Monday, November 05, 2007
theo the dicy
check this out in the new york times. it's an article on how a practicing christian lost his faith because he couldn't answer the question of theodicy. the problem being that god, perfectly good, cannot create something evil or flawed. yet, on the earth, so much suffering and evil occurs. how did he create something so bad? it seems like most people (like 3 out of the 4 people who actually ever look at this) who read this web log probably believe in God. so, how do we reconcile it? how do we deal with the problem of evil? let's hear your thoughts. and no fair using vague quotes, etc. i'd rather we stick to what we believe and try to back it up with scripture, logic, or hard facts from pertinent sources. or we don't have to. we could just get ready for our big trip to chuck-a-rama over christmas time.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
perhaps a perfectly good god knows that without opposition there is no growth to perfection. so perhaps, his creation of a 'fallen earth'was the 'perfect way' to allow us to grow through trials...he created the location and the 'ground' rules, then allows agency to run its course.
in this way, he is not directly responsible for 'creating' the evil. the evil happens and ultimate justice comes only through the atonement and eternal rewards. taken as a whole the plan can be good and worthy of a perfect god...
fair enough?
how's that for an amateur shot at overturning the time honored philosophical tradition of theodicy?
paul: pretty good. pretty good. but if he created it, then of course he's responsible, whether indirect or not. and how can that be a loving god? i understand that agency is important, but i don't think it fully explains what is going on. how can god be all perfect and all-powerful, yet create so much pain and suffering?
I do not believe God creates pain and suffering. He allows it so we can grow to be more like him. God had to provide a way for us to prove ourselves. He provides us with agency to do so. Because we have agency, we may choose evil. How could we prove ourselves if no one had the choice to do wrong? Agency, in and of itself, is not evil, it just allows for evil. Lucifer, I believe, is the creator of evil. If it weren't for his temptations, each of us would be perfect and willing to return to God. So, God did not/does not create evil. He allows it.
That's my stab at the question... I'm sure it's not perfect, but it is what I believe... What do you think stevie?
pretty good libby, pretty good. so are you saying that evil was not around before satan was around? because we had agency in the pre-mortal existence, right? i mean, we had to choose. and satan had to choose. so there had to be a right and wrong there. so if God didn't create evil, who did? and what is the difference between allowing something and creating it? but can God even stop evil if he wanted to? and if he can't, that leaves us with some other problems, problems which, i think, mormonism can solve.
This is going to be a long one.
My take on the whole thing is this: God is still subject to the higher, universal laws of good and evil, free will and progression, etc.
He is our creator and ruler over this universe/dimension/whatever it is, and has stewardship over it. I have always thought of it as being compared to the structure of organizations such as the church (and others) where one has stewardship over a certain area/group, but reports to something higher.
Using this model, perhaps God is the highest step on the chain, or perhaps he is not. Maybe he reports to someone/something else, maybe directly to Universal Law itself, if it can be reported to. And if he is subject to this higher law, then there is nothing he can do to prevent our suffering. Or maybe He is the higher law and my whole premise is ridiculous.
The point is that all I've ever read or understood is that our universe isn't the end all be all of everything, just another successive piece of eternity. Which means that God is just doing his job (fulfilling his calling) in a grander scheme of things (grander than we know about). And that He will not or cannot do anything to interfere in what we as individuals or as a group choose.
This begs the question, Is God not omnipotent? I think the answer, in this context, is yes. I think the omnipotence of God that we are taught is to be understood as true in our everyday human context, or from our vantage point. Regarding the higher law, however, he 'cannot turn to the right hand nor to the left.'
I realize that this might sound blasphemous (or just stupid) to some (if anyone reads it) but it is something I have been thinking about for a long time, so there you go.
P.S. I have also been watching a lot of Star Wars lately, which may have affected my brain. Who knows.
Do tell, stevie. What problems... what solutions?
I liked this article a lot. It is interesting to think about the origin of good and evil... most people don't get past the origin of man. It is a stretching subject for me. Not having seen first-hand true evil, horrific suffering, and awful disparities, I feel a deep sense of inadequacy and lack of understanding with my Polyanna-ish view of life. Perhaps if I were more exposed to suffering, I would have deeper questions…
But there are some strictly Mormon teachings that illuminate this discussion for me. First is our belief in a premortal life and our understanding of the War in Heaven. As Libby mentioned, Lucifer was also there--complete with his own agency and power. He was only the ringleader for the 1/3 who turned their backs on God’s plan. Each spirit in that premortal existence had/has choices to make. If agency is an eternal law that cannot change, God is bound to allow us our chance to “play it out” within those laws. In this way, evil cannot be strictly be attributed or disattributed to God, as many try to philosophize.
