Free-will is usually argued to be the main defense of the problem of evil. One problem with that, is that we implement laws to stop evil. Suppose a person would steal if he knew there would be no possible consequence. He would steal a car or a big screen TV. The fact we have laws that push his will, into not stealing, we don't see as a cause of infringement of free-will. Yes he is in a way pushed to do otherwise. If we could do it, we would have criminals caught every time they commit crimes, that way, we get rid of crime all together.

When it comes to benefits out of suffering, the explanation that in some way it is good for us, gives us opportunity, would mean we shouldn't really feel bad about when someone suffers. Suppose a little girl was raped, should we feel bad about it? Why should we feel bad about it. Simply because something terrible has happened. Theodicy attempts to say it's not really terrible, it gives you opportunity to overcome, or to forgive, or whatever, seems really to go against how we feel about issue. When someone is tortured, we don't think, it was good for the person. It's even worse when it comes to those doing the crime. If it's all good for everyone, and everything that happens is good for people, then how guilty should the person feel about it, and what makes it a crime any longer, if it's actually good for the person.

When it comes to natural disasters, diseases, etc, again, should we feel sad about what happened? The same logic applies. It's obviously something we should want to not happen and feel bad about it when it happens...so Theodicy attempts seem weak.

I feel a better attempt is to look at overall picture. What could possibly be the purposes of an over all goal.

Every fictional hero has to face some adversity, for his heroism to shine. Sure if we lived in a world where everyone was happy, there was no conflicts, there was no suferring, we would be happy, but would the opportunity to be a better human be there.

I don't think natural disasters, or diseases, or a person being raped or tortured are good for the people it happens. Sure it gives opportunity to have patience and soul development, but it's not necessary for the soul to be good, to be honorable, to go through that. And I think we should feel bad about these things happening to people, and want it to not occur.

I think it's more complicated then that. A hero like Batman is loved to a degree higher then love towards other humans. The type of love towards people whom are not so good, is more of compassion type love. The love towards heroes is another type of love. If we believe our love is a manifestation of God's love, then we would imagine the love towards heroes God has is a different type of love, then that of normal people as well.

It's easy to say I support justice, but when your country does or supports injustice, can you go against them, and speak up for the oppressed. I don't want to give examples because I don't want this to be a political discussion. But the point is, without nationalism, without love of allies, without the ties of religion, it would've been easy for people to see injustice and justice, but it takes a better person, to go against his own people, to speak about the injustice of his own people, the evil of his own people.

When it comes to things like natural disasters. I was thinking of a Du'a in Saheefa Sajadiya, the ones about people of frontiers, which prays against enemies to get affliction of nature. And here I think it's a test of human beings again. It's easy when your own people are afflicted to feel compassion and want to help them, but it's a different manner when it's a people you don't feel connection to, or more so, when it's a nation that is enemy to your nation.

It's easy to want your own people to go to heaven when natural disaster afflicts them, but can you feel the same about different cultures and people.

Our wills are being tested...how we feel towards other humans...do we belittle their sufferring just because they are not our people...etc

It's easy to feel compassion when a friend or family member suffers, but can you extend some of that love and compassion towards other humans?

When you look at the world, we see forces playing against ys. Our love of family makes us bias towards our religion. Propaganda by certain people might make you against other people.

It's easy to have loved everyone if we were all one nation, one language, one religion or no religion, yeah it's easy.

It's easy to see the good of your own heroes, but to belittle heroes of others. It's easy to honor your warriors, but belittle the warriors of opposing nations.

The world I see it, is a world where a struggle can emerge, and bring out a real hero.

The real test of heroism seems to me to belong in politics. Yeah in private, it's easy for people to love God, Worship God, be good to their neighbours, family, own people, etc..

This is the easy thing to do. What is hard is having a political view that is intertwined with God's will. I don't want to get into a big discussion about politics, but I think the "evil" of people really is in their political thinking. It's influenced by factors, and they suppress the divine will, when it comes to the ideal goodness. But if it was so easy to be in line with the divine will - then again, it makes the hero whom triumphs less then a hero.

