Novel view of the problem of evil
The "problem of evil" is rooted in the assumption that humans are special.
But what if God cares about ALL creation equally: the man AND the cancer cell, the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 AND the shift of tectonic plates, the comet AND the dinosaurs. With that view, the problem of evil evaporates; we're just not that special.
I don't mean to argue for or against this idea but is novel (as far as I know) so I'm presenting it to see what others think of it.
But what if God cares about ALL creation equally: the man AND the cancer cell, the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 AND the shift of tectonic plates, the comet AND the dinosaurs. With that view, the problem of evil evaporates; we're just not that special.
I don't mean to argue for or against this idea but is novel (as far as I know) so I'm presenting it to see what others think of it.
Comments (15)
It seems to me the problem of evil just gets democratized to include the whole cosmos instead
of just being confined to inter-human affairs. Wouldnt it be better to jettison the whole unctuous concept of
evil?
It wouldn't make sense with christianity as the early covenants instantiated our right to be protected, over animals etc, was being made in the image of God. Later it was about being a slave/abed to YHWH and then that further developed into accepting christ, or a fundamental ethical event, to be granted more ethical justification (or to be closer to God).
I don't think its novel that God cares for all of its creation, including the kind that eats one another. I think one could even do a naturalistic viewpoint and it work out well. What you may not realize is what the problem of evil actually is.
The existence of evil does not negate the idea of a God. The POE is really a problem of defining things without limits. If you define all the omni's of God (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent), and you define all three as unlimited, then you run into the POE. If a God knows everything, is all powerful, and all good, then why design a world with evil in it? You might say, "Well we need to experience evil to learn to be good," but that is a limitation. A limitless God could design human beings that could learn all the lessons to be good without ever experiencing the horrors of evil.
If you limit the omini's even a little, say, "God is the most powerful being that exists", then the problem of evil goes away. We simply say that evil is a limit to God's power, knowledge, or goodness, and we're all good.
Wash your proverbial mouth out! What would political and religious discourse be without prejudicial and unhelpful notions of evil all over the place? God, Joshs, next you'll have dogs and cats openly living together.
The POE is a conflict between divine omnipotence and omnibenevolence. So the question would be: "Why can't God make all the creatures happy? Why do they have to make each other miserable?"
Your solution will work if you add Liebniz's solution: that we're in the best of all possible worlds. IOW, the world has to have these conflicting agendas: human vs virus, for instance. The world in which there is no conflict isn't possible, or it's not the best. Then you need to explain why.
Can you make this coherent? There is no consistent pattern, so how would one demonstrate god cared equally for each? Sometimes cancer kills a 2 year-old child. Sometimes the kid wins. What happened in each case?
Also, what kind of weak-arse god would not find a way to have both an earthquake and no casualties? Favoring inanimate objects over beings with souls sounds perverse. :razz: Would not a god making such choices be worthy of scorn?
One has a God and the other doesn't.
Depends on your conception of divinity.
Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk
- Tom Waits, Heartattack and Vine
:lol: