The Problem of Evil with Jimmy Akin

[@alebeau4106]

One of the best interviews I’ve ever seen… The host has an amazingly soothing, almost hypnotic voice… His accent along with the intellectual-rich questions made watching this interview such a delightful journey. Besides this, Jimmy Akin is a hero of mine and played a big part in my finally getting confirmed two years ago. To hear him share his deeply personal and the trials/struggles/tragedies he’s faced was humbling and inspiring. Thank you both for doing this. I can’t tell you how much it meant.

[@dogfight2018]

Congratulations on your confirmation! 😁 And, yeah, the host's voice sounds very smooth and honestly perfect for ASMR. 😅

[@toeknee5565]

It's a good voice but I struggled mightily to hear him even with ear buds in.

[@tonyl3762]

Thanks for mentioning the compassion of Jesus for those in the midst of suffering, for those who just want it to stop. You know I'm big on this. This video was even better than your talk for purchase in some ways.

[@pop6997]

The times when what we may call 'natural evil' came into my life it took me a long time to understand or see good outcomes. Hindsight really helps. I've had the natural evils happen, sickness etc. Tbh, I look back and now see something greater going on, it's hard to see, but it made me stronger, more humane, more rounded as a person living in this beautiful but sometimes crazy world. Sometimes big hits, like suicide ( a beautiful family member ) ...other times a simple injustice like somebody standing on your work to better themselves - but even they aren't happy. I think 'peace' is the most wonderful thing that gives you a lens on life. I found that in Jesus Christ and no other...He taught it and He gave it, and I'm truly grateful.

[@4gegtyreeyuyeddffvyt]

So sorry for your loss Jimmy. I can’t imagine losing a spouse at such a young Age. You’ve been such an inspiration to me Jimmy. Thanks for all your great podcast and videos.

[@selinaakhter3220]

There area greater forces are always working with human being. It’s good way and as well as bad way. When we are not walking with knowledge we are facing problems and evolving is entering our life. Knowledge is God to saving us . Spiritual knowledge from TNM

[@ChiyoMarley]

those who seek the way of Knowledge are motivated to find truth. it is a blessing and a burden.

[@selinaakhter3220]

@@ChiyoMarley exactly that how our mind is designed with knowledge but we are not aware about that. Thank you

[@mapinoita279]

So good!

[@brianw.5230]

I like these answers to the problem of evil: 1.) Humans have free will which can cause evil. 2.) Any evil is finite. Life is short and eternity is forever. 3.) Suffering can be an opportunity for spiritual growth. 4.) God can bring good out of evil. 5.) God may have prevented tons of evil we'll never know about.

[@SenorCinema]

There’s no proof of free will. There’s no proof of an eternity. There’s no proof of a spirit. There’s no proof of a god. And you certainly don’t know if god had ever done anything, let alone preventing evil, ever. They are all bad arguments. Assuming God does exist and does love us, infinitely loves us and has infinite mercy, he wouldn’t allow children to be raped. Especially by catholic priests.

[@WhyWasntIBornInTheMiddleAges]

@@SenorCinema This is just not how logic works. You are asking the question "If A is true, then why B?". If our answer includes the things in the explanatory power of A, you dont just get to say there is no proof of these things. This is just logically incoherent. Again, to rephrase it, your question is, "given that Christianity(A) is true, how do you explain the existence of evil(B)?" The very question assumes that Christianity is true, it is therefore completely illogical to say there is no evidence of the things within the explanatory power of Christianity since your very question assumes the truth of Christianity. You atheists really need a training in how logic works. And your following statement that God wouldnt allow certain evils is also senseless. Let me ask you a question, is there an Elephant in your room right now? I expect the answer is no. Why is that? Because if there was, you would expect to see it. Now let me ask you another question, is there an insect in your room right now? In this case, answering "no" because you can't see it wouldn't work. Because unlike with the elephant, you wouldn't expect to see an insect. So, why am I asking you these questions? It's simple, one of the attributes of God is omniscience, which means "all-knowing". So now imagine, in comparison to all of the knowledge God has, how much of that knowledge do we humans share? By all means it would only be a tiny dot, a grain of sand in a desert. God may have higher reasons to allow evil, and there is no reason to assume that we would even be able to comprehend all of those. Remember the 2 questions I asked at the beginning. When it comes to God's reasons for allowing evil, this is like the example with the insect. It makes no sense to assume that God doesn't have such reasons, just because you can't think of any. This is like saying that there is no insect in your room, because you can't see it. That's not a valid answer because you wouldn't expect to see the insect in the first place if there was some in your room, just like you wouldn't expect to be aware of, or comprehend all of God's reasons to allow evil.