We are also taught that “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be” (Lorenzo Snow). Our God went through a process… we assume he also used agency in the face of evils, temptation, and trial. It existed before God became our God. (I’m not sure about “correct” capitalization in all of this…) It seems to me that God is bound by powerful eternal laws—which include the existence (and allowance) of evil and agency.
So the question for me becomes bigger that mortality and bigger than God himself. So I won’t blame God. But it doesn’t give an answer about the origins of evil or opposition… or the origins of goodness and purity. I go back to eternity being so much more than we realize and could possibly understand. Although… it certainly doesn't satiate our present questions and wonderings.
Looks like Jaime posted as I was formulating my response. It does seem that God is playing a part in the grander scheme of things. It will be interesting to learn more...
Star Wars = an epic tale of good v. evil. Perfectly applicable and illuminating to this here discussion.
amy and james (is it james or becca?): i agree with both of you. mormonism obviously teaches that God is not omnipotent. God is bound by eternal laws of agency, opposition, right vs. wrong, etc. somehow though, we as mormons use regular christian language to give god attributes that we don't really believe in. of course, god must be omnipotent to things pertaining to our salvation, or we wouldn't really be able to have faith in him. but, he is not able to change how certain things go, so he is not omnipotent. this does away with many of the logical paradoxes that come from having a god who is supposedly omnipotent (can god create a rock that is so heavy he can't lift it, etc.), and it also solves our theodicy. but it also makes me wonder who is in charge of this whole thing. mormonism is vague on what, if any, supreme being is in charge of god. is there an infinite retrogression of gods? do we really believe the couplet 'as god is man may become, as man is god once was?' its nowhere in scripture, right? is there a council of gods?
but i think i like the idea that god is just under an eternal law that allows suffering for growth, etc. although it definitely at times does not seem fair. why, for example, was i born into a good family, that cared about my education and character, but the kids i taught did not have such an opportunity?
Dear Stephen,
The key to this matter is understanding that God was also the first man. You are physically a part of God and you suffer physically as part of God's suffering. Because Adam was God, your own sorrow and pain are part of Jesus' atonement.
Regards
dear nr,
what is jesus' relationship with the father? are they the same?
regards
i agree with jim bob.
i have long felt that there is much to learn in the eternal scheme of things through examining the return and report model.
also an interesting thought. if god is bound by eternal law, then what is eternal law? it is animate as stevie queries?
stephen, you should have known from the Star Wars reference that you were dealing with Jamey, not me. I do agree with my wise husband though. I have often felt that the plan of salvation was given to appease our mortal understanding and that once we pass on to the next stage of our existence and our minds are "quickened" to a different glory that we'll be presented with a different plan. i'm pretty sure it's all a preventative measure to keep our brains from exploding or imploding- not sure about that one.
as for the question of an infinite retrogression of Gods being scriptural, the closest reference I could think of is where Christ says that he doesn't do anything he hasn't seen his Father do. Which leads us into another tricky area- did Christ just see it done in the premortal life since he wouldn't have been created before that? and a bunch of other questions that I won't bother to write because I may have written too much already. how much is too much for a blog comment anyway?
... and you thought jamey and i just came to your blog for the pretty pictures...
becca: i like the idea of minds exploding.
i do want to say that i disagree with any idea of an eternal first presidency, or anything in the eternities reflecting anything about our earthly church organization, one that is very business and corporation based. this type of organization is imperfect and not one that i can see as god endorsing. so i don't buy into the idea of a council of gods or anything like that. i also don't believe that the current church organization reflects exactly how it was in every other dispensation.
oh and becca and james, stay tuned for more pictures....
