Parasites and Natural Evil

[ggeezz]

In your concept one can be be fully good, and deliberately cause unnecessary suffering?

The suffering is not unnecessary, rather necessary for a greater purpose.

Okay. I think we have pretty much the same understanding of "good", then, so that isn't the problem. When a child in Africa has a parasitic worm burrowing out of his leg, that's bad--but it was instrumentally necessary for God to create such worms, in order to achieve a greater good; and having created it, God cannot eradicate the worm and heal the child without compromising his higher purpose.

Do you know what that purpose might be, or only that there must be one?

In most cases I don't know what it is.

Have you read Candide?

Haven't even heard of it.

[Kafir]

...it was instrumentally necessary for God to create such worms, in order to achieve a greater good; and having created it, God cannot eradicate the worm and heal the child without compromising his higher purpose.

Do you know what that purpose might be, or only that there must be one?

In most cases I don't know what it is.

But you know that there must be some greater good to which these species are necessary, and you believe that they were not necessary until the Fall: Adam's disobedience somehow created the need for worms designed to burrow out of human flesh, and God benevolently met that need by creating them.

There was not merely a need for some parasites, or God could have created one or two kinds, and spared us the gratuitous suffering caused by the rest. Each species--guinea worms, tapeworms, bedbugs, botflies, lice and leprosy--must be uniquely necessary to some higher good.

Further, these higher purposes are not separable from the suffering that the parasites cause: if God could have achieved whatever good guinea worms do by creating a worm that caused only mild itching when it emerged, rather than intense burning, He would have done so. He could not--but God, being omnipotent, can do anything that does not entail contradiction, so the pain parasites cause must be logically necessary to the purposes for which they were created.

That seems to narrow down the possibilities a bit.

It's also interesting that the purposes that these species fulfill can be met without their being geographically widespread: God left Europe and the Americas devoid of the blessing of the guinea worm, and in general the need for unpleasant parasites seems to be much greater in equatorial regions.

I'm still curious--given that each parasite is made to achieve some greater good, and given that those higher purposes must be pretty important to outweigh the suffering that they cause, are we making a terrible mistake when we try to eradicate guinea worms, or polio, or any of these species that God has, in his benevolence and wisdom, created for us? We've already eradicated smallpox in the wild: should we reintroduce it in hopes of undoing whatever harm we've done?

[ggeezz]

...it was instrumentally necessary for God to create such worms, in order to achieve a greater good; and having created it, God cannot eradicate the worm and heal the child without compromising his higher purpose.

Do you know what that purpose might be, or only that there must be one?

In most cases I don't know what it is.

I'm still curious--given that each parasite is made to achieve some greater good, and given that those higher purposes must be pretty important to outweigh the suffering that they cause, are we making a terrible mistake when we try to eradicate guinea worms, or polio, or any of these species that God has, in his benevolence and wisdom, created for us? We've already eradicated smallpox in the wild: should we reintroduce it in hopes of undoing whatever harm we've done?

It may be that the purpose is suffering, in order to fulfill a principle that evil must be punished (in some intrinsic way you seem to disagree with). Or it may be that we're better off in the long run from living through a quarrelsome world.

Regardless, I once heard someone say "it's not wrong to try to get out from under the curse." That seems to be the general intention of curses as opposed to specific prescribed punishments. And even with prescribed punishments, you are required only to fulfill it, not to be as miserable as possible during it, or even to meet a certain threshold of miserableness.

So I would say "no," it's not wrong to try to eliminate parasites.

[Kafir]

It may be that the purpose is suffering, in order to fulfill a principle that evil must be punished (in some intrinsic way you seem to disagree with).

Assuming that there is a principle such that, if one disobeys God, justice requires that one's remote ancestors have nematodes crawl out of their skin--is this a principle that binds God, by being necessarily true for any conceivable universe? Or is this a principle that God arbitrarily chose to institute? I find it hard to imagine a philosophical justification for the former position--and the latter position brings us to the question of why God would institute unnecessarily cruel principles for his creation.

Or it may be that we're better off in the long run from living through a quarrelsome world.

When you say "we", do you mean that an Indian child who died painfully of smallpox after a week of being covered in suppurating blisters was better off "in the long run"?

Or do you mean that you are made better off by the knowledge of other people's suffering?

Or, what I'm really thinking is that you seem to be downplaying the suffering involved through dismissive abstraction. Your suggestion is parallel to C.S. Lewis' theory of the necessity of evil for "soul-making"--but Lewis, like you, never seems to have sought out infection to further improve his soul. From a self-mortifying flagellant I might at least accept that defense as consistent, if not persuasive. But if you can do without the benefit of guinea worms, what leads you to think that African children need them more?

Regardless, I once heard someone say "it's not wrong to try to get out from under the curse." That seems to be the general intention of curses as opposed to specific prescribed punishments.

I am familiar, of course, with the idea of just punishment. I am not familiar with the idea of just curses. Or good curses; evil seems to be part of the definition. But you think that God is cursing us, as opposed to punishing us?

And even with prescribed punishments, you are required only to fulfill it, not to be as miserable as possible during it, or even to meet a certain threshold of miserableness.