[@heatherjaracz]

Before I watch this...I would pose a counterpoint for consideration: "The problem of goodness." How can there be goodness if there isn't a God?

[@SydneyCarton2085]

Right, how can a terminally ill child remain hopeful and pray for the world? How can someone who has suffered loss like Jimmy Akin help bring people like me closer to Christ?

[@toeknee5565]

There is sentiment amongst some atheists that the way evil exists as a relative counter to goodness in the setting of a Good God, "goodness" exists as a counter to "evil" in the setting of an evil God. The idea being they can frame the existence of good/evil to conclude that the God that exists is actually evil, since believers use the existence of good and evil to conclude there is a good God. Trent Horn debunks this, however.

[@dalelerette206]

If evil is understood as a ‘privation of good’, then the Almighty could be understood as allowing privations in order to bring a greater good. But if evil is understood as a ‘literal physical evil’, then this understanding seems no different than the Manichean heresy. Yes, it is a subtle distinction. But this is a crucial distinction and I think Chaos theory comes in at this point - a minor change in the initial conditions can have a big change in the final outcome. Charlie Brown used the best cuss word since he was prone to say, "Good Greif". There's nothing really bad about saying random accidents can be good. Just don't 'cause accidents' on purpose in a weird effort to cause good. As Romans 3:8 says, "Their condemnation is deserved.” Some people even slander us by claiming that we say, “The more we sin, the better it is!” Those who say such things deserve to be condemned. It seems a 'false dichotomy' to insist we are caught in a cross-fire of Nurture vs. Nature. We’re already in too deep if we start with that assumption. We just need to step back and realize that Eve chose the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil FIRST. Mary chose the Tree of Life FIRST. THE VIRGIN MARY CHOSE THE TREE OF LIFE FIRST

[@Philipm592]

Hello Mr Akin. The problem of evil can be daunting. Perhaps that is the narrow gate, where as it can be in the present moment. I think Jesus told us that in scripture. The battle goes on.

[@triconcert]

Very helpful! Thanks for sharing. Host's soft speak is a little creepy though. Keep the faith!

[@quietwyatt4045]

The Problem of Evil. I came to terms with it in light of the fact that without the prospect of evil there can be no free will.

[@SydneyCarton2085]

Great talk, thank you Jimmy. The amount of microplastics and phytoestrogens in our food supply may be affecting sexual development and a significant factor in the rise in people who are sexually confused. Is this a moral evil or natural evil or both? Can cancer be both a moral and natural evil like cancer from all the chemicals in the food supply?

[@cw-on-yt]

@Jimmy Akin: Jimmy, I was surprised that your first definition of evil didn't go straight to the principle of substantial form and telos defining what's good for a thing _given the kind of thing it is,_ and that "evil" vis-a-vis Entity X is just any deprivation or perversion of the norms that are ordered towards its flourishing, _given_ its nature and telos. (Following on that, "moral evil" would be when a rational creature _choses_ to deprive or pervert those ordered norms in ways that impede flourishing in every case _not_ permitted by Double Effect.) To me, the above ^^^ has been one of the great advantages of Catholicism: It seems to be able to define evil by starting from first-principles, without relying on sentiment or arbitrary cultural taboos. Did you _not_ start from first-principles merely because you wanted to simplify for an audience of non-Aristotelians? Or was there some other reason?

[@joewidmar835]

Good talk. I think the answer actually is that all evil is a result of original sin. This includes death by forest fires, storms, and such. In the case of humans anyway. Before original sin God would have protected humans from these things in the Garden. Granted this is an explanation for natural evils jar harm humans only

[@bunzaimeister2613]

Not all evil is the result of the original sin. People can freely choose to do evil instead of good. The difference is they don't have the same responsibilities or powers as Satan or Adam.

[@joewidmar835]

@@bunzaimeister2613 original sin makes it impossible to not commit at least venial sin and I assume mortal sin as well. Especially pre baptism.

[@thedude882]

Why should innocent animal suffer for the original sin, though? That seems unjust, I doubt your explanation is compatible with the character of an all loving God.

[@nightyew2160]

​@@thedude882Maybe it is like if I decide to sin and punch my brother in the face, he suffers because of my choice even though he was innocent. Original sin could impact the universe at large, causing suffering to innocent animals because of the choice humans made.