Stevie... what about returning and reporting??
amy: i don't know about returning and reporting. i think he definitely has to report to a higher law, which does not make him omnipotent. but, i'm not sure he has to report to a higher god, because that would start the theodicy problem all over again.
interesting topic. but I think the key thing to realize here (and the only thing that really gets God out of the mess) is something quite unique to Mormonism that hasn't been touched on yet. Mormonism is pretty much alone in asserting that God is not the creator of everything--matter cannot be created or destroyed AND it has been around as long as God has (at least in some form or another). So God's goal, then, is to bring order to this chaotic matter--NOT to create matter (POOF!) and then save (or perfect or whatever) it. This latter view is precisely the thing that brings up all the tough questions: Why did a perfect God create imperfect things which cause so much evil and sorrow? If he is omnipotent, then surely there would have been a better way, right? Is this world, with all its atrocities and bare evil, really the best he could do? No wonder people lose faith in God if he is judged as the complete creator of this world.
Mormonism, then, completely rejects creation ex nihilo and thereby stands at odds with classical Christianity. BUT until creation ex nihilo is removed, EVERYTHING can ultimately still be traced back to and blamed upon God, regardless of agency or premortal councils or satan or concerns over moral growth, etc. But once you deny creation ex nihilo, you say that there is something that is co-eternal with God that he has to work with which might now put into play some limitations of what he can and can't do, as far as his goals for taking this chaotic matter and doing something with it are concerned. In short, God has a given--he doesn't start completely from scratch.
So NOW it makes sense when we start to talk about his desire that we grow and learn things through experience and the need for a Savior to then get us out this mess so we can return but in better shape to become an eternal reward. Given this given, this may have been the only (or, at least, best or wisest) way to do things--especially given the lofty goals God has for this matter: to take it and ultimately fashion "partakers of the divine nature". There's got to be some process that starts with matter (or intelligence) and organizes it, unites it with a body (also matter), and then makes it ready to be a true partner with God. It seems that maybe this process (again, given this given) couldn't happen without REAL agency and REAL evil and REAL consequences (within a quite quarantined earth, by the way).
What still isn't clear, however, is how this precisely fits into some of the things you all have already mentioned: councils of Gods, infinite regression of Gods, becoming Gods, etc. But I think these things are less important when we try to tackle the question of theodicy (at least until the matter [no pun intended] of creation of ex nihilo is addressed).
A (less serious but hopefully no less useful) addendum: to illustrate that this matter God has to work with has some quite serious defects and limitations, I merely point you to the picture recently posted on this blog, which I'm sure you've all seen.
If God can take THAT and do something with it, that is a true God indeed. :)
okay anonymous: your little shpill about creation ex nihilo, while amusing, cannot be taken seriously until you give your name. no commenting anonymously on this web log. also, i would like to refute a few things you pointed out.
first, the photograph recently posted on this web log shows, indeed, what can come of matter when the work of God bonds electrons ionically. it is a beautiful, beautiful thing, and your judgement is very much cramping our style.
second, the fact that god is just an organizer, not a creator, doesn't answer the question of where it all came from in the first place. what you said just fits in with what James has already said: that God is just part of a larger thing and is subject to eternal laws of agency, opposition, etc. but that still doesn't answer where evil comes from. i don't think your idea really is the 'key thing' that 'really gets God out of this mess.' i don't see how it is any different than James idea of God being a part of a larger framework.
a problem still exists in the fact that we still don't know where evil comes from. is it from an all-supreme God (certainly out theology leaves room for one of those) or a governing council of Gods, etc. if something like that is the case, then we are back with our problem of theodicy, unsolved. if agency, evil, and opposition are eternal laws, then God is not omnipotent. its more about god's power, not about what he created. of course, we know that god did not create the laws, and that is where the real key lies: that god is subject to eternal laws of agency and opposition.
anonymous: please give your name. thank you.
okay, stephen, fair enough. my "little shpill" was never intended to tie up all the lose ends and be the end all and be all, but I hold to the position that it remains "key". any Mormon tackling this question should consider and take this into account, and perhaps, even build around it (maybe even like a "keystone" if you will), because of the way it fundamentally changes the landscape of the theodicy question. My salient points remain: If you start with a premise of creation ex nihilo, there isn't ANY evil that is not traced back to God. If, on the other hand, you reject creation ex nihilo, then it is possible that, in fact, NO evil is traced back to God.
And if it doesn't get God completely out of the mess, at least it makes it so he isn't in the mess alone--others are in the mess, too. And God can ultimately be seen as the one who takes charge and out of love works to instigate a plan to get everything out of the mess, instead of the one who got everything there in the first place. Would you agree that this changes the theodicy question quite a bit?
