I believe it is due to lack of belief.
If an approach existed that countered this lack of belief and was 100% consistent with Church doctrine, it would be highly desirable (such an approach most definitely exists.) Rational approaches based on truth are resistant to emotional appeals from the opposite direction. People like was is true. Emotional approaches even if positive are not guaranteed to do so and are failing to false emotional approaches. People may want to believe but they are not offered logic and evidence but kindness and tradition. Both are good but they will not counteract the false emotional appeals against religion.
Patrick, thank you for pointing to Stephen Evans book. I was not aware of it and will have to get a copy. My encounter with the Jewish professor preceded this book by several years.
I have been writing about the word "evil" for over 17 years on a couple of websites since I became aware of the theodicy issue. My guess it that this represents over 200 pages, mostly repetitive. A couple of things
The word has a strong emotional attachment for many who are religious. They cannot seem to not use it to describe what they see as dysfunctional or anti-religious. When pressed (both Catholics and non-Catholics), they invariably attack the person questioning their use of the word, usually me. If Augustine used it freely and so have innumerable other religious thinkers, why cannot they also use it.
Second, I actually believe the word itself is dysfunctional since it leads one to non rational discussions that are mainly emotional. The word "evil" is nearly always used in emotional discussions. I believe what is missing in religious discussions is logic or rational thinking, and not the kind that would appear in Aquinas. Nothing wrong with emotional reasons for believing in God, but emotional reasons are subject to counter emotional reasons for not believing. And atheists are great at these counter arguments which are rationally bogus.
Rational beliefs are not subject to these counter emotional reasons if one is aware of what is going on. I recently questioned several life long Catholics and Jesuits on why they are Catholic. Not one could give me a rational answer. All the answers were emotional.
I first became aware of the issue of evil and God when someone discussed the Lisbon earthquake of November, 1st, 1755 when many attending Mass for All Saints Day were killed as the roof collapsed on them during Mass. Supposedly this changed a lot of the thinking of people during the so-called Enlightenment. How could God allow such a thing?
I highly recommend visiting Lisbon and if one does go there, go to the Carmo Convent church where the roof collapsed that day. It is now a museum.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Lisbon-earthquake-of-1755
Jerry, thanks again for this.
I must confess to not understanding what you mean by Augustine or Aquinas using the word evil freely. Both used the term broadly to capture any negative states of affairs, including moral evil (evil done) and natural evil (evil suffered). Aquinas had a specific definition of evil, alongside a robust metaphysical theory of just what evil is (namely, a privation, and thus a logical being).
As for certain Catholics not being able to give you a good reason why they are Catholic, do you see this as a major problem? Or do you think people can be justified in religious belief apart from robust argumentation, even if this makes them more susceptible to emotional appeals in the opposite direction? Obviously, I agree that most religious people are not going to be able to offer a robust intellectual defense of their belief. But this is not a problem exclusive to religious believers.
I got lost in the technical philosophical words. They are not necessary to dismiss the argument from evil.
First, define evil. It is usually bad things happening to people. Some type of suffering or death.
Second, distinguish between natural and moral evil. The argument against God is under the natural evil delineation. Things such as disease, natural disasters etc.
Third, recognize that while we are talking about bad or unwanted outcomes, there is a spectrum of these bad things. Falling and breaking one’s arm, is an unwanted occurrence but not as bad as a tumor causing constant pain. Or a slow agonizing death. Where does something become evil on this spectrum because a stubbed toe is unwanted but I doubt anyone would call it evil.
Fourth, as we eliminate most of history’s seriously unwanted diseases or provide means of dealing with natural disasters, people find new things that they focus on as unwanted. So what was lesser in past times now preoccupies people’s concerns.
This means no matter what we eliminate, there will be new concerns to deal with. For example, parents do not want a child with a birth defect, but now or shortly in the future will focus on designer children. To be frivolous they will not want their child to have freckles. (One has just to read Pride and Prejudice to see how that was a major concern 200 years ago.)
More later on why unwanted events are necessary for a meaningful life. Our life has to be uncertain to be meaningful and it must look natural so we doubt the existence of God. If God were a sure thing, then there is no way to have a meaningful life. There would be no choice to be made in anything we did.
The argument from evil falls apart as soon as one realizes that “doubt” is a necessary ingredient for a meaningful existence in this world.