New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

The problem of evil

שו”תCategory: faithThe problem of evil
asked 8 years ago

Hello Rabbi,
I know that your answer to the problem of evil lies in two parts.
Natural evil – stems from natural laws, and there is no better set of laws.
Human evil – stems from free choice and the logical contradiction of not giving choice and preventing evil from choice.
But I have a question about both of them. God can still intervene point-wise in any case, i.e. change the law of nature, deny the choice only in that case of evil. And still not intervene in everything else. And if He does not do this and has this possibility, then this is evil.
I would love to hear your position on the matter.
Nachshon.


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 8 years ago
This is exactly what I explained. If He deprives us of the choice to do evil, He deprives us of choice, and that in itself is a bad thing. In such a case, our good is also worthless (because we have no option to do otherwise). Because He wanted us to have a choice, He has no choice but to let us do evil deeds as well. Intervening only in a situation where a person wants to do evil is a complete denial of choice. If at every crossroads you are faced with only one choice, you have no choice.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

איש ת replied 8 years ago

But it is not true that he has no choice; he has a choice between doing neutral acts and good acts. And even within good acts, he has a full choice.

We also do not have a full choice today, like the choice to fly, etc. Does that mean we do not have one at all? No.

מיכי Staff replied 8 years ago

This is not a choice, or at least not the choice that God wanted to give us. He wanted us to choose between good and evil.
Incidentally, if the alternative is to do something neutral and not good, de facto it is a choice for evil and he should have prevented that too.

איש replied 8 years ago

But then at least it doesn't harm others, doesn't cause pain, suffering, or torment!
It's "just" a neutral act, it's not bad. They might have defined it as waste or something, but it's not bad.
In any case, let's say if we take the Holocaust, it could have been prevented, and it wasn't. So it's true that God didn't cause it, the Nazis probably did cause it, but it was still possible to take away their choice in a certain way, etc.
So by not doing it for them, don't you see this as a sign of complicity in the evil act?

You also didn't answer, so why not take at least in cases of nature (at least..), the laws of nature? For example, if there's a sudden hurricane that's supposed to come to America, then why not prevent it, etc.?

מיכי Staff replied 8 years ago

Well, I've already answered all of that.
Not doing a good deed is bad. It's not a great evil, but you didn't define which evils to allow and which ones not? Maybe allow theft but not murder? Beating but not stealing?
I also answered about natural evil. God has a policy that the world will be governed by fixed laws (I explained why this is also beneficial to us). It's true that this doesn't provide a complete solution, since there is still room for sporadic intervention in extreme cases, but we must remember that preventing the murder of one person is not fundamentally different from preventing a Holocaust. What's the difference? For that person who was murdered or suffered, it really doesn't matter whether there are six million more like him. So where exactly should God stop the deviation from the laws? Prevent any evil?

Leave a Reply

Back to top button