So I have this new friend whom I should have met years ago, but I don't believe I was smart enough then. Anyways, he hangs out at Jules' too so that makes us friends; that and the fact that he thinks a lot about things due to one of his majors being Philosophy. I still don't think I've found anyone who devotes as much time as I do to thoughts, but he comes closer than most.
One glorious evening, we started talking about Taoism and philosophy and the problem of Evil. I have no problem with God and Evil coexisting, but this conversation focused on the creation of evil. That was a problem for me since I believe Evil is the absence of God [not to say that God is the absence of Evil]; I couldn't get my mind around even an omnipotent God creating the absence of Himself. That is until another friend was discussing the idea that God can remove Himself. Let me explain in a more tangible concept:
I used to throw pots [clay on a potter's wheel] and absolutely loved it. I still have a notion that I will have a pottery shed near or in my house one day. Anyways, when you begin making a vessel it starts with a solid lump of clay; it has to be free of air pockets or it will ruin the vessel. After centering the lump on the center of the wheel, you begin to form it into a cone-like shape and manipulate the form with your fingers. If you press your thumbs into the center, the clay is dispersed and removed from that area. Such a simple event has always fascinated me and now I understand why.
This is what God has done: He is the lump of clay [I may go to hell for comparing Him to something so minimal...] and He removes Himself to create this void, He removes Himself. This creates a vessel! That is important because a vessel is functional, just as Evil is functional. [Free Will is only possible with the possibility of us choosing Evil over Good.] Without the absence of clay, nothing will be contained; the vessel is merely clay. [Below is a paper I wrote a while ago for an Intro class to Philosophy; nothing special but it may help clarify.]
God did not NEED to create evil and has no intention for us to live there, but He is not self-interested, not just clay, so He has emptied and removed part of Himself so that we could be contained in His love, in Him. He has created Evil for our sake, but HE DID NOT CREATE US FOR EVIL.
So the balance of Good and Evil comes through the possibility of Evil with Good; it is the removal of God by God, perhaps His justice. We have a hard time understanding Good without Evil, but we never needed Evil to understand Good. A hunch of mine is that perhaps the Tree of Knowledge from which we took the apple contained the knowledge of Evil.
Phil 101
Dr. Harwood
April 29, 2006
Both skilled and unskilled philosophers have discussed the questions about why good people suffer and bad people thrive. There seems to be multiple perspectives that would adequately address or solve the issues of compatibility between moral evil and God. The most highly accredited and frequently used are that of atheism, the claim that there is evil because there is no God, and the free will defense, which claims that God gave us free will because without it there would be no genuine relationship between God and humans. The issue of natural evil, however, is not as popular and poses a greater threat on the belief in God.
Natural or ontic evil is the result of the way the world operates. The proper use of the word ‘evil’ is questionable; it is my understanding that natural evil should simply be referred to as ‘pain.’ Something is only evil if it causes pain. For example, is a tsunami evil if it does not hurt anyone or anything? The question still arises of why there is pain in the world.
Much of natural evil is unexplainable without encompassing the idea of a supreme being. How can an omnipotent God create such evil? First one must either accept the idea that God exists. Atheism leaves no explanation for natural evil but addresses the confusion involving God. If one does believe there is an omnipotent God then there is more work to be done.
The free will defense and question of moral evil is easy to understand because humans are visibly fallible and chose to sin. Some natural occurrences can even be put into the morally evil category. The cause of many future health problems and higher death rates is strongly correlated to our poor environmentalism. However, hurricane Katrina is not as easily attributed to human behavior; it was beyond our control. Belief in an omnipotent God would suggest that natural evil is God’s doing.
This idea is highly debatable. To accept an omnipotent God leads to two premises. One can understand God as a puppet master who controls everything. The second possibility is that God allows randomness despite His omnipotence; just because God can do anything doesn’t mean He will.
The former premise can lead to altered views of a just God, or that all evil is moral; the natural occurrences are punishment for something of our own doings. Pain could possibly exist in order for us to experience the good in life, a way of measuring happiness through contrast. The latter involves more of an understanding of spontaneity and mitigates the need to interpret God’s motives.
These ideas based upon an omnipotent God do not satisfy those who believe in a God who is all-good. The question of why God created us with the ability to experience pain is confusing. If God cares about us then there must be some reason for the sensation of pain. The most plausible explanation is that without pain we would destroy ourselves.
Take for instance a hot stove or fire. Without pain we would not know that our bodies cannot bear those conditions causing a lot of unknown damage [and possibly death] to ourselves. Pain serves a positive purpose; it purifies us and makes us do things that we would never do without it.
I agree with the statement that whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. Without pain we are lazy. We need pain to rock the boat and activate us; if we had no need for food or shelter we would have no need to work. In a world without pain there are no needs, and without needs there is no progress. Extraordinary people are that way because they have overcome great sufferings and have grown from their experiences. This does not mean that pain does not hurt; it’s very painful.
Perhaps this is a gift that God has given us, and we let our painful sensations override the fact that we benefit from some suffering. This does not excuse moral evil however. Moral evil may appear to be acceptable because the end result might also be that of increased strength, but pain is not ours in inflict on someone else. We do not have the right to control what belongs to God. We should not push others to progress but rather acknowledge the positive purpose that pain has served.
Overall the idea that pain is evil is a misconception. Pain serves a purpose; it protects us. Even though the painful experience can feel like a punishment, suffering can have a redeeming value. That is, of course, if it does not ruin the person. The all-good God is still all-good, and the omnipotent God is still all-powerful even if He chooses not to use those powers.
