Q&A: Using Intuition in the Face of the Problem of Evil
Using Intuition in the Face of the Problem of Evil
Question
When I look at the evil that exists in the world and assume that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the one who allowed it, how does that fit with the claim that He legislated morality?
It seems to me that there is a stronger difficulty here than a conflict between Jewish law and morality—in such cases I can formulate a religious principle that clashes with morality. By contrast, in bad events such as natural disasters, I cannot even think of the principle that led the Holy One, blessed be He, to cause that event.
The conclusion I reach is that the idea of the good as we perceive it is different from His. In that case, my own intuition is deeply undermined, because this is a very strong intuition that does not seem to me to be an illusion. If my perception regarding morality is illusory, then all the more so regarding my intuition about the reliability of the tradition.
Answer
I have explained here more than once the matter of evil in the world. It does not come from the Holy One, blessed be He. Human evil comes from human beings, and natural evil comes from the laws of nature. Whoever argues that He should have made different laws needs to prove that there is a system of laws that would produce everything that exists today without the points of evil and suffering. In my estimation there is no such system, but in any case the burden of proof is on the questioner.
Discussion on Answer
Isaiah 45:7: “Who forms light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates evil—I am the Lord, who does all these things.”
To the esteemed questioner, Chaim,
Look at the commentators on the Mishnah and the Hebrew Bible, and at Maimonides. And I cannot elaborate here.
Everything comes from Him, because He created the world. But He does not do evil to anyone. Evil emerges from the laws of nature unavoidably.
Hello Rabbi, how do you understand Rabbi Akiva’s statement that “whatever the Merciful One does, He does for the good”?
Not as material benefit here in this world, of course, since according to you there is no reward here, but rather in this direction:
Rabbi Akiva means
that evil will have a result of spiritual benefit, so that at least it will have some meaning; otherwise it means there is no purpose to suffering, and all of us are simply handed over to fate, Heaven forbid,
and that would not be fair on the part of the Holy One, blessed be He.
Doesn’t that necessarily lead to lack of faith (or at least to difficulty bearing suffering)?
Thank you for the answer.
Still, one can ask why the Holy One, blessed be He, does not sometimes intervene in reality in order to prevent disasters. After all, He is under no obligation not to intervene.
Adiel,
First, I am not obligated to accept what Rabbi Akiva said. The Sages were granted authority in the realm of Jewish law, but in understanding the world they said what they understood, and that is not binding.
Second, even according to my view, everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, did is for the good. He created the laws of nature, and that is for the good. But the suffering that occasionally comes in their wake cannot be avoided.
Third, even if one accepts that everything He does is for the good, most things are not done by Him but by nature.
By the way, as I understand it, this is entirely material benefit. The Holy One, blessed be He, made this world as good for us as possible.
Chaim,
Indeed, one can ask, and I have answered that too. If He were to intervene to prevent human evil, then there would be no free choice, and therefore there would also be no meaning to the good that we do, because we would have no other option. And if He were to intervene in natural evil, then there would be no laws of nature here. One can of course ask why He does not intervene in situations where the evil is very great, and to that I would say that I do not see where the line could be drawn. Beyond that, evil to a private individual is exactly like great evil such as a tsunami or a Holocaust. From the standpoint of the suffering person, there is no difference whether there are another million like him.
From the standpoint of the individual person, there really is no difference whether others are also suffering. But from the standpoint of “cosmic justice,” there definitely is a difference. I do not know where the line should be drawn, but I have a very strong feeling that in disasters like a tsunami there should have been intervention.
Really easy—
Here, I can make a world in which there are no diseases, no tsunamis, no earthquakes, and no volcanoes (or there are, but they give a nice warning before they arrive). Such a world would be handed over to man and his free choice, and then every evil that exists would stem from man. And that way God could leave the earth alone in peace, and not bring natural disasters except when He has an uncontrollable urge for “sporadic intervention.”
It seems hard to argue that the world as it is is “good” in the sense of our intuition, and explain away the contradiction by saying that “apparently there is no better model,” even though intuitively it is very easy to propose one.
I do not think the burden of proof is on the questioner, but דווקא on the one offering the explanation, to explain why an improved world (for example, like the one I suggested—probably it can be sharpened) would not do the job just as well.
Indeed, very easy. I have a few more very easy suggestions for solving all the problems of the universe:
1. To solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: everyone should agree to compromise and then everything will work out.
2. To solve the problems of education in schools: everyone should behave nicely and study excellently, and then everything will work out.
These are indeed very easy options, but it would never occur to me to call them “proposals.” You are proposing what should be, but not proposing how to make it so.
And as for our matter, please, present here a system of rigid laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that will produce exactly the natural behavior of our world as it is today, only without the bad components (suffering and pain and troubles). If you propose something easy, or even not easy, in that direction, that can be considered a proposal.
Good luck,
“…that will produce exactly the natural behavior of our world…” — what is the innocent justification for planting that mine? In order to neutralize the bad components in the world, it is certainly worthwhile to change some of the natural behavior of the world as well in the vicinity of those bad components.
That is what you decide. When I know why the laws of nature were set up this way, I can ask why not change them.
And besides, you have not proved even that—that a small change in the laws could eliminate all the problematic aspects without creating other problems.
A. “When I know why the laws of nature were set up this way, I can ask why not change them.” If I understood correctly, then allow me to rephrase it: “The Holy One, blessed be He, apparently has other goals that are more important to Him than trifles like tsunamis and melanoma, and in my ignorance as a creature of matter I trust Him that He weighed things and decided reasonably.” Is that faithful to the original?
B. You can also change a lot of laws. And also add another six hundred thousand epicycles (that, in my humble opinion, can be explained by saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not want to overburden hardworking physics students). But indeed, I have not proved it and I have no proof of the matter.
I think you overestimate rigidity.
What is wrong with laws of nature exactly like ours, except that they have exceptions—for example, an excessive buildup of kinetic energy in waves in the Pacific Ocean disappears before a tsunami is formed (conservation of energy? You can give it up locally); another example—I do not see any need at all for diseases. Give me rigid laws of biology in which parasitism or predation are not evolutionarily worthwhile, and every nutrient source is necessarily inanimate or plant-based (law of nature: every creature above awareness level X—such that killing it would be immoral—secretes a toxin that makes it inedible). That way you would spare all the natural evil in which countless living creatures with feelings and awareness suffer for no reason.
Such laws would not prevent technology and progress (assuming they have value), and also not morality and religion—on the contrary, I would feel much more responsible for my actions if I knew that the good and evil in the world depended on them.
And the fact that all human beings intuitively ask “why” about all the evils of the world indicates that at least intuitively—it is obvious to us that things could be better. So I do not understand why, in your opinion, the burden of proof is on the one who claims that, rather than on the one who claims that God is good.
At most you can say that apparently He has goals whose importance outweighs improving the world and its inhabitants. And if you think He is good as He is—then I find it very hard to understand what your moral intuition contains (for example, what would you do in a world you created).
As I wrote, these topics have already been discussed both here and in greater detail in the second book of the trilogy. I do not see any point in getting into it again. Generally speaking, I would say that you are once again bringing in assumptions that you have no way to substantiate. You ask what is wrong with non-rigid laws. First, apparently the Holy One, blessed be He, wants that, otherwise He would not have made them that way. Beyond that, one can speculate that if they were not rigid, we could not live here in the world (because there would be no way to know what will happen and what will result from any action or event). But that is it, I have exhausted the topic.
It does not come from the Holy One, blessed be He??? Then why is a person obligated to bless for the bad just as he blesses for the good??