Q&A: The Problem of Evil
The Problem of Evil
Question
1) I was thinking about the idea that God does not intervene in the world, so that explains how the world operates from a statistical-scientific standpoint, since there have been no verified supernatural cases or any unusual intervention. But it still doesn't solve the idea of a being that stands by on the side, has the ability to prevent evil, and nevertheless does not do so. If God is defined as perfect goodness and omnipotent (well, not exactly omnipotent, because that's a paradox, but able to do many things), then why would He stand by and let such terrible things happen? Many people can say that we cannot know Heaven's calculations, which is a bit of a dodge, or that we cannot know God's full plan because we are like a person who comes into the middle of a movie and judges the characters badly without knowing that they are actually the good ones, or like the parable of medicine that may be bitter but heals… As if I would expect such an exalted, good, and wise being to solve things in ways that would not cause suffering. Or that evil exists to teach us a lesson, or to punish, or to test a person… but really that already makes Him an intervening being, so that falls out of the equation…
In short, however you look at it, something here doesn't work, in both types of beings, whether He intervenes or not.
2) And after all this, another question comes up for me: given a being that does not intervene, is it worthy of being worshipped? Religion is so complex and magnificent, with Jewish law, legal rules, prayers, holidays, and beyond the practical level it also draws so much inner strength out of the ordinary person. Religion is wrapped up in a lot of emotion no matter how much we try to ignore that; it's not some dry law book that you just perform mechanically. It has to come from the soul. That's why many commandments require intention. And all of this is something we human beings do without any higher factor, for a being that created laws for the formation of the world and does not intervene in its own creation?
How does the Rabbi look at these things?
Answer
1. I have answered this more than once. I do not have a full and completely convincing explanation, but one should note that in principle He would have had to intervene in every evil act of a person or of nature. But if that had been His policy, we would have had no free choice and there would have been no laws of nature. One can still argue that in extreme cases (the Holocaust) we would expect Him to intervene, but the suffering of one individual is not essentially different from the suffering of tens of millions. For each of them, it does not matter that there are millions more like him. In short, it is hard to draw a line here, and therefore the difficulty is not that strong. Assuming that He gives us free choice and runs the world according to the laws of nature, this is the required result. The world was given to us and to our choices, and we eat the rotten fruit of our own deeds (as humanity standing before the Holy One, blessed be He).
2. I have also addressed this more than once. The worship is to do the truth because it is truth. What does that have to do with His involvement in the world? If you worship not for its own sake in order to receive reward (see Maimonides, chapter 10 of the Laws of Repentance), then that has implications for you. But as Maimonides wrote there, this is the worship of women (!?) and minors and the rest who lack understanding.
Discussion on Answer
I don't see a question or difficulty here. What had to be answered was answered.
The quote about women as lacking understanding is taken from Maimonides, and that is why I added my own punctuation marks to express my attitude toward it.
I didn't say that this is a condition in the pure sense of the word for serving Him, but I'm trying to understand how much credit can be given to this kind of God considering all the fuss around Him and around His magnificent religion… not in the context of reward specifically. In my opinion, expecting a god to prevent evil and suffering is only natural. In my opinion also—and this is a stronger claim, so I won't insist on it— a god who watches from the side and does not act to prevent suffering when he can is not moral. It has nothing to do with expecting compensation. If I want Him to prevent suffering, that is a moral act, not a reward-seeking act… You can also distinguish between evil of nature and evil of man. Human evil, fine, okay, to allow free choice—but cancer? Is it really so hard to remove that from the world? No matter what His goal is and what He wants us to be, I am sure there are other effective ways to achieve the goal, whatever it may be…
*What, women are part of the group of "those who lack understanding"?! That's really jarring, especially as a woman reading texts like that… I've heard "light-minded," which is a bit more refined, but not really.