2

Arguments from evil, such as the logical problem of evil or the evidential problem of evil, aim to demonstrate that certain forms of suffering in the world are either unnecessary or gratuitous. Advocates of this argument contend that if it's conceivable to imagine a world with slightly less suffering without sacrificing any greater good, then an all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good being would prevent such instances of unnecessary suffering. For instance, proponents might argue that if a deer, like Bambi, endured one less second of agony in a wildfire in which it got caught without affecting any greater purpose, a benevolent deity would intervene to spare that needless second of suffering. Even if one nanosecond of suffering could be spared without compromising a greater good, it would be spared. However, skeptics point to the plethora of suffering and evil worldwide, both in nature and society, suggesting that for sure at least one instance of suffering must be gratuitous. Or at least that's the abductive argument they purport to make: that at least one instance of suffering could have been prevented, but it wasn't, therefore a wholly good God cannot exist.

This motivates my question: Are Christians theologically committed to the belief that every iota of suffering and evil in the world necessarily serves a profound purpose, and that no suffering or evil is without justification, not even a nanosecond of it?

Clarification: I'm interested in an overview of theological responses to this question.

Mark
  • 3,496
  • 1
  • 11
  • 39
  • 1
    IMO this is very philosophical. How do you know suffering isn't shortened by nanoseconds/seconds/minutes? How long is short enough (slippery slope)? Are you proposing that all suffering is bad (not sure this is true)? – depperm Feb 16 '24 at 13:33
  • @depperm I don't know any of that. I'm not defending the problem of evil, I'm just asking a question about what Christians believe. – Mark Feb 16 '24 at 13:34
  • different Christian denominations have differing beliefs. Even scoped to one denomination, I feel like this is too broad/philosophical. It is a good question, and I believe I have partial response from my perspective, but I still believe it's off topic (too broad/opinion based/philosophical) – depperm Feb 16 '24 at 13:44
  • The question needs to clarify that it is seeking an overview of all that is thought across the spectrum of all that calls itself 'Christian'. Otherwise the question should be scoped to one particular sub-set within that whole spectrum. – Nigel J Feb 16 '24 at 14:00
  • @NigelJ Good point. I edited accordingly. – Mark Feb 16 '24 at 14:02
  • 3
    Christians should be theologically, and practically, committed to certain fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith, but this isn't one of them. Nobody's salvation depends on them understanding enough about this to be committed to one stance. – Anne Feb 16 '24 at 16:59
  • 1
  • Does this answer your question? https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/100129/what-are-christian-responses-to-william-rowes-formulation-of-the-evidential-pro?noredirect=1&lq=1 – Anne Feb 16 '24 at 17:06
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96740/how-does-god-tolerating-evil-not-make-him-evil?rq=1 – Anne Feb 16 '24 at 17:07
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/95830/how-do-proponents-of-the-free-will-defense-against-the-problem-of-evil-explain – Anne Feb 16 '24 at 17:11
  • @Anne I'm not entirely sure how they would. Can you please elaborate on how exactly you think they answer the question? What would be the actual answer? – Mark Feb 16 '24 at 18:55
  • 1
    I agree with @Anne . This subject has been done to death on the site and we need to move on. Sometimes, one has to ask oneself if one is going in circles 'ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth' 2 Timothy 3:7. – Nigel J Feb 17 '24 at 12:14
  • "if it's conceivable to imagine a world" Right there is the heart of the problem. The vain imaginations of the creature do not alter the nature of a Deity that exists. The question assumes that the Deity in question is mere imagination also. The argument is the product of unbelief not the source. – Mike Borden Feb 22 '24 at 14:07
  • 1
    Basically yes because it follows from first principles even though it is not a vocalized item of faith. This is confirmed by Thomas Aquinas Emulator based on ChatGPT who derives it meticulously while considering the opposite views https://chat.openai.com/share/8c9de7df-70d5-4580-83ec-5e84ae288900 – MichalRyszardWojcik Feb 25 '24 at 17:32

0 Answers0