The Problem of Evil

[Immanuel Can]

They should suffer because of evil.

You misunderstand. I'm sorry: I didn't explain precisely.

I wasn't asking for you to judge them. I was trying to ask, what sort of world is compatible with the idea of free will?

Could you have, for example, free-will-having people, but living in an environment in which only good things happening is possible? So that, for example, if a man decided, with his free will, that he wanted to hurt another person, or perhaps an animal, or harm the environment itself, he simply could not do it? Would that be free will?

Or does the free will of a man entail that he has to have the possibility of doing good and doing harm?

If the story of Adam is true then he deserves evil because he chose it. Why we should suffer? We didn't choose evil. The animal cannot choose evil. So why they should suffer either?

I need your patience in following a line of thought. You haven't answered my question, and I need you to. Perhaps you will allow me to pose it again?

Is it possible for us to speak of human beings being free, if they live in an environment that is constructed such that they can do good things only, but never choose to do any evil ones?

[bahman]

You misunderstand. I'm sorry: I didn't explain precisely.

I wasn't asking for you to judge them. I was trying to ask, what sort of world is compatible with the idea of free will?

Could you have, for example, free-will-having people, but living in an environment in which only good things happening is possible? So that, for example, if a man decided, with his free will, that he wanted to hurt another person, or perhaps an animal, or harm the environment itself, he simply could not do it? Would that be free will?

Or does the free will of a man entail that he has to have the possibility of doing good and doing harm?

If the story of Adam is true then he deserves evil because he chose it. Why we should suffer? We didn't choose evil. The animal cannot choose evil. So why they should suffer either?

I need your patience in following a line of thought. You haven't answered my question, and I need you to. Perhaps you will allow me to pose it again?

Is it possible for us to speak of human beings being free, if they live in an environment that is constructed such that they can do good things only, but never choose to do any evil ones?

No, if they have free will.

[Immanuel Can]

No, if they have free will.

Okay: let me check.

Let's take the case of a man's duty to, say, provide for his family. But he lives in a world where the environment is such that he cannot not-provide for his family. The environment won't permit that to happen. It allows only good things, and absolutely no bad ones. Not even little bad ones.

If he tries not to provide for his family, the world will sort of magically rearrange itself such that it MAKES him provide for his family. He'll be forced to, dragged into it by things beyond his control. He maybe can say, "I don't want to provide for my family!" but his legs will be forced to carry him to work, his hands to perform his required tasks, his bank account to accept the money, his grocery store to dispense the family dinner, his arms to carry it home...and at the end of the day, he will always have provided for his family, even if he desperately wanted not to.

So it's utterly impossible for him to fail to provide for his family; the world won't let him do that.

And you say he's still free with regard to providing for his family? (I'm asking, not telling.)

[bahman]

No, if they have free will.

Okay: let me check.

Let's take the case of a man's duty to, say, provide for his family. But he lives in a world where the environment is such that he cannot not-provide for his family. The environment won't permit that to happen. It allows only good things, and absolutely no bad ones. Not even little bad ones.

If he tries not to provide for his family, the world will sort of magically rearrange itself such that it MAKES him provide for his family. He'll be forced to, dragged into it by things beyond his control. He maybe can say, "I don't want to provide for my family!" but his legs will be forced to carry him to work, his hands to perform his required tasks, his bank account to accept the money, his grocery store to dispense the family dinner, his arms to carry it home...and at the end of the day, he will always have provided for his family, even if he desperately wanted not to.

So it's utterly impossible for him to fail to provide for his family; the world won't let him do that.

And you say he's still free with regard to providing for his family? (I'm asking, not telling.)

Human is free. So they can choose evil and deserve to get evil as a matter of fact. The world that you are describing can be true but it is not the world that we are living within since human is a free agent. And the short answer to your question is, No.

[Immanuel Can]

No, if they have free will.

Okay: let me check.

Let's take the case of a man's duty to, say, provide for his family. But he lives in a world where the environment is such that he cannot not-provide for his family. The environment won't permit that to happen. It allows only good things, and absolutely no bad ones. Not even little bad ones.

If he tries not to provide for his family, the world will sort of magically rearrange itself such that it MAKES him provide for his family. He'll be forced to, dragged into it by things beyond his control. He maybe can say, "I don't want to provide for my family!" but his legs will be forced to carry him to work, his hands to perform his required tasks, his bank account to accept the money, his grocery store to dispense the family dinner, his arms to carry it home...and at the end of the day, he will always have provided for his family, even if he desperately wanted not to.

So it's utterly impossible for him to fail to provide for his family; the world won't let him do that.

And you say he's still free with regard to providing for his family? (I'm asking, not telling.)

Human is free. So they can choose evil

Oh. So the man I've described is not free. Because he cannot choose to not-provide for his family. He can only do the good thing, not its evil counterpart?

Got it.

Well, if that is true, then it is not the case that we can have free men living in a world in which evil actions are prevented. Rather, genuinely free people can only be genuinely free in a an environment in which both good and bad things can happen, but good and evil actions can take place.

