Why doesn't saying that God is all wise solve the problem of evil ?
part of Islam's theodicy for the problem is evil is saying that Allah is all wise (where wisdom is putting things in their appropriate place), my question is, why doesn't this solve the problem of evil ?
Saying that Allah is omniscient and all wise and all powerful and our minds cannot understand his plans, so when we see a deer catching fire in the woods we can rest assured that Allah has planned this and he is omnibenevolent and all wise and omniscient and since our minds cannot comprehend his plans then the problem of evil has been solved
is this what is known by skeptical theism ? i have read a little about it but couldn't tell if its the same thing
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
The problem is that you can justify anything with that.
In the more general formulation the arguments sounds like
> there's a hidden wisdom in that.
In this formulation there is no personification, there is no anthropomorphizing, just a hint at some hidden wisdom, and it becomes clear that you can justify anything with that, and it doesn't sound very convincing.
For example, an atheist could say "yeah, I'm an atheist, I claim that there are no gods, maybe you don't like the fact that I'm an atheist, but maybe there's a hidden wisdom in that, and it all works out somehow".
Or some other example. Like let's say Koran is a fake book full of falsehoods, it describes a false god, and the real god created it as a test and there's a hidden wisdom in that.
In short, if you're a fan of Batman, you'll say that Batman is better than Superman and there's a hidden wisdom in that.
And if you're a fan of Superman, you'll say that Superman is better than Batman and there's a hidden wisdom in that.
So the argument doesn't resolve anything.
it's like convincing a child that there is hidden wisdom in eating vegetables more than cake
we are the child of God
Did you not read the post?
Hinting at a hidden wisdom doesn't resolve anything.
What do you mean by resolved? Evil isn't a problem to 'solve' it is an extant force that necessary for the fullness of reality as we know it to exist, including necessary for goodness to exist.
Good can exist without evil, evil is just a test of might
You didn't answer my question. What is this state of resolved evil? Show me this good that exists not relative to evil.
heaven
So the act of resolving evil is how one will go to heaven. If there's no evil to resolve how does one go to heaven?
>but if there was no evil everything would be heavenly
Heavenly relative to what? You see the conundrum?
>If there's no evil to resolve how does one go to heaven?
you can't go to heaven if you are not tested
Against evil, yes.
Isaiah 45:7
It's not a problem. God IS. The evil, the good, all of it. It's like thinking night is a 'problem' because you don't like having to sleep. Sleep gives you rest. Evil gives you a challenge to overcome.
I don't disagree but I mean heavenly as in the state of being 'good' and 'nice' for brevity's sake.
>It's not a problem. God IS. The evil, the good, all of it.
Ok, but that's a different description of god, not the typical one that you find in books of abrahamic religions, for example.
thats precisely the description of God from his own mouth in Isaiah 45:6-7
>(...)That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
On the one hand you have a dogma that states that god is good and not evil.
On the other hand you have texts that contradict the dogma if you interpret it a certain way, and you choose to interpret them that way when it's convenient.
Do you reject the dogma or do you admit that you interpret texts in any way you like when it's convenient?
Yes. I'm rejecting the layman's conception of God and their dogma. Nobody on that list is a fringe theologian and Isiah and Job aren't niche books with contentious interpretations.
Wait, isn't that the official dogma of church, not just the layman's conception?
Not that I'm aware of. It's also a bit dishonest to even say 'official dogma of the church' given the vast differences in denominations and traditions even within a single religion or line of faith.
>dude how do you explain people who only ever studied exoteric teachings of religion not agreeing with your theology????
just answer the simple question, do you reject the official dogma or not?
but they more or less agree on certain things, and this is one of those things that the majority of denominations agree on.
>and this is one of those things that the majority of denominations agree on.
Not really. It isn't a normal topic of conversation in churches and you'll probably get five different answers from three different priests or preachers when you broach the issue. Have you ever actually brought this up with your local diocese? Like I said there's lots of variations and even within a single line of faith. It's not a hivemind of 'accepted dogmas'. I can see how someone who is areligious might reach that conclusion though but it simply isn't true.
The question is dishonest bunk. Theology isn't counter to dogma.
>Ok, but that's a different description of god, not the typical one that you find in books of abrahamic religions, for example.
Eckhart
Ibn Arabi
Aquinas
St John of Damascus
I could go on
>What's the Book of Job
>It's not a problem. God IS. The evil, the good
The possibility of evil is implied by that of goodness and virtue, just as the possibility of hatred is implied by love. This possibility is the price levied by God on His own perfection. To pay that price, God must constantly reject evil and those who do it.
Heaven is the infinite, i.e. static sphere outside of being. Being necessitates evil because it is complex and organic. In Heaven everything is ordered, and so Good. On Earth everything is chaotic, and so Evil.
It's like you watching Breaking Bad on TV, because your every day teaching high school chemistry is so hum drum and fricking boring
>Heaven is good an ordered ... relative to evil and chaos.
We're so close.
>What do you mean by resolved?
The OP talks about the problem of evil, it's also called the problem of theodicy:
> Theodicy is defined as a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God in response to the problem of evil that appears inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Another definition of theodicy is the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.
This is a major problem in monotheism.
Coming back to your question:
>What do you mean by resolved?
Hinting at a hidden wisdom doesn't resolve the problem of theodicy.
But you seem to discuss the existence of evil itself regardless of its relation to the divine.
I don't know about that. Maybe it's true that we need evil as a background against which we recognize good, also for variability. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It sounds somewhat convincing, but part of me wants it to not be the case.
Only kicks the can down the road. Instead of quibbling over what "evil" is, people begin quibbling over what an "appropriate place" is or whatever.
Humanity from its inception has been a reconciliation project. Words in an old book won't change that, sad to say.
>Humanity from its inception has been a reconciliation project.
What do you mean?
Reconciliation of what?
Solving evil wouldn't be all-wise in the exact same way eating nothing but cake isn't. Next.
Only Christians struggle with theodicy
All attempts at religious moralizing are infantile
>Things aren't like how I want them
>EVIL
>But Skydaddy GOOOOOD, man in big house say so
>Muss mean I bad
I mean come on, and people still take this shit seriously? It's a closed logical system, it's interesting in the way Babylonian or Egyptian metaphysics are, but it's not something you take at face value
It doesn't solve the problem of evil because there are some false assumptions that come with this entire debate from the outset. The first one is the graven image humancentric conception of God that God is just some guy, a cosmic king, who is winding down fate politically or is some kind of architect who is making stuff, and so everything that happens serves a grater end. I've never considered this to be the case and it is only a popular conception because it is a simple way to explain things to a layman. There's no wisdom in what God does because going is not /doing/ things like you would do something on a computer. God is the infinite. He is the computer, the person using it, what they are using it for, and any other distinction you can make. God is. A plan such as it is is nothing more than a human conception. The infinite does not operate on a plan.
The second is that evil is a problem. It's not one being inflicted upon us for the reasons I outlined above. Evil and good are two sides of the same perfect coin. You don't find evil anywhere without good and you don't find good anywhere without evil in the same way you don't have up without down or white circles without black backgrounds. This is how we orient ourselves in reality. As Aquinas say it is pause that gives sweetness to the chant of a choir.
islam is a visibly fake collection of random heresies, it's incapable of producing sound theology. Read catholic theology on free will, God's justice and providence, redemptive suffering.
>Why doesn't saying that God is all wise solve the problem of evil ?
Because it isn't supposed to. It's supposed to be an excuse to kill people and steal from them, and it's very good for that.
>Poor Muslims in Gaza watch their children blown to pieces by bombs
>say that this is mercy from God and that they don’t fear death
>comfy Westerners with a good home and job see a child die of cancer
>say this is why they refuse to believe in God
What explains this disparity?
>omnipotent god needs evil for the contrast
A contradiction in terms.
God doesn't need anything. /You/ need the contrast to understand.
The contradiction is that you say that god is not restricted by anything and then you say that god is restricted by the fact that anon needs contrast to understand good and evil.
>god is bound by the logic of duality to create creatures bound by the logic of duality
God isn't. Humans are.
Now it should be clear to you that your theodicy doesn't work.
you are Wrong
> you are Wrong
Explain how I'm wrong.
>god is bound by the logic of duality to create creatures bound by the logic of duality
It's not that difficult. Think through your premises.