The point in all this discussion, is the messed up world we live in, gives opportunity for heroes. We can see by our love of fictional characters like Batman, that our love of heroes is special and is not like the love of other people. It's a special type of love, and if we believe our love is a manifestation of divine love, we can see why God would want heroes, because he has a special love towards such people.

Sure it's easy if we all were wealthy in paradise, to value life, but with so much people in poverty, it makes you question, what should we value in life. And here it seems God values dignity and honor more then happiness. And it seems deep down we all know we should, but it's another thing if we do.

Sure it's easy for everyone to tell themselves, "I want to know the truth..." but it's another matter when you have to face bias and indoctrination and propaganda, to actually "seek the truth"...People are inclined to support falsehood and moral wrong and injustice, because of emotional attachment to their identity. Sure God could have created us without bias, but then it would be easy to arrive at the truth. It's harder when you make wrong decisions and have to correct yourself even though you are emotionally attached to those decisions.

I'm not going to say a life of hardship is better then a life of ease, or that suffering is better then non-suffering, but I see a world where our will is really tested, and we are given opportunities to become heroes, even if such people are very few.

With oppression, we have opportunity to be on the side of all oppressed, and be against all oppressors.

With suffering, we get opportunity of where our compassion and love could really shine.

Now perhaps my perspective doesn't solve the issue of evil in eyes of the proponents of the problem of evil. But it at the very least looks at the bright side and that could be good for atheists as well.

Please correct me if my summary is faulty, there was a bit of repetition;

The problem of evil, makes logical sense if we consider the world to be a platform for the human race to conquer adversity, and by doing so increase their spiritual worth in the eyes of a supernatural entity. The true test (or heroism) of such spiritual worth is through politics, and the willingness to oppose the prevailing view in order to do the supernatural entitys will.

Trying not to make value judgments on a God here or comparisons, hence the strained definition on supernatural. Hopefully this covers your point. Please point out if this is an inaccurate summary. It's simply easier for me to phrase my thoughts vs this summary than your whole post. I apologise if any terms I use are inaccurate, I don't have a classical philosophical education.

My main problem with this particular theodicy comes separately in two sides of evil. There is the determined evil (Evil perpetrated on purpose) and undetermined evil (Pain and suffering without a single or direct cause).

In terms of a determined evil, such as rape, murder, theft of the last chocolate in the box etc, is that in order to justify the moral good of correctly interpreting a God's will, we must have agents whom enforce the requirement to do so.
We are effectively saying, that an "evil" act, is inherently good in providing a situation for others to overcome.
If we accept this as true (and I'm sure we don't), does punishment only exist in order to keep "determined evil" to manageable levels? Too much evil and we can't overcome it, not enough and we can't be heroic enough, or the goldilocks "just right" amount of evil.

If we consider undetermined acts, such as a plagues of famine, or disease, a tsunami, we can see the bright side that at least we can support those less fortunate than ourselves?
I disagree on the basis of relative morality. Famine, plague, tsunami, majority of mankind in poverty is EXCESSIVE TO REQUIREMENTS for this theodicy.
Though I would agree famine and poverty are often politically caused, that's irrelevant to the point. How many people need to die in order for you to take a political stand for the oppressed?
Does 5 oppressed people warrant standing for gods views? One? A Thousand? A "Perfect" being should be able to calculate this rather precisely, but we are faced with devastation and pain that would engender political or charitable action if it was only a tenth as bad. We have to question the supernatural entities moral character at this point.

To be honest, even these are trivial criticisms of this view, and there's certainly more to be said, and as you said, it doesn't solve the issue of evil. It looks on the 'bright side', but what bright side of acting in accordance to the will of a supernatural entity, if we do so only to curry favour with it.
Heroism and Charity require empathy, and I do not believe this view values the simple act of empathy strongly enough as a reason to do 'good' beyond vying for the attention of a supernatural entity suffering from histrionic personality disorder.

