The problem of evil revisited.

[genkaus]

God didn't set up the system that millions of children ought to be starving. We have enough resources to feed them. This is our own doing. We also set up a system in which third world countries don't have much of a chance. But again, this us doing it. Not God.

Actually, he did set up that system. He made them weak and helpless, incapable of getting their own food or even understanding that they need to. Humans didn't have the resources or the capacity to feed all the starving for most of their existence. They didn't even have any idea about how to go about getting that capacity.

Humans are the ones who changed the system - they are the ones who built their capacity and resources to the extent that many of the children who'd have starved before don't have to now. But the system itself, that'd be your god's doing.

The alternative would be for God to nanny us when we get things wrong.

And that would be a better system.

But that world, our own moral responsibility would not be there as much, and we would expect God to do all sorts of things for us. A world where he interferes contradicts the design of the world for character building.

On the contrary - proper guidance and judicious intervention are required for character building. Take children for example - parents (or nannies) shouldn't fix everything for their kids. But they shouldn't leave them completely to their devices either. Its their responsibility to provide an environment conducive to character building - guiding the right character building in words and by positive reinforcement, discouraging negative traits, meeting their basic needs to promote physical and mental health, protection from damaging influences and freedom to develop their character within this framework. A child may want his parent to fulfill his every whim - but that places no obligation on the parent to do so.

However that said. The suffering will be trivial to infinite bliss, so the character building is worth it.

Not if the same results can be achieved without the same amount of suffering. And certainly not if the suffering becomes detrimental to it.

All I'm saying for all we know, the system he designed (our universe) is the best one for character building.

But we know that it isn't because we have built a better system.

---

The problem of evil as proposed by theologians and philosophers exists because of belief in god. The question is why would god allow evil. Without god the existence of evil is not a riddle, just a natural occurrence and the only real question is what should we do about it. Saying wouldn't it be nice if god accounted for it in the next life, is just lazy. Much better to deal with it here and now.

I think it's part of dealing with the here and now to acknowledge there is wisdom behind it all.

Only if you start with the assumption of that wisdom.

[Bibliofagus]

So... God has been building the African character harder than European characters for thousands of years and he still has to hit them harder? Is your god racist?

[genkaus]

Well those who don't build character and chose a lousy character don't deserve to have an honorable character.

Now about who will live in eternal bliss, that's left to open debate in the theodicy. It can be that evil people will not be given eternal bliss but punished. It can be that evil people will be forgiven but not have the honorable character the good people developed. Or it can be that they will cease to exist.

I think the reward good people get is worth the sacrifice.

Worth it for them. What do the others get out of it? Those who can't build a character or build the wrong one - what point does their suffering serve?

---

One thing I guess I'm not taking account in, is children dying. They don't get to build character.

But it still can be said they will have eternal bliss and the over all system that makes a lot people build character is worth it.

If the same result can be achieved without any character building, then the character building part is not necessary and therefore the system is not worth it.

[Exian]

Mystic,

I know you're getting hit pretty hard by a lot of us here, but I would like to hear how serial killers fit into your model of God's best plan? Here you have three actors to consider: (1) The character of the killer (evil personified), (2) the murdered victim, and (3) the character of the people effected indirectly. Although, I'm most curious about what you'll have to say about the killer. I'm sure you can explain away the other two.

[Chas]

One thing I guess I'm not taking account in, is children dying. They don't get to build character.

But it still can be said they will have eternal bliss and the over all system that makes a lot people build character is worth it.

There are other things you have not taken into account such as evidence and reason.

[Angrboda]

This whole argument is also premised on the assumption that suffering builds character. While this is a commonly held platitude, there seems little evidence that in general, suffering builds more character than it destroys. In particular, Jonathan Haidt notes that adversity only appears to be beneficial to certain character types and at certain stages of life; for all others, the suffering is purely gratuitous, or worse.

---

This excerpt is based on a defense that evil serves to warn people away from immoral conduct, but the same could readily apply to 'character building'.

