Re: problem of evil - to clear things up

"Damien Stanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The only plausible defence to the problem of evil is the 'free will
> defence', ie. that the good of having free will outweighs any evil in the
> world.  This is difficult to argue against since it seem like a matter of
> opinion:  does the gift of free will outweigh evil?   Then, the one
possible
> answer to the free will defence is the suggestion that God should
segregate
> evil people into a secluded region for themselves, thereby protecting
> non-evil people.  Again, this is going to be a matter of opinion.  In one
> sense, this will be constraint on free will:  what if I want to go to this
> secluded place for fun?  But maybe it is a necessary contraint in order to
> minimize evil.  Who knows?  This is where the debate stalemates.
>
> So there you have it:  problem of evil -> free will defence.   There isn't
> much else to it folks...
>
No, there are other possibilities.  To briefly outline only one (for a
complete account see Spinoza): good and evil are only limited partial
perspectives on things.  They have no place in viewing things as they really
are (in Spinoza's language sub specie aeternitatis).  So from god's
perspective our constant worrying about things like the problem of evil
shows only that we are viewing things in purely human terms (i.e., in one
type of limited partial perspective).  And of course what else can be
expected of us; we are finite beings.  Good and evil can be cognized only
within a finite perspective.  But we cannot blame EITHER good OR evil on
god.  And "free will" has nothing to do with it, except perhaps that is is
another limited perspective on what it.

Bill Snyder