The Logical Problem of Evil: Responding with Love

I think love requires hate—to love something requires being opposed to anything that interrupts or is an obstacle to that love. To the degree that someone loves something, to that same degree they will be disposed to hate threats to that love. 
If I love you, then I must be opposed to whatever threatens that love; whatever threatens you, my love for you, and me. If something can destroy my love for you, then I must be disposed to remove it. If my hand is a genuine threat to my love for you, then I must be willing to remove it. If my eye is a genuine threat to my love for you, then I must be willing to remove it. I must, in those ways, hate whatever threatens my love for you. So, hate is not intrinsically bad or evil. It is required by love. If I failed to hate—to be opposed to, seek to remove, destroy, eliminate—genuine threats to love, then you would rightly question my love. 
In the gospels, Jesus commands hate. Here’s Luke 14:
25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Given that love requires hate, the words of Jesus make good sense. If I am to love Jesus more than anything else, then I must be prepared to divorce myself from anything that threatens that love. Anything! It’s the same with my marriage. If my job, mom, sisters, friends, students, etc. become obstacles to my marriage, then I must be willing to divorce myself from them for the sake of my marriage. 
(Now, without going into details, I do not think that any person as such can be a real obstacle to love. So, persons as such cannot be objects of hate. Rather, various features of persons can be obstacles and thus those features would be the proper objects of hate. We get this wrong all the time. Instead of seeking to remove Frank’s temper, which is getting in the way of my love for Bill, I seek to remove Frank himself.)
But now think about this: is it really possible to create a world with lovers and not create a world with potentialobstacles to that love? Maybe not. After all, it seems as though pretty much anything can become an obstacle to love. In my own marriage, my thoughts, my words, my tone, my facial expressions, my time, my actions, food, drink, tv, my job, my students, my colleagues, are all potential obstacles to my loving my wife. As such, they are potential objects of hate. 
So, it may not be possible to create a world with lovers and not include at least the disposition towards hate. And having that disposition is good! It is required by love. 
Given all of that, we have a recipe for an interesting reply to the logical problem of evil. 
1. It is both possible and permissible for God to create a world with lovers
From 1 and the relation between love and hate, we get:
2. Thus, it is both possible and permissible for God to create a world with lovers disposed towards hatred (since love requires it).
All that we now need is to show that it is possible for God to create a world with lovers and actual hate to show that logical problem of evil fails. But that seems easy. 
For something to have a disposition towards F is minimally to it to manifest F whenever the right conditions obtain. For example, if my glass is fragile, then it is disposed to breaking easily in certain conditions. If I were to tell you that my glass is fragile but there are no possible circumstances in which my glass will break, then I have contradicted myself. If the glass really is fragile, then there are circumstances where it breaks easily. Even if the glass never breaks it still must be possible for it to break in various possible circumstances for it to be fragile. So, dispositions are features of things that can, in certain circumstances be displayed or manifested. That’s why it makes no sense to say that I have a disposition to become tornado—there are no circumstances where I continue to exist while being a tornado. This implies:
3. If love requires being disposed to hate whatever threatens that love, then in order for that to be a genuine disposition it has to be the case that it is possible for it to be manifested.
Which implies: 
4. It is both possible and permissible for God to create a world with persons who both love and hate
5. Accurate hate is being opposed to a genuine threat to an object of permissible love
6. Genuine threats to objects of permissible love are bad
7. Hence, it is both possible and permissible for God to create a world badness

Thoughts?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Arguing For God's Existence

Proving God’s Existence Throughout the modern period of philosophy and theology (beginning around the 18 th century until now) various thinkers have suggested that there is something problematic about giving arguments for God’s existence. They have given a variety of different reasons: faith requires the absence of proof, faith requires not relying on a proof, even if there are some, no argument for God’s existence is a good one, no argument gets us to God, no argument gets us to the God of the Bible (this is the worry that the God of the philosophers is different from the God of the Bible), arguments for God’s existence assume that our intellects have not been affected by the fall, God’s existence is obvious and a proof assumes that it is not, God’s existence is known by all because it is implanted in us so proofs are superfluous at best, denials of God’s existence are a sin problem, not a philosophy problem, etc. Rather than focus on the above reasons for not giving arguments f...
Read more

Possible Worlds and Covid-19

We are in the midst of a pandemic. As nations around the world respond to it, models of varying kinds are being generated to give policy-makers, practitioners, and others some kind of insight into the implications of all sorts of responses to the pandemic. Each model involves a bunch of assumptions—many of which are hidden in the mathematics—ranging from estimates about the number of actual infections, rate of infection, prevalence of co-morbidities, demographics of regions, infection death-rates, confirmed infection death-rates, duration of virus, etc. etc. etc.  Each model is representing a possible world! Did you notice that? Every model—and these are being relied upon by each and every country’s leaders in the world right now—is a prediction of what the world will look if x is true and we do y (to simplify quite a bit). Change x a bit and leave y alone and we get a new future; leave x alone and change y a bit and we get a new future; change both x and y a bit and we get ...
Read more

Concepts of Existence: An Intuitive Introduction

Concepts of Existence Consider the following: some dogs are brown. (In what follows, I use the phrases, property, first-order property, predicate, first-order predicate, as synonyms. They each mean roughly: a feature of some individual object. So a second-order property or second-order predicate is a property or predicate of an individual's first-order property. The considerations below suggest that 'existence' is best understood as a second-order property and not a first-order one. This will all be more understandable after you read below!) Given the truth of the above it seems to follow that some dogs exist. We do not need to add to the above claim: Some dogs are brown and they exist. Once we know that some dogs are brown, we already know that they exist. So, existence is not really a property of anything in the way that, say, being brown is a property of some dogs. So, it looks like thinking existence is a property is either unnecessary or incoherent. If x...
Read more