And now we get to animals and to the environment. Mankind has been given freedom by God (at least, we both agree that he is free...we can discuss the source of his freedom later). But freedom requires that mankind have an environment susceptible to all his choices, to both good and evil. We also now seem to agree on that.

What about animals? If a man is free to feed and love his pet dog, is he also free to starve and kick it?

[bahman]

Okay: let me check.

Let's take the case of a man's duty to, say, provide for his family. But he lives in a world where the environment is such that he cannot not-provide for his family. The environment won't permit that to happen. It allows only good things, and absolutely no bad ones. Not even little bad ones.

If he tries not to provide for his family, the world will sort of magically rearrange itself such that it MAKES him provide for his family. He'll be forced to, dragged into it by things beyond his control. He maybe can say, "I don't want to provide for my family!" but his legs will be forced to carry him to work, his hands to perform his required tasks, his bank account to accept the money, his grocery store to dispense the family dinner, his arms to carry it home...and at the end of the day, he will always have provided for his family, even if he desperately wanted not to.

So it's utterly impossible for him to fail to provide for his family; the world won't let him do that.

And you say he's still free with regard to providing for his family? (I'm asking, not telling.)

Human is free. So they can choose evil

Oh. So the man I've described is not free. Because he cannot choose to not-provide for his family. He can only do the good thing, not its evil counterpart?

Got it.

Well, if that is true, then it is not the case that we can have free men living in a world in which evil actions are prevented. Rather, genuinely free people can only be genuinely free in a an environment in which both good and bad things can happen, but good and evil actions can take place.

And now we get to animals and to the environment. Mankind has been given freedom by God (at least, we both agree that he is free...we can discuss the source of his freedom later). But freedom requires that mankind have an environment susceptible to all his choices, to both good and evil. We also now seem to agree on that.

What about animals? If a man is free to feed and love his pet dog, is he also free to starve and kick it?

Of course human is free to kick his dog. What the dog did wrong though to be in such a condition?

[Immanuel Can]

What about animals? If a man is free to feed and love his pet dog, is he also free to starve and kick it?

Of course human is free to kick his dog. What the dog did wrong though to be in such a condition?
[/quote]
Nothing except to be part of the environment in which men have to live. Like anything else, the dog too is susceptible to the consequences of good and evil. So the dog didn't "deserve" his food or his kick. (Side note: We should note that even to use the concept of "deserve" would require us to refer to the idea of a transcendent standard of "deserving," which would also require the existence of God. For who else would be competent to secure a factual, objective "deserving" for the dog or the man?)

[Immanuel Can]

What about animals? If a man is free to feed and love his pet dog, is he also free to starve and kick it?

Of course human is free to kick his dog. What the dog did wrong though to be in such a condition?

Nothing except to be part of the environment in which men have to live. Like anything else, the dog too is susceptible to the consequences of good and evil. So the dog didn't "deserve" his food or his kick. (Side note: We should note that even to use the concept of "deserve" would require us to refer to the idea of a transcendent standard of "deserving," which would also require the existence of God. For who else would be competent to secure a factual, objective "deserving" for the dog or the man?)

[bahman]

What about animals? If a man is free to feed and love his pet dog, is he also free to starve and kick it?

Of course human is free to kick his dog. What the dog did wrong though to be in such a condition?

Nothing except to be part of the environment in which men have to live. Like anything else, the dog too is susceptible to the consequences of good and evil. So the dog didn't "deserve" his food or his kick. (Side note: We should note that even to use the concept of "deserve" would require us to refer to the idea of a transcendent standard of "deserving," which would also require the existence of God. For who else would be competent to secure a factual, objective "deserving" for the dog or the man?)

No. Dogs shouldn't be in this world that evil is allowed. That is against divine justice since they cannot choose.

[Immanuel Can]

No. Dogs shouldn't be in this world that evil is allowed. That is against divine justice since they cannot choose.

But you can't appeal to any standard called "divine justice." You don't believe in God, remember? So dogs don't get what they deserve, and don't get what they don't deserve. The whole things reduces to "Whatever happens to dogs happens."

And what is this "shouldn't" thing? How can somebody who believes the universe has no rightful order but the order it happens to have, because all is happenstance anyway, say things "shouldn't" be as they are? Where is this "shouldn't-ness" coming from?

You see, even to appeal for justice for dogs, you have to believe there's a transcendent standard of justice. But absent God, how do we account for our belief that there is a transcendent standard of justice? Who secures it for us? The indifferent universe won't.

So while I, as a Christian, would agree that dogs shouldn't be kicked, I am able to do so only because I believe in a transcendent standard of justice, that kicking a dog violates.

But I don't know how you do it.

[bahman]

No. Dogs shouldn't be in this world that evil is allowed. That is against divine justice since they cannot choose.

But you can't appeal to any standard called "divine justice." You don't believe in God, remember? So dogs don't get what they deserve, and don't get what they don't deserve. The whole things reduces to "Whatever happens to dogs happens."