Yes--if you are sentenced with imprisonment, possibly you are wrong to try to escape, but you are not wrong to try to avoid being raped while in prison. But this analogy posits God as an abusive warden: you are implying that God created parasites that impose suffering beyond what is necessary to just punishment; hence we can legitimately seek to avoid the gratuitous aspects of the suffering. But that returns us to my question of why God inflicts gratuitous suffering.

[ggeezz]

-and the latter position brings us to the question of why God would institute unnecessarily cruel principles for his creation.

It seems it is in the nature of God to punish evil (and evil results from free will which is "worth it.") It seems it is in your nature to call that unnecessarily cruel. But both of those are subjective. What we have is a disagreement between you and God.

Or it may be that we're better off in the long run from living through a quarrelsome world.

When you say "we", do you mean that an Indian child who died painfully of smallpox after a week of being covered in suppurating blisters was better off "in the long run"?

Or do you mean that you are made better off by the knowledge of other people's suffering?

Or, what I'm really thinking is that you seem to be downplaying the suffering involved through dismissive abstraction. Your suggestion is parallel to C.S. Lewis' theory of the necessity of evil for "soul-making"--but Lewis, like you, never seems to have sought out infection to further improve his soul. From a self-mortifying flagellant I might at least accept that defense as consistent, if not persuasive. But if you can do without the benefit of guinea worms, what leads you to think that African children need them more?

The bible suggests some inaccuracy of blessings/curses (it rains on the just and unjust) and punishments that seem unfair to some (punishing the Xth generation for sins of their forefathers). And then Jesus answered a similar question in John 9, but with an answer that I believe was specific to that one instance.

In other words, I don't think there is a single answer, nor that we can know the answer in every case.

And if each case is different, it's illogical to say that because one person was better off from some type of suffering that everyone else should seek it out. It may not make you better off.

Regardless, I once heard someone say "it's not wrong to try to get out from under the curse." That seems to be the general intention of curses as opposed to specific prescribed punishments.

I am familiar, of course, with the idea of just punishment. I am not familiar with the idea of just curses. Or good curses; evil seems to be part of the definition. But you think that God is cursing us, as opposed to punishing us?

In Genesis, God cursed the ground as a punishment. The idea is that we would have to work around the limitations of (cultivate) the land.

And even with prescribed punishments, you are required only to fulfill it, not to be as miserable as possible during it, or even to meet a certain threshold of miserableness.

Yes--if you are sentenced with imprisonment, possibly you are wrong to try to escape, but you are not wrong to try to avoid being raped while in prison. But this analogy posits God as an abusive warden: you are implying that God created parasites that impose suffering beyond what is necessary to just punishment; hence we can legitimately seek to avoid the gratuitous aspects of the suffering. But that returns us to my question of why God inflicts gratuitous suffering.

Not necessarily, the punishments could have been warranted before but not now.

But that's not really what I believe. I think God takes a much more hands-off approach than you are considering. I don't think He micromanages most things (others will disagree with me there). The world is intentionally less-than-optimal. Some taste of the sub-optimal parts more than others.

[Kafir]

It seems it is in the nature of God to punish evil (and evil results from free will which is "worth it.") It seems it is in your nature to call that unnecessarily cruel. But both of those are subjective. What we have is a disagreement between you and God.

I take it that we agree that being infected with guinea worms involves suffering. And you appeared to agree that it would not be good to cause unnecessary suffering.

You suggested that the suffering we see is necessary--that it is required by a principle that holds that children must be punished for the sins of their forefathers--and I am asking what the source of that necessity is.

Are you saying that God causes suffering because he is ethically bound by this principle (beyond God's choosing) of hereditary punishment?

(If not, there is no necessity--in which case God causes suffering, ultimately, because he likes to.)

Or are you giving up on the defense of God's goodness altogether, on the grounds that no one can say what is truly good?

And if each case is different, it's illogical to say that because one person was better off from some type of suffering that everyone else should seek it out. It may not make you better off.

Your inference is that although you, personally, would not be better off infected with guinea worms or smallpox, the people who are so infected are generally better off because of it?

[ggeezz]

Are you saying that God causes suffering because he is ethically bound by this principle (beyond God's choosing) of hereditary punishment?

Yes, that's what the bible seems to say.

And if each case is different, it's illogical to say that because one person was better off from some type of suffering that everyone else should seek it out. It may not make you better off.

Your inference is that although you, personally, would not be better off infected with guinea worms or smallpox, the people who are so infected are generally better off because of it?

Yes, I think it's reasonable to say that some people would benefit from a certain trial while others would not.

Another point is that the story of Lazarus and the rich man seems to suggest that the Judgment will include repayment of undeserved blessings and sufferings. The rich man did not deserve good things and Lazarus did not deserve bad. This was accounted for.

[Kafir]

Are you saying that God causes suffering because he is ethically bound by this principle (beyond God's choosing) of hereditary punishment?

Yes, that's what the bible seems to say.

And if God exercised mercy in failing to punish children for their ancestors' offenses, He would be doing something intrinsically wrong?

[ggeezz]

Are you saying that God causes suffering because he is ethically bound by this principle (beyond God's choosing) of hereditary punishment?

Yes, that's what the bible seems to say.

And if God exercised mercy in failing to punish children for their ancestors' offenses, He would be doing something intrinsically wrong?

That's what the substitutionary death was for. The punishment is still meted out. But God does require that you recognize and accept the substitutionary death.

But then you're still likely to have bad things happen to you. As I noted above, there will be an accounting later on.