The Problem of Evil and Epicurus' Trilemma

I've been musing over the problem of evil and that popular maxim put forward by Epicurus, 2300 years ago, as an argument against an all-knowing (omniscience), all-powerful (omnipotent), and all loving God. The argument is still popular today among many of my atheist friends (even being referenced in the movie Superman vs. Batman), so I thought it worthwhile addressing.

First, in case you are unfamiliar with the argument, Epicurus basically posited that if God is willing to prevent evil, but not able, He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, He is not all good. If He both able and willing, evil should not exist. If He is neither able nor willing, then He is not God.

The problem with the Epicurean trilemma (leaving aside the fact it is first quoted in the writings of a Christian theologian arguing against it, and was possibly never uttered by Epicurus) is that it rests on a few (unproven) assumptions: 1) the future is something which can be known, 2) omniscience is properly defined as knowing the future, and 3) evil can be objectively defined.

The reason this is a problem is that, if the future is something which can be known ahead of time (either because it is predetermined, or "exists" in the mind of its Creator), then free will does not exist. If free will does not exist, no action can be good or evil. A predetermined universe negates the initial premise of the argument.

However, it seems that quantum mechanics shows us "the future" is probabilistic in nature, rather than deterministic. This means it is essentially uncreated. While an omniscient God can know all the possible futures, there is no way a single future could be known ahead of time. A thing can only be known if it exists; so it follows that if the future does not exist, it cannot be known. In this case, a probabilistic universe negates the argument's definition of omniscience.

Finally, if evil can be objectively defined (especially as something within the created order), this suggests a moral reality beyond human social contract, which can only apply to functionally free beings in a probabilistic universe. Since humans are (said to be) free beings, then the burden of evil rests entirely on them.

But if there is no God, then there can be no moral reality beyond transitory human social contract. And again, the burden of breaking any such contract (defined as an act of evil) would rest only on its constituent parties, i.e. human beings. In either case, human beings are to blame for evil's existence, rather than God (whether or not God exists).

It seems to me that the God of Christianity (the faith with which I am most familiar) is generally described as creating humanity to reflect God's "Image", i.e. to be free beings which possess the ability to make moral decisions, to live in community (with God, fellow humans, and creation), and to create or destroy.

But the existence of free beings carries with it the implicit risk of evil, broken relationship, and immoral decisions. If Christianity's claims are correct, then the best explanation for the existence of evil is that God loves humanity so deeply, He figured it was worth the risk that we would dork everything up.

#philosophy #God #atheism #Christianity #theodicy #Epicurus #evil

How Should A Christian Define "Ethics"?

This is a question I was asked recently, and as I am not a professional philosopher by any means, any post of mine would probably fail to hit on many of the considerations which have been debated for millenia. Still, I think this is a worthy question which every person of faith should consider for themselves and their communities. So, in what is probably much too short a post to fully address the issue of Christian ethics, I will offer some of my own thoughts on how I formulate my understanding of Christian ethics, its relationship to human philosophy, and to scripture.

I think that very often, the term "ethical" is implied to be some external good (perhaps a holdover of Platonism?). If there is a God, then I do not think that God's ethics with regard to humanity are an objective, eternal reality by whose standard we are held to account. Before the cosmos (or outside of the cosmos, outside of existence itself), any understanding of "good" or "evil in relation to God would be irrelevant, as there would only be God as an objective reality. And after all, if God is revealed in any way in scripture, it seems immediately clear to the average reader that even in scripture standards change over time.

There are definitely overarching themes which weave their way through the passages and books (and these, I think, are significant for the faithful) concerning standards for justice, but of the 613 mitzvot alluded to in the Tanakh, many are simply impossible to obey today (for example, commands regarding the Temple in Jerusalem, which no longer exists). And most (if not all) of the basic concepts behind the standards for justice in scripture are relational in nature.

I think that, in terms of us who believe in God, ethics must be viewed as entirely relational and not objective. What I mean is, "the good" and the ethics which govern behavior along this standard, is defined as that which encourages harmony between God, humanity and creation. For a Christian, the more this harmony reflects the inner-relationship of the Trinity, and the more humanity's character represents Christ and lives as the image of God (and caretaker of creation), the more ethical we are. We measure these ethics by Jesus' interpretation of the Law and the Prophets: we are good when we love God and love others (even our enemies) as ourselves. We fall short of this ethical standard when we do not.

The commands themselves are relational, and reflect the above relational understanding of humanity's purpose. For the Christian, God is ethical because God sent the Incarnate Word made flesh, to open the way for perfect relationship between God, humanity, and creation. The commands, in this context, do not then act as the substance of ethics, but as part of the road-map leading toward the Incarnation.