[@thedude882]

@@nightyew2160 But this answer doesn't really address the point. Why did God create a universe in which the original sin affects the animals so badly? it seems quite possible that God could create a universe in which the original sin does not cause tremendous suffering and death for animals, so why wouldn't an all loving God create that universe?

[@AtheismActually]

35:55 Yeah, that doesn't really stick. A parent puts their kid through the pain of inoculation because they're stuck in a reality where pathogens exist. If a parent could just think pathogens out of existence, or have them never exist in the first place, inoculation would be pointless needle torture (pun not intended). One cannot be similarly stuck with tradeoffs of any kind if one is the ultimate author of reality itself. You cannot just go switching tracks between "loving daddy who is helplessly doing this to save you from worse horrors" and "omnivalent origin of potency and ground of being" where convenient.

[@bunzaimeister2613]

If God allowed both Satan and Adam to fall (original sin), what is preventing another angel, or saint enthroned in heaven, from falling in the future and necessitating another round of salvation?

[@stephanielane1821]

Angels have been given free will, all who fell with lucifer cannot repent, all angel's who didn't fall will never choose too, they have already chosen for God. Angel's are so intelligent they know everything instantainiously so will never change their minds. Human's can be forgiven every time they sin, when they repent and are truely sorry, and agree to change their ways.

[@bunzaimeister2613]

@@stephanielane1821 Angels as non-corporeal beings that serve Christ are a truth of the faith. However, specifics about angels (and demons) seem to be an area of theology that is highly speculative.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@bunzaimeister2613 Yes, it is speculative. However look at the data: 1: no account of angels coming into being in time, they all seem to have been created before man 2: explicit denial of angels marrying 3: no account of any action taken by a fallen angels before their fall 4: no account of angels being redeemed 5: no account of God-loving angels committing even venial sins Aquinas' theory, that angels recieve their eternal persistance as soon as they choose good or bad at the moment of its creation, fits the evidence quite well

[@cw-on-yt]

The answer given by theologians is typically, "The Beatific Vision." The angels, at their creation, lacked the Beatific Vision. Their awareness of God was greater than ours, but still required speculation to understand God's goodness. ("Through a glass, darkly," you might say.) The angels who chose not to rebel received the Beatific Vision; those who rebelled are permanently denied it. (This probably requires more explanation on the nature of freedom, but I don't want to go on for too long; if anyone's interested in a fuller version of this answer, just say so.)

[@bunzaimeister2613]

@@tafazzi-on-discord Four out of five: No account. Fits the evidence? That's a lot to speculate without any evidence. Why not be humble and admit ignorance?

[@raymk]

Jimmy: My name's is soooo simple, Jimmy, J-I-M-M-Y, very normal. And Akin, A-K-I-N. Subtitle: Ok, Jimmy Aiken.

[@Matt-to1bi]

Original sin is why we have evil.

[@joepete6018]

Just a comment. Suffering would be easier to accept if God would at least us know that a particular pain would result in a greater good. Drop a note so to speak.

[@buckarooben7635]

I understand your concern, but that’s already what we have in scripture.

[@alpsgoodman]

At 48min, Jimmy makes God sound like a Consequentialist morally. He allows evil if the good consequences outweigh the bad. Yet, we humans are not supposed to be Consequentialists according to many Catholic moral philosophers.

[@nightyew2160]

Maybe the difference is between allowing evil vs. doing something evil. Isn't consequentialism the philosophy that doing evil is okay if the consequences are good? The way God does it is more like not stopping someone else from doing the evil thing. It's like maybe if I told my son to be careful with his glass but I allowed him to use it anyway knowing he was not listening and being careful with it. I foresaw that he would break the glass but also that he would learn why I asked him to be careful and listen better in the future. Consequentialism might be more like if my son wasn't listening, so I knocked the glass right out of his hand and broke it on purpose to teach him a lesson.

[@lhasa7]

I have less difficulties with The Problem of Evil than with The Problem of Stoned-Sounding Narration.

[@nomen6]

AHAHAHAH I feel you!

[@northernsprout5443]

His voice reminds me more of a golf commentator.

[@cw-on-yt]

@@northernsprout5443: I agree entirely! (Referring here to the fellow with the British Isles accent, not Jimmy.) I keep expecting the guy to start talking about how the player slightly overshot the green, and is now addressing the ball hoping to chip his way to par.

[@pop6997]

Wow, you have zero problems so if that's what you feel adds value to any conversation. Enjoy swimming in your puddle - deep!

[@danielbuckner6506]

i love this dudes voice. jimmys got a good soothing voice too. idk if that’s a weird thing to say as a man, but it’s true so i said it lol