I wrote a paper when I was getting my degree making a similar point - I think I used an analogy with speed limits, where you can say that speed limits are truly justified while also accepting that, say, a seriously ill person being pulled over for speeding on their way to the hospital is still legitimately bad and benefits no one. The problem, though, which I think a lot of theists pick up on, is that this makes mitigation efforts perfectly acceptable and the new question is why God wouldn't engage in them. And I think that's ultimately a more difficult (and more depressing or uncomfortable) question. Most people would rather think there's an unknown reason why something is good than think there's an unknown reason why a bad thing wasn't stopped - if you take this view, you're basically required to say that God is, in fact, failing to help you in some serious way when you suffer. And that seems like the sort of view a lot of theists just wouldn't be willing to accept.
I sort of like the view that God would put us in an indifferent universe just for a bit to see what it’s like—maybe that strengthens the beatific vision or something. Not super plausible but has good explanatory power.
My issue with that response would be that, if God is truly infinitely great, then it doesn't seem as though previous exposure to any level of badness should be able to impact our experience of him. If you subtract 100 (or 1,000 or Graham's number or whatever) from some other number, that doesn't actually make it any further away from some infinitely great number. So it seems to me that someone who endured even immense torture for their entire earthly lives shouldn't appreciate or adore God's presence any more than someone who lived the best life possible.
Evolution doesn't entail those other things; it just causes them. God could intervene and stop episodes of great suffering, without making it false that species evolved by natural selection.
Explanations like those you suggested (which you agreed are not super-plausible) read to me like the sort of ad hoc thing that you could always say if you really want to hold on to a theory. Sure, I don't know exactly what the world should look like if there was a perfect being; I'm not myself perfect enough to figure that out. But I think it's too big of a coincidence if it just happens that it would look exactly as if there wasn't that perfect being.
I agree that prior to looking at the world, one should think it's unlikely that God would put us in an indifferent universe. But if you think you have independent reason to believe in God, that makes it so that you should be willing to accept imperfect explanations of evil. Compare: because evolution is so obvious, even if you have to twist yourself in knots to explain one or two confusing results, you should do so, because you have good independent reason to believe in theism.
Note, I don't think the universe looks exactly as it would if there were no perfect being. As I say, such a being would provide the necessary ingredients for agents. This explains why there is physical stuff, laws, nomological harmony, psychophysical harmony, and much more--and explains why, of all the possible beings that could exist, I in particular happen to. If all you knew was that there was no God, you wouldn't expect any of the things I list as evidence for theism.
Great discussion on the problem of evil. I totally agree with you that there are evils that do not have any inherent value and should be prevented if possible. I like your potential solutions such as the freewill of demons. I would like to add another partial solution that I didn't see listed. In addition to free will, God gave us real responsibility over the earth. Psalm 115 says, "The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind." It's not just that our freewill is important, it is that God is still trusting us to govern the earth (even though we haven't been very good governors overall). He endures our failures and continues to trust us with the responsibility of caring for the earth and the people around us. If he interfered before every failure, then we would not have real power or responsibility. God took a risk. And God still believes in us. He believes that we can make the world a place of joy, love, and peace.
I wrote a paper when I was getting my degree making a similar point - I think I used an analogy with speed limits, where you can say that speed limits are truly justified while also accepting that, say, a seriously ill person being pulled over for speeding on their way to the hospital is still legitimately bad and benefits no one. The problem, though, which I think a lot of theists pick up on, is that this makes mitigation efforts perfectly acceptable and the new question is why God wouldn't engage in them. And I think that's ultimately a more difficult (and more depressing or uncomfortable) question. Most people would rather think there's an unknown reason why something is good than think there's an unknown reason why a bad thing wasn't stopped - if you take this view, you're basically required to say that God is, in fact, failing to help you in some serious way when you suffer. And that seems like the sort of view a lot of theists just wouldn't be willing to accept.
I sort of like the view that God would put us in an indifferent universe just for a bit to see what it’s like—maybe that strengthens the beatific vision or something. Not super plausible but has good explanatory power.
My issue with that response would be that, if God is truly infinitely great, then it doesn't seem as though previous exposure to any level of badness should be able to impact our experience of him. If you subtract 100 (or 1,000 or Graham's number or whatever) from some other number, that doesn't actually make it any further away from some infinitely great number. So it seems to me that someone who endured even immense torture for their entire earthly lives shouldn't appreciate or adore God's presence any more than someone who lived the best life possible.
Agreed.
Evolution doesn't entail those other things; it just causes them. God could intervene and stop episodes of great suffering, without making it false that species evolved by natural selection.
Explanations like those you suggested (which you agreed are not super-plausible) read to me like the sort of ad hoc thing that you could always say if you really want to hold on to a theory. Sure, I don't know exactly what the world should look like if there was a perfect being; I'm not myself perfect enough to figure that out. But I think it's too big of a coincidence if it just happens that it would look exactly as if there wasn't that perfect being.
I agree that prior to looking at the world, one should think it's unlikely that God would put us in an indifferent universe. But if you think you have independent reason to believe in God, that makes it so that you should be willing to accept imperfect explanations of evil. Compare: because evolution is so obvious, even if you have to twist yourself in knots to explain one or two confusing results, you should do so, because you have good independent reason to believe in theism.
Note, I don't think the universe looks exactly as it would if there were no perfect being. As I say, such a being would provide the necessary ingredients for agents. This explains why there is physical stuff, laws, nomological harmony, psychophysical harmony, and much more--and explains why, of all the possible beings that could exist, I in particular happen to. If all you knew was that there was no God, you wouldn't expect any of the things I list as evidence for theism.
Great discussion on the problem of evil. I totally agree with you that there are evils that do not have any inherent value and should be prevented if possible. I like your potential solutions such as the freewill of demons. I would like to add another partial solution that I didn't see listed. In addition to free will, God gave us real responsibility over the earth. Psalm 115 says, "The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind." It's not just that our freewill is important, it is that God is still trusting us to govern the earth (even though we haven't been very good governors overall). He endures our failures and continues to trust us with the responsibility of caring for the earth and the people around us. If he interfered before every failure, then we would not have real power or responsibility. God took a risk. And God still believes in us. He believes that we can make the world a place of joy, love, and peace.