And what is this "shouldn't" thing? How can somebody who believes the universe has no rightful order but the order it happens to have, because all is happenstance anyway, say things "shouldn't" be as they are? Where is this "shouldn't-ness" coming from?

You see, even to appeal for justice for dogs, you have to believe there's a transcendent standard of justice. But absent God, how do we account for our belief that there is a transcendent standard of justice? Who secures it for us? The indifferent universe won't.

So while I, as a Christian, would agree that dogs shouldn't be kicked, I am able to do so only because I believe in a transcendent standard of justice, that kicking a dog violates.

But I don't know how you do it.

I am talking in place of believers when I said divine justice. Do you think that animals deserve suffering in this world which is the result of falling?

[Immanuel Can]

I am talking in place of believers when I said divine justice.

Okay, fair enough.

Do you think that animals deserve suffering in this world which is the result of falling?

I've already answered that in my last message. I said that as a Christian, I refer to the transcendent standard of divine justice, and find the kicking of dogs unacceptable.

But again, I don't know how you get to participate in that judgment yourself, or say, "You're right to think that, IC," because you don't have legitimate grounds on which to believe that yourself, so far as I can see. An indifferent universe would most certainly be totally indifferent to K9 suffering. So in such a universe as you appear to live in, it would not be "wrong" for dogs to suffer. It would just be the way things are.

But to the point: we've now got a universe in which there are free persons. But being free persons, they can harm each other, animals and the environment -- you said yourself that if they could not, if the universe were magically organized against that, then human beings would not be free.

So far, so good?

[bahman]

I am talking in place of believers when I said divine justice.

Okay, fair enough.

Do you think that animals deserve suffering in this world which is the result of falling?

I've already answered that in my last message. I said that as a Christian, I refer to the transcendent standard of divine justice, and find the kicking of dogs unacceptable.

But again, I don't know how you get to participate in that judgment yourself, or say, "You're right to think that, IC," because you don't have legitimate grounds on which to believe that yourself, so far as I can see. An indifferent universe would most certainly be totally indifferent to K9 suffering. So in such a universe as you appear to live in, it would not be "wrong" for dogs to suffer. It would just be the way things are.

But to the point: we've now got a universe in which there are free persons. But being free persons, they can harm each other, animals and the environment -- you said yourself that if they could not, if the universe were magically organized against that, then human beings would not be free.

So far, so good?

No. This universe is not fair with regard to animal suffering. It is not acceptable from a good God.

[Immanuel Can]

I am talking in place of believers when I said divine justice.

Okay, fair enough.

Do you think that animals deserve suffering in this world which is the result of falling?

I've already answered that in my last message. I said that as a Christian, I refer to the transcendent standard of divine justice, and find the kicking of dogs unacceptable.

But again, I don't know how you get to participate in that judgment yourself, or say, "You're right to think that, IC," because you don't have legitimate grounds on which to believe that yourself, so far as I can see. An indifferent universe would most certainly be totally indifferent to K9 suffering. So in such a universe as you appear to live in, it would not be "wrong" for dogs to suffer. It would just be the way things are.

But to the point: we've now got a universe in which there are free persons. But being free persons, they can harm each other, animals and the environment -- you said yourself that if they could not, if the universe were magically organized against that, then human beings would not be free.

So far, so good?

No. This universe is not fair with regard to animal suffering. It is not acceptable from a good God.

That's going to end up depending. It's going to depend on this: how great a good is the creating of free creatures?

In other words, if it would prevent all animal suffering, would it be better if God had created no free people? Of course, then there would be no need for a free environment, or for the possibility of some humans using their free will to hurt animals, so it would solve some problems: but would it be BETTER if God had never created the whole thing in the first place?

[bahman]

Okay, fair enough.


I've already answered that in my last message. I said that as a Christian, I refer to the transcendent standard of divine justice, and find the kicking of dogs unacceptable.

But again, I don't know how you get to participate in that judgment yourself, or say, "You're right to think that, IC," because you don't have legitimate grounds on which to believe that yourself, so far as I can see. An indifferent universe would most certainly be totally indifferent to K9 suffering. So in such a universe as you appear to live in, it would not be "wrong" for dogs to suffer. It would just be the way things are.

But to the point: we've now got a universe in which there are free persons. But being free persons, they can harm each other, animals and the environment -- you said yourself that if they could not, if the universe were magically organized against that, then human beings would not be free.

So far, so good?

No. This universe is not fair with regard to animal suffering. It is not acceptable from a good God.

That's going to end up depending. It's going to depend on this: how great a good is the creating of free creatures?

In other words, if it would prevent all animal suffering, would it be better if God had created no free people? Of course, then there would be no need for a free environment, or for the possibility of some humans using their free will to hurt animals, so it would solve some problems: but would it be BETTER if God had never created the whole thing in the first place?

No. It doesn't depend on anything. The animal cannot choose. There should be no animal in this world in which evil is allowed.