...If we must suffer as a warning from God, we would expect it to far more clear. Most people who suffer have no idea that it is part of a warning from God. Indeed, the whole question of whether evil is a warning is far from certain among theists. We would expect God to communicate His purposes to the sufferers of a natural disaster. He could easily do this through dreams, religious experiences or by writing it in holy books. For example, it could have been clearly stated in the Bible that the purpose of hurricanes is to remind people that they must commit less sin. Alternatively, the survivors of a hurricane could have dreams that inform them that the purpose of the hurricane was to help them to mend their ways.

. . . . .

The theodicy runs up against problems at (d). Unwitnessed suffering of very young children does not appear to warn anyone of anything.

At point (e) we note that the theodicy is incapable of explaining the geographical variations in human suffering. For example, it is uncontroversial that an inhabitant of Bangladesh is far more likely to experience suffering (e.g. due to flooding) than a randomly chosen human elsewhere in the world. There is surely a possible world where suffering is distributed approximately evenly, giving everyone a chance to experience it first hand. Undoubtedly, learning about severe suffering and death (e.g. by TV news) may act to warn people to some extent, but it would seem reasonable that first hand experience of suffering is far more likely to effectively warn people. As a result, it seems that we can only make sense of the theodicy if we make the implausible assumption that the inhabitants of Bangladesh need far more warning than the average human.

Finally, referring to (f), it appears that the theodicy has dubious ethical consequences. When people work towards reducing human misery, their actions make the implicit assumption that such suffering serves no worthwhile purpose. Given that God is trying to warn people by causing them suffering, it is not at all clear that we should act to help people. For example, it seems that we would be directly opposing God's wishes if we give the casualty of a natural disaster some pain killing drugs before he experiences any significant suffering. To be in line with God's wishes, we should first allow the victim to receive a warning by suffering somewhat. Since this is absurd, we have good reason to doubt the plausibility of the theodicy.

The Evidential Argument from Evil, Nicholas Tattersall

And finally, if suffering builds character, and character leads to reward, is this not a prescription for seeking out suffering?

[Angrboda]

character, n.
9. a. The sum of the moral and mental qualities which distinguish an individual or a people, viewed as a homogeneous whole; a person's or group's individuality deriving from environment, culture, experience, etc.; mental or moral constitution, personality.

It would seem a truism that a person of good character expresses that good character through good deeds, for what is character but the expression of such. However, I think you have a problem here in that causing a person suffering is a pre-requisite for good results, your so-called eternal reward. Thus, a person who causes others suffering is effectively doing God's work, encouraging the good result of building character through their evil acts. You've essentially defined causing suffering as a kind of moral good, which leads to the awkward result that the bully and the sociopath are actually doing good deeds, and, that thereby, they are considered to have good character and to merit eternal reward. This seems the unfortunate result you have any time you make evil a necessary pre-requisite of the good; you've inverted the value of that evil and made it into a good. You could get around this through Divine Command Theory, that the good is what God says is good, but as a deist, that route is closed to you. Thus you are left with this unfortunate side effect of sanctioning evil in order to justify the existence of suffering.

[Mudhammam]

A bit suspicious that this alleged "character-building" contraption involves all of the same determinants that literally fuck over every other living organism on the planet. But ours is for a very special purpose because of our lucky position as objects of divine love. The rest? Collateral damage... because ya know, a benevolent, wise, Creator can.

[bennyboy]

I think reading this thread is building character in me right now. Certainly, it's causing me to suffer.

[genkaus]

You've essentially defined causing suffering as a kind of moral good, which leads to the awkward result that the bully and the sociopath are actually doing good deeds, and, that thereby, they are considered to have good character and to merit eternal reward.

Why is that an awkward result? It allows him to claim that due to this everyone qualifies for eternal reward. And that was his omnibenevolent god's plan all along - to make the rules such that everyone gets to have the eternal bliss.