You are right in saying that this doesn't answer the origin of evil (and it was never meant to), but it does go a long way by saying that all evil isn't God's--and isn't this key in the question of THEOdicy? Instead, perhaps, the question becomes a COSMOdicy--why is the UNIVERSE such that so much evil exists? And again, God is the one who stood amidst this chaos and decided to try and make it better and create ways to alleviate the evil.
This position, as you astutely point out, fits within Jame's observation that God does, in fact, operate within a wider framework--and again, not to beat this to death, but a framework which he didn't create, but rather found himself in the middle of. Read Abraham 3:16-28 as relating to the the question of theodicy (but not one stemming from a God who created ex nihilo) and I think the Mormon question of theodicy becomes quite different.
So, I don't think evil comes from a God or a council of gods--and by rejecting creation ex nihilo we aren't even forced to this conclusion. Perhaps evil is a part of the intrinsic nature of (chaotic) matter itself--especially matter as it becomes joined and coupled with agency. Now, this answer probably isn't sufficient, but at least we aren't painted into a corner of ascribing it all to God or gods, like you seem to suggest.
And, as I should have pointed out in my first post, I wholeheartedly agree with you that God is not "omnipotent", at least, as you rightly say, in the classical/philosophical sense. Doesn't the fact that there is co-eternal matter with God imply that? So, again I agree: When we Mormons say that God is "omnipotent", we don't really mean "omnipotent". Perhaps what we mean is that God has all the power needed to maintain a righteous order in the parts of the universe that belong to him (i.e., "his kingdom")(suggesting that certain parts are yet "unorganized"--which was the case at one point with our own little earth and solar system) and that he is able to fulfill all of his promises and words he has spoken to humankind. And perhaps by omnipotence, we also mean that he is the greatest force for good in the universe--a force which no other force can overcome.
Perhaps again we should point out that the only evil we encounter happens on this little planet that is completely qurantined from the rest of the universe--so we have no notion of cosmic evil or how that might operate or how it relates to God's omnipotence.
And can it be the case that all the evil in this world, while quite sorrowful to God (see Moses 7), is allowed by (but not attributable to) God (and kept in check by God) for his righteous purposes? If so, the theodicy question becomes quite different.
This certainly doesn't solve all the questions; in fact, it brings up some even more tricky and hard to answer questions. I have no intention of being dogmatic but am only trying to sharpen our focus on what should really be asked as Mormons of the theodicy question. As Mormons, I don't think we should struggle with wondering how God is responsible for the creation of all evil, since it doesn't seem according to Mormon teachings that he is.
As for my comments about primal intelligence and your recently posted picture: I still stand by them. :)
omigosh anonymous. i can't even read your comments if you insist on remaining masked and anonymous. please make yourself known in order to be considered seriously.
stephen.
nice post. don't know how I didn't catch on earlier. its late and I'm at the airport waiting for a redeye back to you. so I don't know if any of my "salient points will remain," but I subscribe to the idea that evil existed before us and god. thus god did not create it, but was confined to include it I his plan. but that also begs the question, if we can be so quick to remove blame/responsibility from god regarding evil, how can we be so quick to ascribe all good deeds to Him. if good and evil both existed before god, then how can we attribute and excuse as fits our own consciences.
anonymous.
brevity is bliss. don't take yourself so seriously.
petey:
point taken, I will be brief. I agree with you that we shouldn't be so quick in ascribing all good immediately to God, but when he isn't viewed as the necessary author of evil, it at least opens the door to consider such (or a million other options that don't immediately incriminate him). at least now the scriptural portrait of God is a viable option, whether we accept this or not.
Hey anonydude: you should go ahead and re-post the exact same concepts that have already been posted, but put them in your own words. NO, do it TWICE. That's better. Seriously, it's like a high school book report. No, it's like TWO high school book reports.
OK I kid, I kid. That was a little harsh.
You do bring up a good point though: is the evil we perceive the same as 'cosmic' evil? Or do we even have a chance at getting to the root of what evil is and where it comes from? Pete also makes a good point: God is the root of neither good nor evil, he is only our creator/organizer and father.
I think all this talk about it not being God's fault mostly just goes to answer Ehrman's original qualm: Can I believe in a god who permits all the suffering in the world? I'm not sure if we are equipped enough to answer the question of where all this mystical evil comes from. Or maybe I just don't really want to type anymore.
I promise this is my last ridiculously long post.
Post a Comment