This also means that as times change, humanity should ideally change as well. What was "good" for a Medieval or Ancient Near Eastern king is not necessarily good for a king today. This is something on which both religious and non-religious people should be able to agree. It is interesting to me that many non-religious have an objectified view of ethics or the good (as if they were unchanging), but I do not know what this idea would be founded on.

As an example, from an objectively material point of view, landmines are neither ethical or unethical. They are simply an additional and painful component of the chaos which often comes in contact with human lives. From a relational point of view, they are extremely unethical. Not only do they harm the possibility of human relationship in the relevant conflict in which they were laid; but they also harm people for many generations to come and greatly impede the ability of human beings to overcome all the other problems we have to deal with.

#God #ethics #good #evil #relationship #humanity #creation

The Problem of a God Who Allows Suffering

Someone asked me, if God were real, why would He allow kids to be born with birth defects (and finished with saying, "thanks imaginary god.") It bothered me, not just because he was challenging my beliefs. After all, our beliefs should be challenged and tested by the force of reason and experience, otherwise they're probably not worth anything.

But what bothered me was that he had a valid point. Why would a good God allow kids to suffer, like in the article below? Why do so many human beings seem to live a loveless, harsh, and suffering existence only to die at the end of it?

I've been thinking about it a lot. I think the only acceptable solution is one that fully recognizes the reality of suffering in the world and doesn't try to mitigate or minimize it. Suffering in the human condition is real, it is deep, and it is often relentless.

So, this is what I'm thinking currently: Our conception of God rests on our understanding of "the Ideal." The ideal varies from culture to culture, and over periods of time, but almost universally includes the concepts, "the Good, the Transcendent, and the Imminent." A concept of God worth engaging by human beings (whether in prayer, worship, or just simple awe and joy), must include these three (and yet is infinitely more than these) concepts. But how could an imminent (involved deeply in the details of the cosmos) and good God allow such undeserved suffering?

Well, if God is real, good, imminent, and transcendent and has created us for relationship with Him, then relationship requires free will. And if free will is not an illusion, it must be probabilistic and not deterministic in nature. By it's very definition, the existence of probability introduces an element of chaos into the cosmos. This chaotic element, would then introduce harsh realities into all of life's experience (and not just human), which would be experienced as suffering.  And free will opens the possibility for us to choose disharmony over harmony, and betrayal over trust.  If trust, in turn, is the foundation for all human relationships (including those with each other, with God, and with creation), then it leaves us in a completely broken state.  Brokenness leads to confusion, and in that confusion, it is no wonder we are unable to perceive God clearly on our own.

This does not compromise God's goodness, as God's goodness is manifest in everything created. Evil (and its cousin, suffering) are not created things, but are a warping or corruption of what is created, as a consequence both of the abuse of free will and the role of chaos in allowing both free will and a lack of total determinism in the cosmos. But the beauty and mystery of God's goodness, is that in His desire to preserve the will, and enable relationship, He suffers with us. He feels the pain of every dying child, of every victim of abuse. He feels our hurt, confusion, and rage.

Christ's Incarnation (God taking humanity onto Himself in Christ) ensures that He takes part in our suffering., His death on the cross is the ultimate expression of this as He takes all the pain, suffering, and brokenness in the world into Himself. His resurrection is the ultimate triumph over suffering and the hope of our triumph, as well. Finally, the Holy Spirit's continued presence in a broken and hurting world feeds the hope and propels its fulfillment forward, even in the face of inexpressible sorrow.  And it is through the Incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ that we experience the hope of reparation and restoration.

I understand if people don't see it the same way I do, and I don't blame them. But these are just my thoughts as I grapple with the realities of our existence.

P.S. Some further thoughts on the attributes of God expressed in, "the Good, the Transendant, and the Imminent." We can envision these attributes, and we all have different ideas about them, but we also all agree that outside of concepts concerning God, there are no perfect expressions of the Good, or the Transcendent, or the Imminent in human experience.

This tells me that the argument that our concept of God is simply anthropomorphic projection and nothing more, is not valid. If God simply reflected anthropocentric tendencies in our species, as necessary for our survival, then our concept of Him would not rest on attributes which are utterly unattainable by any created being. ‪#‎GodProblems‬ ‪#‎Suffering‬

Daily Mail Article: 'I Can't Cuddle My Son Because It Makes His Skin Fall Off,' A Mother's Anguish at Her Son's Suffering