[net.religion] Why is there evil?

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/12/84)

In article <1096@trwrba.UUCP> jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) writes:

> This is a basic problem... why did God put evil in the world.

Good question.  Both Judaism and Christianity claim that God did not "put"
evil in the world; but it is abundantly clear that if He exists, he
allows it to continue.

This a fundamental problem with both Judaism and Christianity, and doesn't
appear to have any really satisfactory explanation which makes everybody
happy.  I suggest, for starters, Harold Kushner's book _Why Bad Things
Happen to Good People_.

I personally don't have an explanation.

Charley Wingate    umcp-cs!mangoe

ken@gitpyr.UUCP (Ken Hall) (11/15/84)

> > This is a basic problem... why did God put evil in the world.
> 
> Good question.  Both Judaism and Christianity claim that God did not "put"
> evil in the world; but it is abundantly clear that if He exists, he
> allows it to continue.
> 
> This a fundamental problem with both Judaism and Christianity, and doesn't
> appear to have any really satisfactory explanation which makes everybody
> happy.  I suggest, for starters, Harold Kushner's book _Why Bad Things
> Happen to Good People_.
> 
> I personally don't have an explanation.

Why is there evil?  A very good question that both Judaism and Christianity
answer.  I don't want to get too involved, as it is a very profound question;
but it does have an answer.

Many places in the Old Testament it says, to the effect,

	"Can there be evil in the world and God has not created it?"

or to put it as Isaiah said, 

	"God creates light and darkness,
	"He creates good and evil" (paraphrased)

Also, we have to realize that the Bible, Old and New Testament, put a very
great responsibility of evil upon all men and women.  I do not think I have
to quote Scripture here.

So, who is responsible for evil?  God.  Man.  Or the devil. 

My opinion is, and I'll admit that it is shortsighted at best, but from what
I know about the Scriptures, etc, etc, I think that man is the cause of evil,
yet God allows or permits man to do evil, and God also allows or permits
satan to do evil; but God allows evil to exist for a GOOD reason.  It has to
be for a good reason since God is all-good and all-loving.  It could be no
other way.  $$But catch this:  God takes the responsibility of evil upon 
Himself, knowing that man cannot deal with it by himself, and He comes into
this world in the form of a man in order to destroy evil or to kill evil or
to nullify evil in this world.

I know this is very simplified, and that words are not the best way to
understand such things, but I offer this short blurb and a beginning to
understand this thing called "evil".

Ken Hall

walker@noscvax.UUCP (Janet M. Walker) (11/16/84)

>In article <1096@trwrba.UUCP> jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) writes:
>
>Good question.  Both Judaism and Christianity claim that God did not "put"
>evil in the world; but it is abundantly clear that if He exists, he
>allows it to continue.
>
In my opinion:  God gave us Free Will in this world.  That  means  we  have
the  ability,  responsibility,  freedom  to  make  choices.  If  we weren't
allowed to make 'bad' choices (i.e. those that hurt  ourselves  or  others)
then  we  wouldn't  really  have  free will, would we?  I also believe that
those who are innocently hurt by others' bad  choices  will  eventually  be
recompensed  far  beyond whatever they may have had to endure.  Also, if we
make a bad choice we will continue to  be  given  the  same  'test'  until,
hopefully, we get it right.

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/16/84)

A simple question deserves a simple answer.

There is evil because there are other people in the world doing things that
might harm us.  A hurricane demolishing an entire village is a natural
phenomenon, and is therefore not good or evil.  The same applies to epidemics
and other natural disasters/catastrophes.  A person/persons taking advantage
of a catastrophe by exploiting the victims (e.g., selling them needed supplies
at overinflated prices) might be considered evil.  But, then again, if he's
the only one making supplies available, and he is taken away/killed/stopped
by someone who feels that he is evil, some might consider his being killed/
stopped/whatever to be an evil act.

This is because evil is defined as whatever does us harm.  The invading armies
attacking a city might be considered evil to the city's inhabitants.  But the
attackers may be attacking because they blame (maybe unjustly) the city they
are now attacking for an attack made against THEIR city.  Who is evil?
Everyone.  Because who is evil depends on your perspective.

A society may set up rules that describe things that are "evil" not to
particular individuals, but rather to the society as a whole.  (e.g.,
treason)  To keep a society stable, rules may be defined that make any
number of things "evil" or wrong.  (e.g., rules on murder, adultery, theft,
etc. may apply here)

Religion claims that there is something beyond these notions of subjective
good and evil, promoting the notion of an objective or universal set of
good-evil rules.  Yet clearly there can be no such thing.  In the "twin
cities" example above, who was good and who was evil?  Is city 2 evil because
they are attacking?  Is city 1 evil because city 2 assumes that they committing
an "evil" act?  Is city 2 good because they justify their attack by saying
that a deity has told them that it is good to attack them?  (or because they
invoke an "eye-for-an-eye" law?)

This is a prime example of wishful thinking in religion.  It would be nice
for there to be absolute good and evil, but given that there are innumerable
people with innumerable perspectives on what is good and evil to them, can
there be a universal version of the dichotomy that applies to everything
the same way (or would you just like it to be that way)?
-- 
"Come with me now to that secret place where
 the eyes of man have never set foot."		Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr

emjej@uokvax.UUCP (11/26/84)

/***** uokvax:net.religion / noscvax!walker /  1:18 am  Nov 20, 1984 */
In my opinion:  God gave us Free Will in this world.  That  means  we  have
the  ability,  responsibility,  freedom  to  make  choices.  If  we weren't
allowed to make 'bad' choices (i.e. those that hurt  ourselves  or  others)
then  we  wouldn't  really  have  free will, would we?  I also believe that
those who are innocently hurt by others' bad  choices  will  eventually  be
recompensed  far  beyond whatever they may have had to endure.  Also, if we
make a bad choice we will continue to  be  given  the  same  'test'  until,
hopefully, we get it right.
/* ---------- */

The notion of God executing	for x in `ls human` do
					(while ChooseEvil $x do
						GiveAnotherChance $x
					done) &
				done

is as hard to reconcile with the supposed goodness of God as the usual

	for x in `ls human` do
		(if ChooseEvil $x then
			Fry $x
		fi) &
	done

because arbitrary large finite quantities of suffering can still
occur.  It seems as though creating humans without free will so they
always do the "right thing" would be a lot shorter way to get to the
same postcondition. (I myself lean towards Smullyan's comparison of a
sentient being exercising free will with a rock in free fall.)

						James Jones

(While explaining things to my parents, I've said that there were those who
were convinced that the computers in heaven run Unix and that God is a C hacker,
but I still can't believe I did this... :-> )

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/27/84)

Rich Rosen and I agree that evil is rooted in subjective impressions of
things that make our relative fitness lower than it could be.  Theologians
may make up abstract categories and "reasons" (such as Satan) for evil,
but if you observe ideas of evil that are not theologically inspired, there
is an inverse corellation to whatever we could do to improve our fitness.

Recently I read "Journey To The West" (the excellent and lengthy translation
by Anthony Yu).  I recommend it for non-christian ideas of good and evil,
as well as a ripping good folk mythology.  It took me a while to get over the
culture shock, but in combination with other folk tales and anthropological
studies, it has confirmed cultural relativism for me once again.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh