The Nature of Evil
Another aspect of the problem of evil goes to the nature of evil itself, as well as who created it. The argument goes like this:
1. God is the Author of everything.
2. Evil is something.
3. Therefore, God is the Author of evil.
Rejecting premise one compromises an essential aspect of Gods nature—his sovereignty. Rejecting premise two seems to deny the reality of evil.
Quoting Geisler again…
The theist responds that evil is not a thing or substance. Rather it is a lack or privation of a good thing that God made. Evil is a deprivation of some particular good. The essence of this position is summarized:
1. God created every substance.
2. Evil is not a substance (but a privation in a substance).
3. Therefore, God did not create evil.Evil is not a substance but a corruption of the good substances God made. Evil is like rust to a car or rot to a tree. It is a lack in good things, but it is not a thing in itself. Evil is like a wound in an arm or moth-holes in a garment. It exists only in another but not in itself.
It is important to note that a privation is not the same as mere absence. Sight is absent in a stone as well as in a blind person. But the absence of sight in the stone is not a privation. Absence of something that ought to he there. Since the stone by nature ought not to see, it is not deprived of sight, as is the blind man. Evil, then is a deprivation of some good that ought to be there. It is not a mere negation.To say that evil is not a thing, but a lack in things, is not to claim that it is not real. Evil is a real lack in good things, as the blind person knows only so well. Evil is not a real substance, but it is a real privation in good substances. It is not an actual entity but a real corruption in an actual entity.
Geisler doesn’t say, but this sounds like it may have come from Augustine.
Still left for future posts…
- Regardless of where evil originates from, how could a good and all-powerful God allow it to continue to exist?
- Why the presence of evil is really a proof for the existence of God.
I think this was Augustine’s argument.
(Forgive me, this is really just a lot of thinking out loud…)
So it goes to the question of purpose, then… this kind of picks up where the discussion left off on the last post.
(Quick rundown of the last post’s tail end: Rob suggested that the biblical idea of “perfection” describes something that works the way it’s supposed to.)
It’s interesting that this also addresses what we started to take up in the last thread about “moral evil” and “natural evil.” They both boil down to a good state that obviously ought to be there, but instead, obviously isn’t.
Where to go from here…
This notion of “privation” – or “lack” – seems like it runs against the idea of a “perfect” creation. So did God create privation? Did God intend for there to be a lack of any kind of good things?
Clearly he had a place for privation in the game plan even before the fall. “In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die” – death is the ultimate privation. But it is presented as a consequence, not a starting point.
It follows that if any of God’s commandments is disobeyed, you will have one of two situations. One, God “blows it off,” dismissing the consequences for us but introducing a privation in his own justice. Two, God enforces the consequences (privation among men) and upholds his justice.
The good news of the Gospel is that he chose #2 – but became a man to endure the consequences for us. But I digress.
What if we look at it this way: if Eve was created in a perfect state, she lacked nothing. Yet she must have lacked something, or else she would not have violated God’s command, right?
I sense the flaw is in that last statement. Any ideas?
Is it possible for God to create something that doesn’t have a lack to it?
In other words, the only “perfect” thing is God. Everything created lacks something “perfect” or else it would be God too. The very act of creation must include privation to some extent.
I guess you could say that God can create a perfect human – meaning that he is limited in time and space but a perfect example of what it means to be human. Of course, the idea of a perfect human starts going towards Plato’s forms again …
Ron Nash, describing Augustine’s view describes it as God created everything with levels of goodness. If there were no levels, then as you say, everything would be on par with god. So a rock is good in one sense, but a plant has more inherent goodness because it has life. A self-aware animal is a greater good still. Then human beings, made in the image of God, have more inherent goodness still (despite what PETA would have us believe).
He goes on to say that sin is the attempt to elevate a lesser good above a greater good. It certainly fits Satan’s sin.
It’s at least an interesting way to think about things.
I dislike always reducing arguments to the definition of terms but that is an important part of making a cogent argument. This syllogism suffers from my “definition of Author” argument that I made in the previous thread. My response to this would be “define author.”
It is true that Augustine and Calvin both held to the privation view. I like John Frame’s approach to this issue. According to Frame, the privation view works from a premise that being is good. “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day” (Gen. 1:31). So evil is nonbeing. Due to the fact that God created being with goodness, evil occurs when things slip back into nonbeing, therefore they “unmake” themselves. The conclusion one can draw from this is that God does not cause moral evil, but he creates corruptible beings.
This is just a variation of the free-will defense used by Geisler and it holds to a libertarian freedom. It still begs the question of whether or not there is a difference between effectual permission and efficient causation on the part of God. I don’t see any real difference at all.
When a person chooses to something other than good, that choice is based on something other than a privation of good, it is the thing that causes the privation to happen. If God cannot prevent the corruption of beings, then how can he glorify saints? If he can, but chooses not to, then we are back to our original question.
Evil is more than just nonbeing, just like being male is more than just a lack of femaleness. Both are substantial beings, so are good and evil. Even if evil were a form of nonbeing, would that absolve God of blame for evil? The Scripture is clear that God brings about some sinful human actions. If they come from God, then the problem of evil remains.
Moral evil is sin and natural evil is the result thereof. Good receives God’s blessing and evil receives his curse. The goal of the Christian life is not to transcend into being, but rather to be obedient.
As I sit in my corner and ponder… (8(:0)
Jason, I think you will find that only through the idea of secondary causes will the instrumentation of evil be realized while the holiness of God is maintained. I heard one of you got whacked for bringing secondary causes into the fray (maybe Eric?), but you really have no alternative if you want to make reasonable sense of the issue of evil, the sovereignty of God, and the responsibility of man. Hey, it’s tough to argue with Edwards, he be packin’ much braincells.
I thought the rap-like ending would help everyone detox from the large words that are being employed.
I hope no one took the contention with the notion of secondary causes as a “whacking”. That wasn’t my intention.
Sorry guys, this will be another long one. Based on what Mr. Miller said, I feel that my comments on the previous post were received with a bit of misunderstanding. I did not mean to employ big words and loose any of you and if I sounded rather snobbish, I apologize to all of you. Nor did I mean to “whack” anyone for bringing the notion of secondary causes into the discussion (a notion I agree with) – especially Eric who I greatly respect and appreciate. Were it not for him and how God used him in my life, I fear my understanding of scripture would have been greatly handicapped. In my mind, he is both brilliant and winsome in his use of theology. Someone I admire and consider a dear friend. That needed to be said publicly because this discussion is a public one.
Mr. Miller, either I did not communicate my position well or you don’t understand my position. Either way I apologize for what I am sure are at least in part, if not all, my shortcomings and will try to further clarify. I am not trying to absolve God of secondary causes; rather I am establishing them and more! My goal is to remain biblical in addressing the concept of theodicy. The Bible portrays God as using evil as his agent, not in some secondary causal way, but rather in a primary causal relationship. God uses all things for his glory, good or evil. For example, consider how he used the evil actions of Joseph’s brothers,
“And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt… As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 45:5-8; 50:20).
These verses teach that God does not only allow Joseph to be sent into Egypt, he sent him himself.
Upon reviewing my posts, I think I have been consistent in saying that the difference between primary and secondary causes is not relevant when you consider the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. I agree that there is such a thing as secondary causes, but I don’t think this solves the problem of evil. To go back to problem of theodicy,
1.If God is omnipotent, he is able to prevent evil.
2.If God is good, he wants to prevent evil.
3.But evil exists.
Conclusion: either God is not omnipotent, or he is not good.
How does the concept of God being in a secondary casual relationship with evil change the above syllogism? I suggest that it doesn’t. We might as well put it this way,
1.If God is omnipotent, he is able to prevent evil caused by “free creatures.”*
2.If God is good, he wants to prevent evil caused by “free creatures.”
3.But “free creatures” still cause evil.
Conclusion: either God is not omnipotent, or he is not good.
*Geisler’s term not mine.
I believe that God is involved in some causal relationship with evil. While this is true, he still is innocent of evil himself. The scripture is clear that we are not to judge God for such involvement, and it is not clear enough in its revelation for us to define what the nature of that involvement is. This is not a problem, and for us to be obedient to the scriptures, we must accept this fact.
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)
Of course I respect the wisdom of the greater saints who have gone before us like Augustine, Calvin, and Edwards, but I do not think that they would say we should accept their teachings and then remain static. I believe they would encourage us to seek to learn the scriptures even more and to refine their positions as the Holy Spirit continues to work through his church over time. To simply say that a church father believed a position does not make it absolutely right and we should not belittle the intelligence of other men who seek to revise such a position based on the Word of God. As I am sure you are aware, many church fathers who contended for the faith also held to bad doctrine in some areas. The church has since clarified and refined such positions based on submission to both the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, and we should all thank God for that fact.
Rob and Jason –
I don’t think there’s any reason to feel like a “whacking” was administered – you’ll have to forgive Dan, he must have been up past his bedtime or something … 😉
But seriously, the debate is a lively one I’m enjoying. The only downside is that it’s somewhat unapproachable, but the question doesn’t exactly lend itself to casual banter.
I sympathize, as I occasionally get “whacked” (i.e., my friends poke fun at me) at times for proffering prolix polysyllabic profundities and palaverous pleonasms of prodigious and ponderous proportions.
But sometimes there’s just no other way to say it.
Hugh, hilarious. Thanks for the reasurrance.
Jason, I also think Dan meant ‘whacked’ in the friendly sense. No apologies necessary, but thanks for the kind words anyway!
Eric, again, I hope that none of my contribution to this discussion has been taken as acrimonious. I sincerely respect you and all other contributors here as my siblings in Christ.
Well put, Jason. I really appreciate your comments here. When we talk about first & secondary causes as a means to discuss the originating cause for all contingent events and causes, I don’t have a contention with that philosophical framework either. It just makes sense, as C.S. Lewis put it (or something close to this) , “that I feel it in my bones that the universe can’t explain itself.” An infinite regress of causes breaks down for a number of reasons. My contention is with the application of the hierarchy of causes as a way to make excuses for God.
As Jason pointed out: “If God could prevent evil, but chooses not to, is it not true that he has ordained it to happen?”
Now we have to bring God’s omniscience into the discussion. Not only did God create the universe and allow evil, He knew beforehand that the conditions He set up would lead to the evil and corruption we observe. If He didn’t know it, what does that tell us about God? (Hint: we’re drifting toward open theism.) Whether evil is a thing or the absence of a thing, it is a state or condition that is contingent on the willful and intentional existence of everything else. So either God was sloppy or incompetent (and that seems to me to be the logical conclusion of the secondary causes argument, and why valid but unconfirmed arguments can become problematic); or God has a sadistic component (I absolutely reject), having either a component of the devil himself or some weird cosmic Munchausen’s disorder; or God has an intention for all that he created and allowed to happen, knowing beforehand what would happen, for a purpose that is ultimately beyond our comprehension but that is ultimately good and just. This seems to be the answer that is given in Genesis 45 & 50, Job, Romans 9, and other passages. Accepting it requires our submission and obedience, as Jason wisely points out.