Whenever a tragedy happens, some people say that it happened for a reason, that no matter how dreadful and catastrophic an event is, there is a purpose. Everything is part of a Grand Design. And this is one of the defenses against the problem of evil, or at least William Rowe’s version of it, which goes:
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
Without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. I read this theodicy article that did not actually attempt to answer the problem of evil but simply proposed a stalemate because, the writer claimed, we really cannot know if these evils are indeed gratuitous or unjustified since we are not omniscient. And I agree with him.
Richard Dawkins considers himself a SIX in his spectrum of theistic probability because he is a scientist. He is not claiming that there is no God but simply that God is very improbable and so he lives his life on the assumption that God does not exist. And if this is the case for a certain person, I guess he/she would agree that we really cannot know for sure if all the evils in this world do not serve some greater purpose – no matter how unlikely. (And this is why I can only respect people from TWO to SIX in Dawkins’ spectrum because they acknowledge the limits of their understanding, while those in ONE and SEVEN actually claim to know.)
But I think purpose comes after the fact, because we can make a purpose out of unfortunate events. Take a look at the typhoons and floods that killed hundreds last year, for example, or the gruesome massacre that brutally ended the lives of 57 persons. Some people would claim that they have a purpose, and part of that is to awaken the Filipinos and make them turn from their evil ways. However, I highly doubt that an omnipotent and loving deity would lack the imagination to come up with more effective and less genocidal ways to win the hearts and souls of its beloved creation. But as the most highly evolved of all creatures, we can (and we actually did) make a purpose for these tragedies so that we should not have suffered them in vain. Ondoy exposed the fatal hazards of poor (and corrupt) urban planning, reminding developers to be conscientious and citizens to be vigilant. The Maguindanao killings let the world know that there was an oppressive empire right within our country’s borders whose king and princes reigned in terror, where human rights were violated on a daily basis and everyone was too scared to talk. Now this empire is no more, and if we keep a watchful eye it will probably stay that way.
The purposes we come up with and the good they bring may not be greater than the misfortunes from which they arose, but at least we are doing something to make things a little better. After all, we are not omnipotent.
If you think God is an asshole…don't you think your acting like a "god"?… telling us your better than the real God?..meaning if your the real "God" then it makes you the asshole? right?
this thread is for those who has the habit of mental-masturbation!
do dark sarcasm :-)) peace out
Epicurean flavor I like that. Nice piece. Idol talaga kita innerminds.
When Ondoy came to town and killed many, displaced even more, Flilipino Freethinkers went to action… with a purpose..to help and give out relief goods to the victims.
If god was real… he's an asshole.
Thanks, Eddie. That was quite flattering. Any topic requests I might able to write about? 🙂
I trust your instincts on what to write. Always delighted to read your essays. Oh before I forget again… was not able to greet you so..Malipayong Bagong Tuig to you idol, wishing you a happy new year.
nice.
I really like this article, and the way you presented your reasoning in the second-to-the-last paragraph. I agree and I Voted on it. (Yes, I made a little purpose for that little link there. Click click!)
Thanks for the compliment (and the vote), Sathepine. 🙂
Sodom and Gomorrah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG3QsisQrkc
——
Noah's Ark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PSZNYdfawQ
Fabian, you posted a similar link to my facebook account regarding Sodom and Gomorah.
I think my reply has already established that we are not interested in video streams of Christian apologetics, much less a Noah's Ark museum in Turkey.
If disasters like Ondoy, the Black Plague, and Mayon are God's idea of punishing the wicked, then I only have one thing to say:
He's a lousy shot.
@ Discreet Infidel: Agreed. That's why I said, "I highly doubt that an omnipotent and loving deity would lack the imagination to come up with more effective and less genocidal ways to win the hearts and souls of its beloved creation."
Here's some guide questions to ask when one faces a theodicy…
So, if we imagine a general theodicy that claims that the levels of intense suffering and premature death seen in the world are necessary for the some greater purpose what questions might we ask of it?
1. Can we conceive of any logically possible world where the purpose is fulfilled and there is less intense suffering and premature death?
2. Is the present system too ambiguous? Is it important for the theodicy that people are aware that evil and suffering are necessary for the purpose to be fulfilled?
3. Does the theodicy explain the suffering of non-human animals, the majority of which occurred before humans existed?
4. Does the theodicy work in all conceivable cases? To take one extreme instance of natural evil, does it explain the suffering of a one-year-old orphan who is buried and killed by a landslide and is never found or missed?
5. Does the theodicy explain the drastic variations in suffering over time and in different places?
6. Does the theodicy have doubtful ethical consequences? For example, should we be working against suffering according to the theodicy, or should we be allowing it as part of God’s plan? Are the goods described all really worth the resulting suffering?
source :http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/evil.html