Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Removing the Constraints

The Problem)

In my last post I explained how the Problem of Evil, the common argument that the suffering of the world is incompatible with the existence of God, was dependent upon two presuppositions.

  1. That God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent.
  2. That our reality is created out of nothing.

When both of these are combined it means that God could have created our existence to operate by any system that He wanted, but He chose to specifically use one where suffering was necessary for growth and transcendence. And what is more, because we, ourselves, are created ex nihilo as well, we never had any agency in being added to this system, nor any say in the consequences that await us on the other side.

But I finished the last post by promising to show that not all Christian faiths, and not all non-Christian faiths, hold to these two presuppositions, and that this conundrum comes apart in these other contexts. I will show one example of both.

Eternal Souls)

The first example comes from my own Christian faith: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Our theology is unique among Christians in that we believe that we are co-eternal with God. Not only in the sense that we will live for eternity after death, but that we lived for eternity before birth. We believe that our souls, like God, are uncreated, and therefore their nature is not subject to His design.

This is important for two reasons. The first is because it suggests that the way suffering seems to be a necessary component for cultivating the fulness of our potential is baked into us from before the creation of this world. It is not a stipulation that God put upon us but a pre-existing quality that He had to account for. He designed this world to be suited to our nature, not the other way around. It is also likely that the pains of an afterlife torment are simply inherent to our pre-existing nature when we choose to live after the manner of rebellion, not an arbitrary consequence crafted by God.

The other important point is that our entering into this current state was voluntary. We believe that God proposed the creation of this world and mortal experience to us, with an understanding of all it would entail, including the hardships and dangers therein, and that we willfully chose it. We chose it because it was the right method to draw out our full potential, to develop us to be like Him.

From this perspective, the Problem of Evil is hardly a problem at all. The suffering of this world is essential to us. Not because God made it be so, but because of our inherent nature. Yes, God is all-powerful, and He could intervene in every tragedy and remove all suffering from us in the moment, but it would frustrate the entire purpose of our being here. If God prevented all pain, that would never teach us to stand forthright against the storm, only to cower behind God’s skirts. And God did not force any of this pain upon us, we chose it so that we might win the greater good on the other side.

Universal Consciousness)

Shifting gears now to a non-Christian perspective, Advaita Vedānta, one of Hinduism’s major philosophical schools, teaches a principle of universal consciousness, which states that all of us and all of creation are not separate beings at all. All of our perceived reality is but a part of one super-entity called Brahman. Thus, our perceptions of being separate beings that inflict pain upon one another, or being victims of a cruel and indifferent universe, are mere illusions. When people hurt one another, or when nature hurts humanity, it is actually just that universal consciousness hurting itself.

The Problem of Evil doesn’t make sense when our suffering is but the left hand injuring the right. No, the injury is not good, but there is no outer deity to get mad at for subjecting us to this experience. We only experience this pain because we are so insistent on our sense of individualism, trying to see ourselves as separate from the super-reality that binds us all together. All we have to do is to let go of the self, relax back into the universal consciousness, and we no longer become a subject of pain.

Thinking Outside the Box)

Obviously, I do not expect many of my readers to agree with either of these viewpoints, and therefore to not necessarily be freed from their anxiety about the Problem of Evil. But I think it is still important to see that the problem is one that arises because of presuppositional beliefs. This conundrum is not inevitable. It exists only because of context, and it evaporates in another context. It is, therefore, hardly a binding principle, and we do not have to be fettered to it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Combinations of Presuppositions

Gaining an Understanding)

In my last post I explained how I never understood the Problem of Evil, which is the common argument that the suffering that we see in the world is logically incompatible with the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God. So, to comprehend this viewpoint better, I went to some online forums to discuss it with both atheists and Christians who see this argument as credible. It took a fair bit of time, and a lot of back and forth, but finally it made sense to me. I realized that the reason it never resonated with me, but did with others, was because we had a different set of presuppositions that entirely changed the context of how we view reality. Now, I still do not have those presuppositions, so the conclusion that the suffering of this world is incompatible with God still does not resonate with me, but I do understand why it would for others. I understand why it could very well resonate with me if I shared those same presuppositions.

As an aside, I think this is an important lesson in appreciating the different beliefs and struggles of others. Very often the conclusions that others draw seem so strange and incoherent to us, and by focusing on the conclusions, we usually just continue to confuse and frustrate one another. We have to get lower, down to the underlying premises that lead to those conclusions, the fundamental beliefs that make the position become sensible and rational.

But anyway, using the information I gained, I want to spell out exactly what the presuppositions are that would make suffering and God’s goodness hard to hold in the same mind, and in the next post I will show why a different set of presuppositions would not.

The Presuppositions)

The first presupposition we have already identified. It is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent. He loves His children, He wants goodness and happiness in the world, and He has the power and knowledge to secure it.

But as we will see, this alone is not enough. There is one other necessary presupposition, and it is often overlooked. It is creation ex nihilo, the belief that God created the universe, all of its systems, and the human species, out of nothing. All of our reality is a closed box that God had full control over the designs of. All of the ways that this life is, are because God personally wanted them to be that way.

This second presupposition is key, because without it the obvious counterargument is that yes, God does want goodness and happiness, but in His infinite wisdom He knew that a fulness of joy could only be found in overcoming great trials. He did not only want His children to have peace, He wanted them to be heroes. He wanted them to choose righteousness even when it was hard. He wanted them to be driven by a love that could overcome any adversity.

But for the critic who believes that the existence of God assumes creation ex nihilo, this counterargument holds little weight. The critic can readily agree that yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that true depth of character is acquired only by suffering. Yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that greater good is obtained through temporary evil. But then…why is humanity of that nature? If the universe is a closed box that God designed every part of, then why design humanity to operate by those rules? Why not design a humanity that becomes heroic, and loving, and strong by just having nice things happen to them?

A Sensible Question)

With both of these presuppositions: an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God, combined with creation ex nihilo, I think that critique is very strong. I do not know that I can see any convincing argument against it. I have seen how other Christians try to refute it, and at the end of the day they seem to be trying to pry off one or the other of those presuppositions. And that’s fine if you don’t happen to agree entirely with them, but most of the Christians in these arguments do actually hold both as essential to their faith.

But not every Christian denomination does hold to these presuppositions, and certainly not every non-Christian denomination. There are faiths that are absent one or the other of these claims, including my own, and to us this Problem of Evil loses its power. We will examine that in more depth tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

You Do Not Understand Others

If you cannot fathom or see the sensibility in the beliefs of another, then the failure is almost certainly in your understanding, not in their intelligence or reason. More often than not, people have logical and coherent reasons for believing what they believe. More often than not, your difference in view simply comes down to them having underlying presumptions that are different from your own. But if you did share their presumptions, more often than not you might very well come to the same conclusions as them.

It is maturity to seek first what those presumptions are, to see the reason and logic that follows from them, and to appreciate that your brother or sister is an intelligent being trying to do their best with what they have, just like you.

Furthermore, in many cases those presumptions are both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Thus, your brother or sister may indeed be wrong, and the conclusions drawn from them wrong as well, but you’ll never be able to demonstrate it by logical argument.

Most arguments around differences in belief are therefore a complete waste of energy. Most debaters will never extend the grace of acknowledging the reasonability in other’s conclusions given their background, nor address the actual presumptions on which everything depends. Instead, people tend to argue on a surface layer for positions that the other cannot accept, and no meaningful change occurs.