Classic discussions of the problem of evil have not necessarily made an anthropomorphic distinction. Devastating floods and bloody feuds have been lumped together as evidence calling into question either omnipotence or goodness. If we would attribute something to human agency in these situations seems to make little difference, since a debate whether humans themselves possess a capacity for evil is not really on the table.
Why does it matter? We, a (the) product of an (the) omnipotent and omniscient, are his responsibility in any cogent moral sense anyway.
It’s a purely pragmatic one, this problem with the problem of evil. This is not a protest formed from an unhealthy concern for metaphysical truth. In any case, mono- poly- a- or otherwise, shouldn’t the real issue for theists' problem of evil be that we haven’t found a way to satisfactorily eliminate those most vivid and atrocious happenings which we all agree are examples of it? Truly bromidic exchanges between the religious and non are cumbersome, thinly veiled discursive wars for political influence. Surely there are far reaching and pressing moral issues at stake in these events, but do they reflect how moral thinking occurs in situ?
…show more content…
This sounds rather like putting the cart over the saddle that adorns the fresh grave of the