I explained how natural disasters, disease, etc, give opportunity towards a heroic spirit. I don't think I can make a simple thesis. I tried to explain how all these things play a role in adversity, and we get tested. All of it plays a role...And my view of why politics plays a vital role in this, is because nationalism plays a force to overcome in supporting justice, loving other humans, and being moral. Also when actual suferring occurs, that is when we can really know how compassionate and loving we are. Otherwise, everyone in a perfect world can love others, but this would not be high type of love. There is more heroic love. It's easy to become cold-hearted at suferring at others, which I believe much of the world is, which is why it's more heroic when you overcome that. It's the same with being just and supporting justice.

Freewill has nothing to do with evil. Also we write laws in hope of stopping evil, we implement laws to punish the one who has done the evil, evil in it's self is not punished.

(February 20, 2012 at 5:24 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I explained how natural disasters, disease, etc, give opportunity towards a heroic spirit.

Yes, and I explained, that in order for this to be the case, they are excessive to requirements in order to create a situation for people to show heroism.
Not only that, but in addition, this simple fact of excessive to requirements shows that a God in this situation is either absent, or ambivalent to evil. In order for your thesis to be true, evil must be in the goldilocks zone of evil. The world cannot be too evil, or not evil enough.
As a counter thesis, I would also state that the heroism to stand against the prevailing view also stands for the evil inflicted by religion itself. Which may well be true to a pissed off deist god who sees everyone "got the wrong idea". Still doesn't answer why he is absent, or ambivalent to the excessive evils of this world.
We certainly don't want to solve world starvation now! Good god, how would we show our political charity to condemn those that rely on it.

Quote:.... is because nationalism plays a force to overcome in supporting justice

I need more detail on this. I'm reading that as "God must just love it when countries start wars based on conflicting political ideologies, because gosh, they are so heroic in standing up for their nationalism."
I'm sure thats NOT what you mean.
Whose nationality exactly are we talking about. Does God have a favourite?

Quote:I believe much of the world is, which is why it's more heroic when you overcome that. It's the same with being just and supporting justice.

I refer to my earlier point. Its excessive to requirements. It seems clear there is more than enough suffering to go around and show my moral character to overcome a "cold-heart" to suffering.
Why, in this theory.. .is it excessive to requirement.

Or god doesn't have anything to do with the actual evil.....

He just likes to watch.

Thats creepy as hell.

Well it's your opinion that it's excessive...I can't really argue with it, but you haven't really proven it either.

I would say the evidence is via ignorance.

We are unaware of the vast majority of suffering in the world, therefore it is surplus to requirements.

TL;DR

I think I would like to bump this for more feedback.

Why even go there?

Here is the reality, simple and sweet.

There is a stupid misunderstanding most humans fall for in "either/or" propositions.

Nature, and the laws of the universe are neither all deterministic or all random, but BOTH.

Weather, like a snow storm is deterministic only in the sense of CONDITIONS. What is random is the amount of snowflakes in exact number.

The laws in science are BOTH chaos and order.

Even in human behavior such as crime. We cannot predict which individual will do what, but we do know that certain conditions can lead to more of a certain behavior, even if it is not an absolute for every individual in that group.

The problem with language, literally, is that there is a GENERAL huge difference between when a layperson uses a word, and a scientist uses a word.

Scientific method, if it is to grow and the people who use that tool are ethical, NEVER talk in terms of absolutes. They always talk in terms of conditions and probabilities and range as a guide.

One of the worst example of how theists twist a scientific word is the word "law". To the theist they falsely think of it as political construct in a court. When scientists use the word "law" they mean it in a COMPLETELY different context.

It merely is a word used to describe the observations they have noted that to the best of their data, cant be broken.

So when it comes to suffering, why does it happen? Because nature and evolution is not concerned with suffering because it is not a being, but a process.